Circumcision: A brief comparsion between the sexes

Edit - Big thanks to Laura MacDonald for highlighting a mistake I'd made. Purely due to ignorance on my part, so thank you for letting me know. It's also reminded me that I'd meant to put a note before each piece:


If I'm factually wrong about something then I'd like to know. If you have information or a link that show that I've got something wrong or I'm assuming something I shouldn't, then please let me know in a comment or email. I'm all for accuracy! Thanks.

In recent years I've taken quite an interest, if that's the right word, in the practice of circumcision.
Specifically male circumcision, though this would be the thought present in most heads, as the general public is conditioned to think of female circumcision as "Female Genital Mutilation" (FGM). And quite rightly too as pretty much all cutting of a child's genitals falls directly under the definition of mutilation. An exception might be made for a pin-prick or small nick, but that's clouding the issue somewhat: often a discussion can devolve into what "really counts as mutilation".

There is a mental disconnect in minds throughout the world, though it seems in the USA in particular, concerning the cutting of a boy's genitals when compared to the cutting of a girl's. I single out the US as non-therapeutic routine male infant circumcision is more common in America than any other 'Western' country (or so I'm lead to believe - corrections welcome). While cutting off the foreskin more or less right after birth dwindled in practice in the UK, Europe and Australia (to a lesser extent) after the second world war, the habit has persisted in the US and has only seen a decline in recent years.

FGM is illegal in the US and the UK: all types (I-IV) are banned and have been for some time. The most well known type of FGM involves a clitoridectomy, whereby some or all of the clitoris is removed. The persistent image is that this is done with a rusty blade or a sharp stone, on the dirty floor of a mud hut while a young girl is held down, fully aware and without anesthetic, screaming in pain and crying. I won't deny that this happens, because it does, and in any case it's not something I'm trying to contend. Rather I'm trying to demonstrate how and why people react so strongly when someone tries to compare cutting boys and cutting girls.

FGM is seen as backward, barbaric, evil and done only to deprive women of sexual function and sexual pleasure. The first three qualities are subjective, but I would agree with the description: it's wrong and reprehensible to remove part of someone's genitals without their consent and for no good medical reason. No-one who knows the first thing about female genitalia or FGM can deny the last two: removing the clitoris takes away a large collection of sexual nerve endings and the oft accompanying infibulation damages and restricts function too. However there follows an assumption that women who have had such a procedure are totally unable to enjoy sex of any kind, with claims to the contrary often met by suspicion ("Why would you defend it?") and refusal to accept the possibility. But it is not the case that all pleasure is lost: at least one study has shown that circumcised women can enjoy sexual intercourse. Not that I personally think that matters, as I don't think it gives FGM a positive spin in any way. But there is nothing wrong with accuracy, as often the outright denial of such aspects of reality will bolster the opposition into believing that their detractors spread lies and untruths. It's also intellectually dishonest to ignore the facts, particularly when does undermine one's argument: If someone cuts off one of my toes with an axe, they are unlikely to be let off simply because I am still able to walk properly. Similarly, there have been the occasional findings that imply FGM can protect against diseases like HIV. The correct reaction is not to ignore it, but say: "So what?"

So why hand anyone a weapon to hit you with when there's no need? Being corrected on even a trivial point like that could be seen to undermine an argument. In the majority of cases a circumcised male doesn't lose all sexual function or pleasure (some is lost - always), but neither does a woman always lose all feeling or function. But of course when it comes to FGM very often other factors are at play, for instance the aforementioned infibulation. Essentially this involves the sewing up of the vagina, leaving a small hole for urine and menstrual blood to pass.  This hole can be used as evidence that a woman is a virgin on her wedding night, and is cut open for the consummation. Obviously this will make the act of intercourse painful, to say the least.

Bringing us back to male circumcision, it should be obvious why some people have a knee jerk reaction when someone says that FGM and MGM have similarities:

"What?! No way! Boys aren't held down and cut with a rusty knife and then have the end of their penis sewn up! It's clean, it's done in a hospital. And it's done for the right reasons!"

The reasons? Well, I'll get to them, extensively, in the future. But for now let's focus on the basics:

• Female circumcision, or FGM: A girl is cut, we'll assume without her consent (FGM often takes place on older girls), and in a number cases has some part of her genitals removed, while another form is a ritual nick, or cut, on or around the clitoral hood. The removal of tissue will mean a loss of sexual function, but all forms are a violation of autonomy.

Whereas:

• Male circumcision, or MGM: A boy is cut, without his consent (the vast majority of cases are within days of birth), and in most cases has part of his genitals removed (very few circumcisions in the male case are 'only'a nick or pinprick to draw blood on the penis). This means a loss of sexual function, but all forms are a violation of autonomy.

Let's condense the two somewhat to make my point even clearer:

• A child is cut, without its consent, and in many cases has part of its genitals removed, though in many others a small amount of blood is drawn via a nick or a pinprick. The former will mean a loss of sexual function, but all are a violation of autonomy.

From this starting point, it should be clear how, if not why, people are able to draw comparisons between male and female circumcision. It should also be quite clear why the automatic denial, (faux?) outrage and dismissal by those who think they know better is seriously misplaced. Considering that the majority of female circumcisions do not involve the removal of tissue, it is confusing as to how FGM is seen as absolutely and unutterably 'worse' than MGM.

My point with this short piece is to try and establish the idea that cutting a child's genitals should be viewed as wrong (in non-medical cases) regardless of the sex.  However, there are a number of reasons why there is continued resistance to the idea of equating the two practices and I shall attempt to address them in future posts: namely the motives behind circumcision.