Humanities desk
< May 2	<< Apr \| May \| Jun >>	May 4 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

May 3

Judaism and the law

Following on from the ongoing discussion about Jewish use of English I would like to ask about the law. A High Court judge has recently prohibited the ritual circumcision of two Muslim brothers aged 4 and 6 [1], [2]. She said they could not be circumcised until they are old enough to decide for themselves whether they "wish to continue to observe the Muslim faith".

British law already prohibits female genital mutilation, and a certain latitude is allowed in ritual slaughter - for example shechita is permitted because the draining of blood from dead animals is forbidden so it is allowed to simply stun them first. Without this exemption the practice would be illegal.

Jewish boys are ritually circumcised at eight days old. Because of marriage out the London community has shrunk from 410,000 in the last century to about 250,000 now. If a Jewish woman marries out, under the definition of Jewishness her sons will be Jewish. Does this ruling pose any threat to traditional Jewish practices? 92.23.52.169 (talk) 13:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@92.23.52.169: I'm not sure what the "J-----"s were about, but they're really distracting. We want these questions to be accessible for people to answer and read later. I've taken the liberty of converting them to "Jewish" or "Judaism" as seemed appropriate. Hope you don't mind! Wnt (talk) 17:10, 3 May 2016 (UTC) -- Note: I've been informed that some bright bulb came up with an edit filter, and that was what the IP was reduced to to post. I'm OK with using edit filters to flag edits for inspection by people, but I don't want machines ordering our questioners around. Wonderful servant, terrible master etc. Wnt (talk) 17:19, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The comparison to female circumcision is intriguing, but rather misses the OP's point, doesn't it? Get a room - or at least, start a question of your own. Wnt (talk) 17:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

To equate male circumcision with female genital mutilation is absurd. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:36, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FGM is unlawful, circumcision is not. 92.23.52.169 (talk) 13:42, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then what's the issue? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:43, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Both forms of circumcision mutilate the genitals. The Rambling Man (talk) 13:51, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Male circumcision doesn't involve chopping off the glans and carving out part of the shaft. Male circumcision also doesn't impair sexuality when done in infancy (and only causes recoverable psychological impairment if done properly in later years), while FGM pretty much renders a normal sex life impossible regardless of age. The comparison is asinine and insulting to both circumcised men and women who've suffered from FGM.

So, I suppose you could say they're the same in the same way than an appendectomy is the same as seppuku. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:08, 3 May 2016 (UTC) Not sure now I didn't edit conflict adding the new line. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:19, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not making a comparison, simply stating a fact that both actions mutilate the human body to one degree or another. If you don't like the reality, tough. I know plenty of people who have been circumcised and have had "issues" into adulthood that require "correction". The Rambling Man (talk) 14:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You can't say you're not making a comparison while trying to tie the two together, that is pretty much the fundamental definition of making a comparison. Trying to compare the two is used way too often as fodder by Men's rights movement and modern antisemites (not saying you are either, but you are only reinforcing the idea in the heads of any reading this page), it helps no one, it only disgusts those who are actually familiar with circumcision and FGM, and it does a major disservice to anyone who has suffered from or may come to suffer from FGM. That is the reality that you need to deal with. The fact that Jews, Muslims, and many Americans keep having kids rather trumps your anecdotal evidence. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:19, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever, you need to calm your hysteria a little. Both events damage the body. I am not making any comment beyond that. You are the one making comparisons, you are the one who is attempting to muddy the waters and back-handedly accuse me of things, you are the one who needs to deal with that. You clearly feel very precious about this, I'll leave you to have the last word as you obviously feel the need to vent. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:25, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just try to actually know anything about a topic before blabbing off about it, because the only reality to deal with here is your ignorance. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:31, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bullshit. Nothing I have said is incorrect. You are accusing me of lying? You are trying to back-handedly accuse me of being an anti-semite? You think you know how my friends who have botched circumcisions aren't mutilated? You're more deluded than ignorant. Now disappear back to self-righteousness land and stop attempting to lecture, lie and falsely accuse. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:34, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)I have to say The Rambling Man seems to be taking a much more measured and reasonable approach to this than Ian.thomson. To deny that circumcision involves the mutilation of the penis seems to me to be to deny obvious reality. To then poison the well by bringing anti-Semitism into it is just low. DuncanHill (talk) 14:35, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did I not say "not saying you are either" earlier? Who's really muddying the waters here? I'm pointing out a simple fact that the MRAs and antisemites love to bring up the comparison either to draw attention away from FGM (as is the case with the MRAs) or to decry Jews and Muslims (as is the case with antisemites), and that repeating those views only bolsters that thinking in their heads. This is not a private conversation. To call circumcision "damage" and "mutilation" is insulting to the countless Jews, Muslims, Africans, and Americans who clearly have functioning penises, anecdotal evidence be damned. "Damage" and "mutilation" imply impaired function, which is, statistically, not the case. Notice that our article on the topic avoids such language. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:43, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, have you stopped hitting your wife? You need to get a grip, and stop accusing me of lying. If I know male individuals who consider that they have been mutilated because of circumcision, it's not your call on whether that's right or not. Who mentioned anything about "statistically" anything being the case? Stop (attempting to) preach, it's not welcome, it's not needed and it's completely vulgar. The Rambling Man (talk) 14:46, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I never said you were lying, I was pointing out that you talking to a few people is anecdotal evidence. You can't take what a few friends told you (especially when they could have been influenced by your obvious misconceptions about circumcision) and use that to trump rather obvious scientific proof that circumcision generally doesn't cause problems. You're saying I'm engaged in unwelcome preaching and that I'm being vulgar when you're the one calling significant portions of the world's population damaged in a way that lessens the severity of FGM? Absolutely hypocritical. Ian.thomson (talk) 14:53, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ian, you are lying when you suggest that The Rambling Man was in any way lessening the severity of FGM. Please stop. DuncanHill (talk) 14:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Reducing FMG both to "damage" comparable to circumcision is lessening the severity. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:00, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone incapable of understanding that there are degrees of damage shouldn't be editing Wikipedia. DuncanHill (talk) 15:02, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seeing as how my entire argument is that FGM is so severe and circumcision so (from a worldwide and scientific perspective) inconsequential that sticking the two in the same box is absolutely atrocious, there's no way one could honestly imply that that's the case with me. Unless, of course, you have decided to muddy the waters and misrepresent my words after just accusing me of misrepresenting The Rambling Man's. Now, if you weren't talking about me, the only other relevant part of this discussion would be TRM's words "Both forms of circumcision mutilate the genitals." A statement which does not actually include "degrees of damage," even if it was meant to be implied. However, I'll grant that TRM is otherwise a reliable editor, and would not make a personal attack by implying that he shouldn't be editing at all just because of this disagreement. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:18, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The statement did not need to include "degrees of damage" because a good-faith reader moderately competent in English would understand this to be implied. You ar being highly disingenuous, you have deliberately introduced anti-Semitism in a way that blackens TRM undeservedly. You really need to take a step back from this subject. DuncanHill (talk) 15:27, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As I have explained repeatedly, I was warning that the conversation was including material they feed off of, because I trust that TRM is not an antisemite. If I had believed he was (which, for the fiftieth time, I do not and have not believed), there would have been no point in letting him know that that rhetoric feeds them. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:55, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Disgusting thomson, disgusting. I have taken note of your tactics, and will be making sure you don't make such accusations in the future. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:39, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Again, bullshit thomson. You are lying, tacitly accusing me of being anti-semitic, and you have no idea about my beliefs or thoughts of circumcision, although I note your assumption of bad faith ("obvious misconceptions"). Having part of the body that you were born with removed without a medical reason which can often go wrong is a form of mutilation. Even reliable sources back that up. I have NEVER SAID ANYTHING that lessens the severity of FGM, not at all. I simply stated that male circumcision is a form of mutilation, and can often go wrong. Everything else, like your rampage into anti-semitism, is just your vulgar ignorance. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:07, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, I never said you were being antisemitic, I just warned you that you are feeding any MRAs and antisemites reading this page. There is a very clear difference, which I have spelled out for you before. If you cannot see the difference, you are too emotional to either to understand what I'm saying or else too emotional to take it in good faith. As I have pointed out for you, if circumcision was so harmful, significant portions of the world's population would have a hard time reproducing. That's obviously not the case, and as our article (based on WP:MEDRSes instead of tabloids) will point out, the attitude of most health organizations toward circumcision is an accepting neutrality. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:18, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not feeding anyone anything. I'm telling you of my personal experiences with multiple individuals who are mutilated. You have attempted to "spell out" something which actually equates to "preaching your own viewpoint". You are clearly incapable of reading rational English right now. I also hope that you will one day find some time to understand the difference between reliable and unreliable sources. And finally I hope that your or your children never suffer the indignity of having your genitals mutilated without any choice in the matter, particularly if it's done without your or their personal consent. Time for you to stop your vulgar preaching, and to stop your veiled accusations. Have you stopped beating your wife yet? The Rambling Man (talk) 15:25, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one pushing a Eurocentric POV regarding circumcision, citing something that totally fails WP:MEDRS. At no point have I told anyone that they need to get circumcised. What then, puts you in more of a position than any major medical organization to act as though parents have no right to determine what happens to their children's bodies when their children are too young to think, let alone decide anything? You keep turning my plain and upfront statements into veiled accusations, and then you accuse me of assuming bad faith and being unable to read rational English? You keep bringing up your anecdotal evidence (and a source that fails WP:MEDRS), in the face of our well WP:MEDRS-sourced article and the almost countless Africans, Americans, and Muslims who don't appear to have any problems from being circumcised, and you want me to learn about sourcing? Ian.thomson (talk) 15:39, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not "pushing" anything, much unlike you and your introduction of anti-semitism into the debate. You disgust me, and I will ensure you will not be able to tarnish other editors in the way that you have attempted to tarnish me. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:48, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How was that "I hope" bit not a smear on circumcision and on parents who decide to circumcise their children? And what part of "I do not think you are an antisemite, but I would like for you to be careful because you are coming a little close to feeding them which you might want to be careful about because, again, I trust that you are not an antisemite" do you not understand? I've been rather clear about it. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:55, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I hope you've stopped beating your wife. You know exactly what you're up to and it's disgusting. The Rambling Man (talk) 15:57, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even read my post before you drafted that response? Because it barely actually address only part of it. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:59, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yep, you're smearing me. I see you have form. And you disgust me. And I will not allow you to do that to anyone else. Simple as that. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:09, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would start to ask where I did smear you, but the fact that you're making that accusation at all indicates that there's no use talking to you. Ian.thomson (talk) 16:24, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

He's got his argument confused with a smear test. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:56, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Going by a strict dictionary definition, it would really be a stretch to call circumcision "mutilation":[3] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:27, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Going by a strict dictionary definition, it would be impossible to deny that circumcision is mutilation - see Chambers 20th Century Dictionary - "mutilate - to maim: to remove a material part of: to deform by slitting, boring, or removing a part". DuncanHill (talk) 15:31, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Circumcision doesn't maim the penis, though. To say it deforms it is an aesthetic opinion, not an objective fact. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:42, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only those obsessed with their own genitals would consider circumcision to be "mutilation". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:01, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Only those unreasonably obsessed with little boys' cocks would want to cut bits of them off". Try that on for size Bugs. DuncanHill (talk) 16:04, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The most backward thing I've read on Wikipedia ever. But not surprising in any way. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:06, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And we're acting like Bugs is trying to circumcise people because...? Ian.thomson (talk) 16:24, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

We were pointing out how ridiculous his comment was, the quotation marks were a clew, obvious to anyone reading in good faith and competence. DuncanHill (talk) 16:31, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not just vulgar and deceitful but incompetent too. What a disgrace. The Rambling Man (talk) 16:33, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you didn't read the whole definition - "to remove a material part of". Or are you saying that no part of the penis is removed in circumcision? That might explain your apparent confusion above. DuncanHill (talk) 15:46, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Which is contextually tied to the other parts. You wouldn't refer to opening a bottle of soda as "mutilating a bottle of soda," because you're not especially maiming or deforming the packaging. Ian.thomson (talk) 15:55, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not contextually tied to the other parts, that is not how Chambers works. It offers three definitions, the second of which unequivocally applies to circumcision. I am sure you are not deliberately misrepresenting what the source says in order to further your agenda, simply that you are unfamiliar with how a major English dictionary works. DuncanHill (talk) 16:01, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's pretty obvious that the definitions in Chambers are meant to be taken as a whole rather than in parts, otherwise the definitions are woefully incomplete. To break someone's leg would maim them, but not necessarily mutilate them (barring a chunk of bone boring through). To tear off their leg would maim them as well as remove a material part, and so would mutilate them.

Also, if you check the current edition, you'll see that it defines mutilate/mutilation with "Mutilation 1 to cause severe injury to (a person or animal), especially by removing a limb or organ. 2 to damage something severely, especially to alter (eg a text, song, etc) beyond recognition. mutilation noun 1 severe physical injury, usually visible and permanent injury. 2 severe damage." Notice the word "severe" throughout." Ian.thomson (talk) 16:24, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Ian, you don't get to lie about how a dictionary works to suit your own purposes. The edition I have lists definitions separated by colons. I was wrong to think you weren't misrepresenting a source, clearly you were and are committed to continuing so to do. DuncanHill (talk) 16:29, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that Chambers 21st Century is not the current edition of the Chambers 20th Century - rather Chambers Dictionary is the successor to the Chambers 20th Century. The 21st Century is compiled on a different basis, and is generally less scholarly. But you'd need to know something about the subject to know that. DuncanHill (talk) 16:43, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clitorectomy is severe mutilation. Circumcision is nothing of the sort. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:33, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So you accept that there are degrees of mutilation - hence your use of severe? Or is any mutilation that is not "severe mutilation" not mutilation at all? DuncanHill (talk) 16:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Circumcision is not mutilation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:44, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, do you have a citation for that? Because as seen above, I have one which says it is - "to remove a material part of". It is not as severe a mutilation as clitoridectomy to be sure, but a mutilation none the less. DuncanHill (talk) 16:48, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only those obsessed with their genitals consider the foreskin a "material part". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:53, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a citation for that? DuncanHill (talk) 16:54, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Check out the users who are the fiercest edit warriors on circumcision articles here, and you'll have your answer. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:58, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Without addressing your main point, I should point out that you have slightly mis-represented the news item that you have linked to.

Firstly, the Judge's ruling specifically applies to these two boys only, because the parents are separated, and while their father wants the circumcisions and had applied to the Court to have them ordered, their mother who has their custody does not.

Secondly, the judge did not prohibit the circumcisions, rather she refused to order them, and suggested that they be postponed until the boys were old enough to each make the decision for themselves. A contributing factor to her decision was that while circumcision soon after birth is relatively unhazardous, circumcision at the boys' ages (and still more after puberty) is significantly riskier. {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 185.74.232.130 (talk) 13:44, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Converts to Judaism (and there are some) are presumably circumcised. I was not aware there was an issue over this. 92.23.52.169 (talk) 13:50, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

But they generally don't exactly take converts who are 4 or 6 years old, and they don't require such converts to be ritually circumcised until before their Bar Mitzvah. In fact, if a Jewish boy is circumcised outside of a Brit milah, the rabbi may not count that circumcision and require just a single drop of blood be drawn before they can have a bar mitzvah (why a friend of mine refers to himself as a "lapsed Jew"). Ian.thomson (talk) 13:58, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Societal evolution of taboos

OP blocked. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:07, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

The discussion above, where several posters vigorously defended genital mutilation, inspired a question. Is there any term for the process how something that in any other situation would be considered taboo becomes a cultural norm in a specific country? I was thinking normalisation, but there's probably something more specific I'm guessing? 213.105.166.119 (talk) 19:16, 3 May 2016 (UTC) [reply]

Trying to restart an argument that's irrelevant to my question 213.105.166.119 (talk) 20:47, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

No one was defending genital mutilation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:23, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Just stating the facts. Please don't start an argument here, that is not the point of the question. EDIT: Actually this is a perfect example of what I mean, where norms have shifted so much that people deny reality when it's in black and white on the same page. Isn't perception powerful? Food for thought! 213.105.166.119 (talk) 20:37, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then you shouldn't have brought it up. According to your definition, trimming one's nails would be "mutilation". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:40, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I see engaging you in discussion is pointless. 213.105.166.119 (talk) 20:47, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia article Norm (social) has some promising leads to help with your research. --Jayron 32 19:19, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See cultural relativism. StuRat (talk) 20:26, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting links both, thank you. Guess there might not be an exact term for what I'm thinking off. 213.105.166.119 (talk) 20:34, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You made an accusation about some editors wrapped in your question. That accusation cannot stand. Remove it, or someone will do it for you. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 20:52, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The OP asks a reasonable and interesting question, you jump in to start an argument, the OP asks you not to, and your reply is to block them?! For shame Baseball Bugs, for shame! Even by your standards that's outrageous behaviour. I do hope that the OP is appealing their block as we speak, and will report this blatant abuse of power. Fgf10 (talk) 21:57, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, the OP started the argument, by asking a coatrack question wrapped around an attack against other editors. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:07, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There was a valid question, no attacks whatsoever, and the block was ludicrous. I see the OPS appeal has been denied, even by wiki standards this situation is insane! Fgf10 (talk) 22:51, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"...several posters vigorously defended genital mutilation..." was a total lie. The OP coat-racked that lie with a theoretically legitimate queation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:47, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On the contrary, it was a total fact. The fact that people use the euphemism "circumcision" doesn't alter the fact. But since I'm arguing against a Yank, formal action is not going to be undertaken, so I'll just give up, I guess. To the OP, I'm afraid this is how wiki works..... Don't let it put you off! Fgf10 (talk) 06:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Circumcision is not mutilation. And coat-racking is not how Wikipedia works. Also, it's not "wiki", it's "Wikipedia". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:23, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

there are people who legitimately view circumcision as a form of genital mutilation (it's the cutting away of sensitive flush, leaves a scar etc)...and it is basically social norms that cause most people to not view it this way (I don't think it's considered at all medically necessary any longer)..but in any event, having the OP blocked makes no sense over a little spat (little spats happen all the time)...you should do the right thing and ask OP be unblocked or at least post to his talk page that you overreacted and the administrator overreacted...68.48.241.158 (talk) 13:38, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Only those who are obsessed with their genitals consider this bit of nothingness to be "mutilation". And the discussion had already been closed, so the OP has only himself to blame because he re-opened it. It is the OP who should apologize. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:10, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, that's one opinion. —Tamfang (talk) 00:49, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I don't get it either...objectively the question is totally proper by the standards of questions often asked here...and people even answered it substantively...subjectively it could be thought of as a subtle put down of other editors...but even if subjectively viewed this way I don't see how it possibly warrants a ban...I write this as someone who strongly feels I have been improperly banned in the past...I notice the editor appealed the ban but was denied in a kind of superficial way...68.48.241.158 (talk) 22:41, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nil Einne may not have seen this [4]. The edit filters coded by the "bright bulb" (nos. 52, 731 and 743) are coded to affect only our unregistered editors. In the spirit of WP:HUMAN can someone disable them? The reason why I have not addressed this request to the person responsible is that (s)he is no longer active. 92.23.52.169 (talk) 09:34, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

In a few years, after the Nazi troll has moved on to other things, maybe the filters could be disabled. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:24, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OP may be interested in reading about Stockholm syndrome, or about how people often paradoxically defend their abusers [5]. These relate to the original question of how something that many people see as taboo can become to be seen as normal, and is related to Normalization_(sociology). Other general articles at social mores and see also Dual_inheritance_theory#Cultural_drift. OP may also do well to consider that a great number of WP editors are men in the USA who have had a part of their penis removed during infancy, and it is understandable that some of them have very strong feelings about the matter. Discussions of circumcision and related bodily truncations never go well on the internet, and the previous kerfuffle is just another instance of a long pattern. SemanticMantis (talk) 15:01, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It is the anti-circumcisionists who are the POV-warriors on Wikipedia, and the only abuse involved is abusing the term "mutilation". ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:08, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with Bugs that the definition of mutilation and mutilate does not match the reality of male circumcision: "inflict a violent and disfiguring injury on" or "inflict serious damage on" or [6]. But also agree with those who think circumcision unnecessary. --Lgriot (talk) 15:57, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Look, mutilation is a loaded term. We call things mutilation when we don't like them, and we don't call it mutilation if we think it's ok. I'm not going to argue about that word and whether it describes male circumcision, I didn't even use that term in my post. It's not helpful. If anyone needs to discuss male circumcision, call it what it is: removal of part of the penis. Lots of people think it's ok to remove part of an infant's penis without the infant's informed consent. This is not the place to express our opinions, but that's not an opinion, it's a simple fact. If anyone wants to discuss what body parts it is acceptable to remove without permission, please take it to an appropriate forum. SemanticMantis (talk) 16:11, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The anatomical equivalent to male circumcision for females would probably be Clitoral hood reduction (the clitoral hood being the female equivalent of the male foreskin). Would that procedure be more cruel than male circumcision? My guess is no, as many thoroughly westernized adult women voluntarily have it done on themselves, as our article states. Removing the entire clitoris is anatomically equivalent to cutting off a man's penis. Not sure whether this has anything whatsoever to do with the discussion here. 110.140.193.164 (talk) 16:13, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You've got it exactly right. And whatever the OP thought he was accusing any of us of, I can only say that I am neither opposed to nor especially in favor of circumcision. But I do oppose mutilating the language! ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:22, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I know I've said something similar before and in re-reading the above comments perhaps this reply is not as on topic as I thought. But IMO a big untouched? issue here is that cruelty and emotive issues, aside female genital mutilation seems to cover things which are obviously called mutilation but seem less significant than male circumcision.

collapsing since less ontopic than I thought Nil Einne (talk) 21:49, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As our FGM article somewhat makes clear, any form of traditional ritualistic genital modification seems to be considered FGM and highly taboo. Perhaps the most obvious example is the way the American Academy of Pediatrics withdrew their view that "pricking or incising the clitoral skin" was a harmless procedure that might satisfy parents" due to complaints.

To be clear, that isn't the only example. Having read other discussions and commentary, it does seem that generally there's a reluctance of many researchers, advocates etc involved to consider anything classified as FGM as a tolerable cultural practice. And FGM seems to cover any and all ritualistic "harmful procedures to the female genitalia for non-medical purposes". And remember harmful includes "pricking, piercing, incising, scraping and cauterization....nicking of the clitoris (symbolic circumcision), burning or scarring the genitals" which are all under type 4 FGM.

Gishiri cutting and angurya cutting seem to be some of the few practices over which there's question. Mostly it seems because they aren't generally ritualistic but more like harmful and pointless traditional medical procedures. (There was some mention of a lack of research on consequences, but it's not clear to me that there's evidence pricking is a particularly consequential procedure presuming there's proper sterilisation.)

Likewise it's interesting that type I FGM covers both clitoridectomy (Ib) and removal of the clitoral hood (Ia), despite the fact this seems to be quite different procedures in terms of severity. To be clear, what evidence there is suggests Ia alone is rare. However it also seems to me this is a typical case where categorisation limitations could easily influence results. Particularly as it's not clear how well the subcategorisations are applied in research. And especially as there's now an increased focus in different communities like those in South East Asia. (This isn't to suggest I have any reason, to think Ia is common anywhere, rather simply that given the way things are now, there is a risk we'll never know.)

And to be abundantly clear, I'm not denying the horrific nature of many common forms of FGM which IMO well and truly deserve the name. The nature of these forms of FGM is likely a big part of the reason why there's so much concern. It may be this legitimate concern (combined perhaps with other factors) which lead this difference in treatment compared to male circumcision even when we're talking about FGM procedures which seem less significant. BTW, while there appears to be a medical advantage to male circumcision, many circumcisions aren't performed for this reason and I think it's unlikely things would be that different if we didn't have those relatively recent results. One additional point is that it's probably true that a number of people comparing FGM to male circumcision generally (rather than specifics), probably don't really know what a lot of FGM entails. Or if they do, aren't helping their case by often including all forms of FGM in their comparison. Note in case there's still confusion, I'm not interested in general idea of whether male circumcision should be called mutilation.

It's possible that part of reason is because these limited FGM procedures alone are truly very rare in area of current focus. And there may be good research which implies pushing the procedures with relatively low harm as a replacement is likely to be less effective in eliminating the highly harmful forms of FGM. And maybe if it's found that relatively low harm procedures are the norm in any communities with new focus (be they in SEA or elsewhere), then things will be handled differently there. I don't know nearly enough to reliably say, but does anyone in this discussion?

BTW, it's true that non-ritualistic cosmetic genital surgery carried out on adults, particularly in the developed world aren't generally counted, regardless of any societal pressures. And even though the admitedly rare cases where the FGM procedures are carried out on adults with some form of consent (albeit often with probably even stronger societal pressures) are still generally seen as harmful FGM. Our article also touches on this to some extent and it's an interesting albeit IMO mostly seperate topic.

Nil Einne (talk) 21:49, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

People who are genetically one sex and want to become the other can, I understand, have organs cut off via the National Health Service. Then they are given plastic surgery/hormone treatment to develop/mimic other organs. Isn't this medically unethical? At least in male circumcision the function of the organ is unimpaired. There are fathers who turn themselves into women. What effect does this have on the development of the child? 92.23.52.169 (talk) 12:11, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming you're referring to adults, genital surgery would be voluntary, like getting facial plastic surgery. Obviously, surgery of any kind done on newborns is not voluntary for the infant, but the parents would have to give consent unless such surgery is mandated by law. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:44, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]