Circumcision classed as possible child abuse in draft CPS document

[IwantToRetire]

Circumcision is to be classed as a potential form of child abuse under new guidance for prosecutors, amid concerns from judges and coroners about deaths and serious harms caused by the procedure.

A draft document by the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) on “honour-based abuse, forced marriages, and harmful practices”, classes circumcision as a potential crime alongside breast flattening, virginity testing, hymenoplasty and exorcisms.

The wording of the document, seen by the Guardian, has alarmed some religious groups, with Jewish and Muslim leaders defending the cultural importance of the practice.

The draft CPS guidance states that, unlike female genital mutilation, “there is not a specific criminal offence of carrying out male circumcision”.

“However, this can be a painful and harmful practice, if carried out incorrectly or in inappropriate circumstances. It may be a form of child abuse or an offence against the person,” it adds

Article continues at https://www.theguardian.com/society/2026/jan/10/circumcision-classed-as-possible-child-abuse-in-draft-cps-document

yes many men claim it's not a big deal. thats what men do. we downplay the impact of things on our lives, especially a part of us which is absolutely central to who we are. thats why we keep killing ourselves, thats why we keep getting prostate cancer and a thousand other things. Because we downplay it, make it a joke, ESPECIALLY if it's actually happened to us and we deep down inside feel awful about it.

I won't acknowledge one is worse, because it's nonsensical to make a comparison of whats worse.

And to add - an awful lot of female, who have undergone FGM, claim that FGM is "no big deal" - because they have been culturally indoctrinated into accepting these things as just what you do, and that tradition is important etc etc etc.

I'm aware I am making no friends here. But I'd like to think that as a male, with a penis, and a foreskin, I can bring a perspective to this that females cannot (as I cannot relate personally to FGM).

The term 'female circumcision' was discontinued because it gave the impression that it was just like male circumcision, i.e. the removal of a small amount of skin, unacceptable though that is.

The term 'female genital mutilation' was adopted because it is more accurate -
I will not list the grotesque mutilations carried out on little girls, nor the resulting life-long health problems, but let's just say that if your clitoris is removed, 'diminution of sexual pleasure' is not a subject of speculation, it is a given.

Male circumcision is obviously similar in that it is a non-medically-necessary operation on a child's genitals, but does not even approach the extent or seriousness or indeed the intent of FGM. To suggest that it is wrong to say that one is worse than the other is incomprehensible - of course it is worse to have your genitals mutilated ... again, I'm not going to list the horrors of FGM, but if you think it is not worse in reality than male circumcision, perhaps you haven't gone sufficiently into the sickening details of FGM.

On a theoretical level, you can say that both male circumcision and FGM are equally wrong; but they are not equal in their physical reality.

Male circumcision can be challenged and opposed on the basis of its own reality as a non-medically-necessary operation on a child's genitals, not by relating it to FGM.

The term FGM was introduced to reflect the appalling realities of what it done to little girls' genitals, which goes far beyond male circumcision; it was a term specific to women's and girls' experience.
Now we have circumcision being called MGM - another case of women not being allowed have any words of our own.

By all means campaign against circumcision as an unjustifiable non-medically-necessary operations on boys, but respect the term 'Female Genital Mutilation' for the realities it describes.

If the term 'Male Genital Mutilation' becomes commonplace to describe circumcision, we are going to have to find an alternative to FGM in order to fully describe its grotesque realities.

What is FGM/C? | FGM/C Research Initiative | FGM/C Research Initiative

I can see where you are coming from and agree with most of it, but I disagree with you on one thing.

MGM is MUTILATION. Circumcision downplays it.

Plenty of words have a spectrum of meanings. The fact that Mr Jones was assaulted and left with a fractured jaw, fractured eye socket and heavy bruising over most of his face does not mean that when I got punched leaving a black eye and light grazing it wasn't also assault.

I do not believe that objecting to MGM and calling it mutilation implies a downplaying of the much more horrific thing that happens to women.

"It doesn't interfere with male sexual pleasure, for a start."

do you have a penis?

I agree with a lot of what you say, and I honestly would not be surprised to know that ultimately the only thing stopping 99% of post-op trans'women' from feeling like Richie Herron does is that we all have a deep, in-built self-protection mechanism that does not allow us to dwell on certain things that if we did allow ourselves to dwell on would destroy us.

I am, by the way, a male with a foreskin too. I am not sure either of us can know what it is like to be a circumcised male, but I believe I have a bit of an insight and I can imagine that best case is that it is uncomfortable and leads to loss of sensitivity of the head of the penis over time.

I do not think it is at all unreasonable to say that MGM is 100% unjustified, unjustifiable and wrong, and harmful, whilst also being a somewhat trivial issue in practical terms compared to FGM. Obviously in philosophical terms both are equally bad - mutilation without consent - but in practical terms surely we can do a bit of research and say to the female victims that they have it worse?

I suspect it won't go further than requiring circumcision to be performed by a surgeon under proper anaesthetic & aseptic conditions.
There'll be an outcry from some quarters of the Orthodox Jewish community (though nothing prevents a Jewish surgeon being a mohel) & from those turning a fast buck from dodgy practice, but the case of little Mohamed Abdisamad who died at just 6 months old back in 2023 has been rumbling along & the Coroner's prevention of future deaths report in Dec 2025 called for much stricter regulation of the practice.

Edited for dyslexia, some may remain.

That will be sexism is more accepted and more legal. I don't accept your point. FGM is worlds more terrible than circumcision in males. It's like the difference in the distance from Earth to the Moon and Earth out to Pluto. That much difference.

It seems some haven't read or registered the OP.

It is being discussed because of a possible change in law as suggested by the CPS.

The whatabouterry on this thread is sadly exactly, although in reverse, on the thread about an attempt to stop FGM being illegal.

So the issue for the Government, who will get the flack is that is they do agree to circumcision being made illegal how should they respond to the cultural outrage some may feel.

Although we could look forward to the possibility of a joint Jewish Muslim demonstration against the Government.

I can promise you it does affect sexual pleasure.

I had to be circumsized in my 20s as well, although for a different reason to your brother and boyfriend, and after a few weeks the head became desensitised to sensation. It definitely makes a difference during sex.

It's not the end of the world, and it's certainly not in the same ballpark as FGM, but it's still not something we should be inflicting on children just for shits and giggles. It should be illegal until the age of 18 for anything other than a general medical reason.

It ruined my first DH's ability to enjoy sex.

There is no equivalence between what is, if anything, 'female castration', and what is, if carried out in infancy by professionals, a minor cut on a piece of surplus skin.

Epidemiologists have established two benefits of circumcision: The future adult men are statistically more protected from penile cancer. Their future wives are statistically more protected from cervical cancer.

Uncircumcised boys very often need to be circumcised later in childhood, or as adults, due to problems with retracting the foreskin. Irritation can cause prolonged bedwetting, to the humiliation of boys. Late circumcision, when schoolfriends will enquire about the school absence, is even worse.

Among the many problems caused by an intact and non-retracting foreskin is of course normal sexual performance, and the deformity of the penis, which can develop in the shape of a small pyramid.

The foreskin has no useful purpose unless the owner is running naked through a forest. Even in that fairly unusual situation, humans normally manage to improvise some protection by fashioning leaves or animal skin into a loin cloth.

"Established" is doing a lot of heavy lifting there if you look at the meta-analyses & systematic reviews.

The same lowered rate of penile cancers (themselves rare) can be achieved through the twin means of teaching boys how to wash themselves properly & furnishing them with HPV vaccination before they are sexually active. In fact, doing those two things would almost certainly give you a lower rate of penile cancers than relying on circumcision alone.

For cervical cancers, providing HPV vaccination to girls before they become sexually active is vastly more effective than relying on data largely composed of enthusiastically-publicised incidental findings, not least because cervical cancer is increasing in sub-Saharan Africa, while the region's historically high male circumcision rates have not fallen at all. In Kenya, where aprox 70% of men are circumcised, cervical cancer is the second most common cancer among women & the leading cause of female cancer deaths.

I think you meant to say very rarely. Only a pretty tiny proportion of boys need a medical circumcision, and most surgeons try quite hard not to perform the procedure unless there is no choice. Hence steroid creams, stretches, and slits.

I think there's an argument to be had that the term circumcision should be reserved for medically indicated and surgically performed procedures, and MGM for religious/social/cultural procedures.

CoI As a paediatrician, I've seen some very nasty penile infections, and one baby boy who came very close to losing the head of his penis, thanks to cultural/religious circumcisions. I do not want in any way to oppress religious minorities, but the babies and children of religious minorities deserve protection just as much as the majority population.

No uncircumcised boys and men do not "very often" need to be circumcised later in life thats an absolute falisey.
Circumcision for over tight foreskin is the last and rarest treatment for it.
Please stop spreading your manipulative bs scare tactics dont work on this board

Great news. Adults are free to get circumcised or not, but it should not be legal to add, remove or modify any parts of a child’s body without a real medical need.

Cutting off a part of a perfectly healthy child is abusive, male or female.

It should be completely banned imo.