The neckbeards of reddit will push ‘male genital mutilation’ to make circumcision sound on par with women’s rights issues in Sudan or whatever. “circumcision” is the name of the surgical procedure and it’s pretty twisted to rename a surgical procedure mutilation. You have phimosis and decide to have a circumcision now there’s a bunch of nerds running around calling your dick mutilated.
Circumcision is an example of how untethered the US is. For basically no reason chopping millions upon millions of foreskins.
I mean just because it’s a surgical procedure doesn’t mean it’s not mutilation. Lobotomy was (and still is! In very rare cases as a last resort) a surgical procedure and I don’t think anyone would disagree that it’s mutilation. I get the issue of equating it with the more extreme examples of FGM though
If a person is lobotomized because of uncontrollable seizure disorder, they aren’t being mutilated.
Surgeons amputate patients and militias amputate opponents. But we don’t call amputation itself mutilation.
Arbitrary surgery of infants is mutilation. “circumcision is mutilation” is as inaccurate a slogan as “amputation is mutilation” because that is the name of the medical procedure.
If you want to say that your parents mutilated your baby dick through circumcision, ok. But a 19 year old who gets circumcised because of a skin condition doesn’t now have a mutilated penis
Oh yeah I totally agree with that. I think the issue comes from how it’s just treated as the default for cis male babies rather than a treatment for specific issues.
But a 19 year old who gets circumcised because of a skin condition doesn’t now have a mutilated penis
In the United States, all foreskin problems are treated with amputation simply because physicians aren’t taught anything else. In Europe, phimosis is treated by other, less radical methods, and circumcision is practically never necessary. Thus, treating phimosis with circumcision is still mutilation, just as amputating your arm to treat a bruise would be mutilation (although I agree that circumcising a healthy boy is more egregious).
I read a story of a man in France who elected for circumcision to treat his phimosis. When he later learned that other treatments were available, he was so dismayed that he sued his physician for not properly informing him of his medical options, and he sued his doctor and won.
I think they’re referring to the differences between FGM and circumcision. FGM is often much more extreme and destructive, whereas circumcision still leaves the penis functional and (largely) sensory-intact.
lol my good dudebro, while I do accept that circumcision should never be performed on somebody without their consent unless medically necessary and that doing so is child abuse and medical malpractice, it is not equal to the practice I’m referring to It’s not medically equivalent and it’s purpose is explicitly repressive.