Talk:Genital modification and mutilation/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Female Mutilation but Male Modification?

The act of removing a part of a child’s body, especially without their awareness, for cultural or religious purposes is a form of mutilation. Why is male circumcision labeled modification but female as mutilation? Seems extremely culturally biased. 94.216.111.30 (talk) 15:20, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Because male circumcision doesn't cause sexual dysfunction when properly performed. FGM encompasses procedures that often remove erogenous structures such as the clitoris. KlayCax (talk) 15:41, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

"FGM encompasses procedures that often remove erogenous structures such as the clitoris."

The foreskin is the most innervated part of the penis. How exactly do you justify excision of erogenous stuctures while simultaneously condeming excision of erogenous structures?

This is a classic argument that cherry picks the most extreme form of Female Genital Mutilation (Type 1b), while occluding all subsequent types including those that are comparitively equal or less invasive (damaging) relative to male genital mutilation. Type 1a (excision of the clitoral hood) is directly analogous to excision of the foreskin. Would removal of the clitoral hood not be considered removal of an erogenous structure? Conversely, why would removal of the foreskin not be considered removal of an erogenous structure?

"Because male circumcision doesn't cause sexual dysfunction when properly performed."

"Properly performed" is begging the question by assuming the conclusion (the validity of male genital mutilation) in the premise. Sexual dysfunction is inherent as innervated tissue is excised, consequently denying normal human sexual experience and sensation. You cannot feel tissue that has been amputated which is inherently a loss of sensitivity. Additionally, scar tissue forms at the excision which is of course damaged and less sensitive. Additionally the exposed glans progressively desensitizes over time via keratinization. 198.217.117.133 (talk) 10:12, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Circumcision being described as mutilation

A sentence was recently readded into the article that - at least to me - implies that the dominant viewpoint within the scientific and medical communities is that circumcision is a form of mutilation. This seems like a WP: Weight problem.

Tagging involved editors. @Prcc27: @MrOllie: @Bon courage: @Man-Man122:. Thanks. KlayCax (talk) 06:12, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

@KlayCax I agree. I believe that it shouldn't be there Man-Man122 (talk) 14:15, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

@Prcc27:. Now you're trying to outrageously imply that circumcised men have mutilated penises? There's clearly not a consensus for this change. Reliable sources overwhelmingly contradict it. KlayCax (talk) 15:39, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Okay, but that is not what the sentence or KNMG says. KNMG questions why the ethics are viewed differently. Prcc27 (talk) 16:04, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

I was referring to the edit summary which stated: "Add KNMG viewpoint on MGM vs. FGM". Which I'm assuming was supposed to mean "m[ale] g[enital] m[utilation]"? (e.g. and that was your reference to circumcision).

Promoting a WP: POV that is systematically bias towards autonomistic Western conceptions morality is a WP: Weight issue. Even then, as Martha Nussbaum states, it is overwhelmingly fringe outside of perhaps the Nordics.

That's the issue. KlayCax (talk) 16:20, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

KNMG is a small organization as medical associations go and their opinion is an outlier. Adding a mention is undue weight, so it ought to be left out. MrOllie (talk) 16:28, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

How is it a small organization? Isn’t it the largest medical organization in the Netherlands? Also, minority viewpoints can be included in the article per WP:DUE. Prcc27 (talk) 16:31, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Isn’t it the largest medical organization in the Netherlands? Have you ever heard the phrase 'damned by faint praise'? MrOllie (talk) 16:36, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

My mistake, it was the Danish College of General Practitioners that views it as MGM, not the Royal Dutch Medical Association. It is not promoting a POV, this is an article about genital modification and mutilation, so it makes sense to compare and contrast it with FGM. I do not oppose including Martha’s viewpoint in the relevant FGM section of this article.. Prcc27 (talk) 16:28, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

And circumcision isn't regarded as mutilation by the overwhelming majority of medical professionals.

Is labiaplasty mutilation? KlayCax (talk) 21:55, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

That doesn’t mean there isn’t some debate about whether or not there is overlap. Prcc27 (talk) 22:46, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

Labiaplasty, piercings, and other body alterations would be mutilation under this criteria. KlayCax (talk) 12:44, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

Hegemonic reasoning. The vast majority of cultures that perform Female Genital Mutilation morally justify the act. Should we trust the validity of their perspective because of their culture intrinsically?

Propagators of any cultural act are unreliable sources given intrinsic cultural bias. American cultural bias producing post-hoc justifications via studies with invalid methodology and echoed by the heavily American-influenced WHO are not indepenent sources. The validity of studies performed and conclusions drawn by cultures free of bias are far more valuable.

The influence of an organization does not make their argument valid. They simply have more power. 198.217.117.133 (talk) 10:24, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

RFC: What should the title of this article be?

There's been a longtime dispute on this page on what the article should be titled. Several editors believe that the current title fails WP: CRITERIA and presents WP: NPOV issues. Others support it.

• Proposal A: Name the page "genital modification"
• Proposal B: Keep the content of the page. However, redirect the page to body modification.
• Proposal C: Name the page "genital modification, enhancement, and mutilation"
• Proposal D: Name the page "genital modification and enhancement"
• Proposal E: Name the page "genital modification and mutilation"
• Proposal F: Name the page "genital modification, enhancement, and mutilation"
• Proposal G: Other proposal not listed above.

What proposal best fits Wikipedia's guidelines? KlayCax (talk) 03:28, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Didn’t we just have a discussion on this not too long ago..? Prcc27 (talk) 16:27, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

• [Note: RFC submitter] Option A or B: Either proposal would suffice. I personally prefer option B because the present article on body modification is already too short and could probably fit every kind of human body modification imaginable within its 250,000 possible bytes. Although I'm open to option A as well for it's simplicity. It is clear that the current title of the article fails WP:CRITERIA.

It fails the criteria of precision, as it encompasses related but dissimilar topics, and has often been misinterpreted to mean that all genital modifications are mutilations.

It fails the criteria of concision. As all genital mutilations are forms of genital modifications, genital modification would suffice. (e.g. A page that had "List of dogs and bulldogs")

It fails the criteria of neutrality, as it implies to readers — problematically — that gender-affirming surgery and circumcision are forms of mutilation. It also associates "modification" with exclusively negative terminology. To make it neutral, you'd have to add "enhancement" or another positive term, a proposal that would further fail the criteria of concision. Renaming it to "genital modification" or transferring the page's contents to body modification are the best choices.

The answer here is obvious to me. Currently, the article's name has significant problems, and is inconsistent with other articles surrounding the subject, such as body modification. KlayCax (talk) 03:35, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

• The discussion to date (such as it is) shows that there's going to be POV-pushing. If you don't like the implications of the current article name, you'll claim it's not neutral, but if it gets changed, then somebody else will surely claim that it's at least awkward and probably not neutral.
  • If the subject of the "modification" is old enough to make an informed decision, then it would not be considered to be "mutilation". We suspect that only a male would do this voluntarily. So it's "modification" if done to someone who's old enough, it's "mutilation" if it's done to a female. If it's done to an underage male, there may be an honest difference of opinion which is reflected in the ambiguity of the existing name of "modification and mutilation". Anything else suggests that somebody has an agenda. Fabrickator (talk) 06:16, 26 February 2024 (UTC)

  Self-mutilation is a thing. It's not usually based on consent. Rather, the effects it has on the body. KlayCax (talk) 06:59, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

• Note This is not an RfC matter. Please use requested moves. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:38, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

  Started one. KlayCax (talk) 06:59, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Archive and search box parameter settings problem

Does anyone know why Archive 2 doesn't show up in the archives box at the top of this page? It lists only Archive 1. The problem seems to be somewhere in {{archive box |index=/Archive index |auto=yes |search=yes | bot=MiszaBot I |age=1 |units=month }}. The problem seems to have something to do with the space between the word "Archive" and the number in the pathname. The one index link that is being displayed is going through a redirect at /Archive1 (no space). Of course, I could create a redirect at /Archive2, but that is not a proper solution.

Also, it doesn't look like either archive is included in the index at Talk:Genital modification and mutilation/Archive index. I also see another template being called with |mask=Talk:Genital alterations/Archive <#>, in which "Genital alterations" does not match the name of this page. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 04:06, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Dropped stand-alone archive box, moved functionality to Talk header, where it exists by default, if you don't specifically opt out, which somebody did. Mathglot (talk) 17:49, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting it out. I was left confused as well. KlayCax (talk) 12:44, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

The index does not seem to include the archives. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:27, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Made a couple of changes. It supposedly runs at 11:23 and 23:23 UTC, so let's see wait a bit and see if it kicks in. Mathglot (talk) 06:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

It seems to be working now. Thanks very much. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 02:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Sex reassignment surgery

The vast majority of people (outside of parts of the Western World) classify this as a form of genital mutilation. Should it be referred to in the article as this? CoolidgeCalvin (talk) 01:00, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

This is why Wikipedia's NPOV policy exists. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with the mission of describing the world as it is. It is not some sort of world court that issues decisions on what is good or evil. Where significant controversy exists, it is up to Wikipedia to report the controversy, not pick a side. See the lengthy discussions above. — The Anome (talk) 15:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

To briefly vent, @The Anome: it's honestly deeply frustrating how many are overlooking WP: NPOV, WP:NDESC, and WP: TITLE issues here. The objections are pretty ludicrous. This could all be fixed by changing it to "genital modification" and then having a terminology section. Instead, some are their WP: POV on what "enhancement" and "mutilation" is into the article. (Often implicitly and probably not realizing it.) KlayCax (talk) 03:08, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

Describing the controversy

As an attempt to draw light onto attitudes regarding the many different types of genital modification, the various controversies might well best be described in tabular form. Here is an attempt at that (update: as amended, see comments below):

Procedure	Western liberal consensus	Destructive of original function?	Against	For
Male circumcision of adults	Acceptable if voluntary	No
Male circumcision of children	Controversial	No	Anti-circumcision campaigners	Jews, Muslims, consensus in the USA until recently
Clitoridectomy, Infibulation, etc.	Wrong	Yes	Worldwide consensus	Traditional groups in a few countries
M to F genital sex reassignment surgery	Acceptable if voluntary	Yes (but sexual pleasure may be preserved)	Anti-trans campaigners	Trans rights campaigners
F to M genital sex reassignment surgery	Acceptable if voluntary	Yes (but sexual pleasure may be preserved)	Anti-trans campaigners	Trans rights campaigners
M to F sex reassignment of intersex children	Was acceptable, now controversial	Yes (not sure about sexual pleasure preserved)	Intersex rights campaigners and numerous medical organizations
Castration, penectomy etc. other than in sex reassignment surgery	Wrong, unless medically necessary	Yes		Extreme body modification enthusiasts and religious groups
Vulvectomy, removal of the vagina etc., other than in sex reassignment surgery	Wrong, unless medically necessary	Yes
Vasectomy	Acceptable if voluntary	Yes, of reproduction; sexual function not affected	Anti-birth-control campaigners	Birth control campaigners
Female sterilization	Acceptable if voluntary	Yes, of reproduction; sexual function not affected	Anti-birth-control campaigners	Birth control campaigners (but less so than with vasectomy)
Male genital piercings	Acceptable if voluntary	No, although you may in some cases have to take them out to have sex
Female genital piercings	Acceptable if voluntary	No, although you may in some cases have to take them out to have sex
Labiaplasty	Acceptable if voluntary	No	Those viewing it as unncessary plastic surgery
Pearling	Acceptable if voluntary	No		Traditional cultural groups
Penile subincision	Acceptable if voluntary	No
Penile splitting	???	???		Extreme body modification enthusiasts

Does this describe the various controversial attitudes correctly? — The Anome (talk) 16:57, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Are we defining "liberal consensus" as "left-wing to centrist individuals" or "liberal democracies" here, @The Anome:? KlayCax (talk) 20:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)

@KlayCax: Liberal democracies. — The Anome (talk) 00:22, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

My quick thoughts here, @The Anome::

• As a broad outline: it seems broadly right. Although we'd probably have to have a singular source about this. (Rather than a WP: SYNTH of multiple citations.)
• I'd put labiaplasty, circumcision of children, female sterilization, and vasectomy as considered "generally acceptable" by most. (Outside of circumcision in Northern and Eastern Europe.)
• Intersex genital alterations/cutting has always been at least somewhat controversial. Even back in the 1980s and 1990s. Maybe "generally acceptable to controversial"? We'd need non-original research for this, however.
• Medical organizations are clear that circumcision doesn't increase or decrease sexual pleasure. (Per the World Health Organization, Canadian Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, and others.) It's a popular meme and misconception in several cultures. However, the evidence has repeatedly indicated that it doesn't, with dozens of high-quality studies in AMAB who were circumcised as adults and reported no substantial change in pleasure, sensation, and function.
• Labia is sexually sensitive. So I wouldn't state that it isn't "destructive of original function" in some ways.
• Gender-affirming care and gender-affirming surgery is controversial among many political conservatives in liberal democracies. (Just take the United States, Eastern Europe, and the rest of the Anglosphere for examples.)
• Gender-affirming care and gender-affirming surgery's impact on sexual function is complicated. Libido however is generally regarded as decreasing in MTF, however, as testosterone levels (alongside others) are correlated with sexual drive.

Multiple medical organizations are starting to oppose intersex genital cutting as well. So I'd put "many human rights organizations" as well. KlayCax (talk) 00:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments. I've amended the chart a bit per some of your suggestions. I'm glad you like my general approach, and I think if we work on describing the controversy, with suitable in-table cites to reliable sources, rather than picking sides or trying to right great wrongs, this is a possible way forward for the article. — The Anome (talk) 00:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Do you mind if I edit it, @The Anome:? I feel like it'll get taken down as WP: SYNTH or WP:NOR unless we have a singular source that states all of this. Does any exist? KlayCax (talk) 02:06, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't mind at all. Please do. — The Anome (talk) 07:05, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

Alright, @The Anome:. I'll try and do that in the next few days. Will tag you when done. KlayCax (talk) 20:53, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

For instance: I think you can find mention of "controversy" in almost all of those body modifications. So it's going to be a likely hot potato of edit wars depending on contributors' bias.

(I wouldn't be shocked if the gender-affirming healthcare/surgery, circumcision, vasectomy, and sterilization parts become conflict zones.)

It would be best imo to leave it out unless we have a similar table in a reliable source, then just cite it to Example Author, 2024. KlayCax (talk) 02:08, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

The table is intended as a discussion tool, not (yet?) a draft for the article. But it does show what a thorny issue distinguishing between what is acceptable and what is not is -- opinions differ wildly depending on the observer's cultural, religious and political perspective, and what one person views as an ethical (or in some cases even sacred) practice can easily be viewed by another, even within the same culture, as an atrocity. And this is true across a really wide range of modifications, in many different and often quite complex ways. So we are left with NPOV as the only practical way of addressing this, but it's a huge and rambling topic to address. — The Anome (talk) 07:05, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

To be neutral: wouldn't we have to include other cultural perspectives in as well, to, and not just the Western World? @The Anome:? I don't know.

I'm not opposed to it in possible, but it seems, again, like a breeding ground for edit wars. KlayCax (talk) 20:14, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

It is indeed likely to be fractious, but the NPOV policy requires us to try. The alternative of not trying to describe all those distinct views is even worse, as it will result in a never-ending edit war about which set of views is correct and moral.

Describing viewpoints we find repugnant is not the same as endorsing them. Nor are we required to give all viewpoints equal weight, see WP:UNDUE; for example, there is a clear global consensus on female genital mutilation aka "female circumcision", with only a few outlier views that we can describe as such. On transgender surgery, there is now a mainstream consensus in the West (and many places beyond) that this is OK for consenting adults to get done, but a big right wing movement to try to roll that back, using the controversy about transgender children as a wedge issue. And so on. I think we can find WP:RS to support all of these -- not the views themselves, but the characterization of those views and the people that hold them.

We've managed it on other contentious topics, and we can manage it here. — The Anome (talk) 20:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

There's also the problem of what "consensus" is supposed to mean here. Even within liberal democracies, views can differ greatly.

I'd classify "neonatal circumcision" as controversial in Denmark but "acceptable" or "generally accepted" in the United States.

Transgender surgeries might be "controversial" in the United States but viewed as "wrong" in Ghana. KlayCax (talk) 18:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Comment Firstly, I appreciate The Anome's initiative and intention to be helpful and clear things up. It is evident that their work in good faith. On the other hand, I also understand KlayCax's comment (concern?) here; I believe that a table like this functions, in a way, similar to an infobox (which, from what I've seen, is a bit disliked by some users here). This happens when we try to put complicated things in clear-cut boxes. The table can be potentially helpful here in the talkpage, but it can also be an easy target and cause more disagreements than we had before. I also hear KlayCax's concern about the potential originial research, since we do not base it on an already existing work.

• PS, this comment is not criticism towards The Anome's work; it is more a comment about the use of tables like this in general. Piccco (talk) 03:06, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

I wouldn't be opposed in principle, @Piccco:. The problem is that using multiple sources in this instance (unlike most cases) would allow an endless barrage of cherrypicking.

(Oppose sex-reassignment/gender-affirming surgery? Well, here's a source labeling it "controversial". Vasectomy? Let's find a Catholic source that calls it controversial.) It's all very subjective. KlayCax (talk) 03:09, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

• Some oppose all genital modifications and even label all mutilation. (Sikhs, certain other cultures)
• Some classify mutilation under religious/natural arguments (Predominantly among traditionalist and the conservative religious )
• Some classify mutilation under sexual pleasure/function arguments. (Regardless of consent.)
• Some classify mutilation based on consent (Predominantly in the Western world.)

I don't feel comfortable using any one definition for Wikivoice. KlayCax (talk) 03:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I've restored the text about the term "genital mutilation" in the lede, with the note that opinions differ. "Genital mutilation" is absolutely the WP:COMMONNAME of some of these modifications, see female genital mutilation. This doesn't change my view that this article should be at Genital modification as the more general term, but mention of the term "genital mutilation" absoutely needs to be in the lede, because it is common usage. — The Anome (talk) 10:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I see we are back to selecting one single option from the above. I have added the qualifer "generally used", while as this is the general definition used in the Western world and typical among Wikipedia contributors (including myself, as I believe the "mental bad health" qualifier includes distress from non-consensual modifications) it is not, as KlayCax says above, the only one. — The Anome (talk) 12:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)