I’m even tugging to restore my foreskin but at least 90% of the movement is creepy weirdos like this
The other poster did what? He claimed I’m doing a sexism because I think vaginal circumcision is not comparable to penile circumcision.
I think that’s missing the point of what people are generally comparing. I’m no expert on the community, but the way I’ve generally heard the argument go is that the ethical implications are very similar. Both are involuntary procedures that are normally performed on babies-toddlers. Both procedures cause irreparable bodily alterations that CAN have serious side effects, up to and including chronic pain and discomfort, infection, reduced sexual satisfaction and libido, and all manner of bad stuff. (Maybe here is where you think it’s not comparable because of severity of symptoms? I think that’s missing the point still, so I’ll move on.) Both procedures generally have no medical use or benefit, and are associated with cultural or religious norms towards the human body and sexuality.
Given how many similarities there are, it seems perfectly rational to compare the two, and appropriate to condemn both on the grounds that we aren’t respecting the bodily autonomy of children and are causing permanent physical harm. Pointing out problematic parts of a community is one thing, but to suddenly imply the entire discussion of moral equivalence is illegitimate belittles the experience of those who have, arguably, suffered a great harm. It only serves to silence voices trying to raise awareness on an issue that you yourself acknowledge is bad.
A vaginal circumcision is comparable to penile circumcision if they literally cut the penis off, perhaps, but that’s why it’s not comparable. And there are practices that make vaginal circumcision even more extreme than penile circumcision, like removing the labia as well, or sewing the vagina mostly shut. That’s why I think it’s a bad idea to compare the two, but to still consider them both unacceptable practices.
The thing is, a penis may at some point need a circumcision due to rare medical issues, whereas a vaginal circumcision would never be necessary.
Again, you can wait for @PaulRyansWorkoutTape where he’s about to pull out some data on how vaginas actually don’t lose THAT much sensation and it’s all really just fucking horrifying.
So there’s a history between you two that I don’t have context for, and maybe I’m just seeing it from too limited an exposure. I’ll acknowledge that.
Yet I still think you’re missing the point. I agree, fgm is generally speaking worse in terms of quantity of harm done. However, at least when I’ve heard the argument, people aren’t making a direct equivalence in terms of harm done. They are saying that the practice of genital mutilation, regardless of gender, violates bodily autonomy in the same way.
This is kind of a shitty analogy so I apologize in advance, but we can think of it like speeding. If someone is going 60 in a 40 zone, that’s reckless endangerment and bad/condemnable. Going 100 in a 40 zone is worse for sure, but it’s ‘bad’ for the same reasons/in the same way. It’s still reckless endangerment, so it’s violating the same moral imperative. In the case of reckless driving it’s an obligation to behave in a way that doesn’t put other lives in an unreasonable amount of danger. In the case of genital mutilation it’s a violation of bodily autonomy and performance of non-medically productive procedures.
Now I know you could say “but sometimes male circumcision IS medically useful.” I know very well, my little brother was circumcised when he was 16 because he had too tight of foreskin. That’s not what we’re talking about here nor in context of the greater conversation, though. We’re talking about the standard practice of genital mutilation at birth, long before the patient has the wherewithal to give consent or even to realize there’s a problem that might need medical attention.
Again, admitting that I lack the context from your previous discussion, it seemed like you were confusing the point of arguments that compare the two. I’ve mostly heard it in the moral context, so that’s the angle I looked at the exchange from.
