Legalize Foreskin

widdershinsgirl:

freedominwickedness:

random-guy-on-teh-interwebz:

It’s a claim that I have come across often during the circumcision debate. Namely, that female circumcision is an atrocity, that cannot be tolerated at all. OK, I can agree to that. Yet once I say “It’s like male circumcision” some people say “it doesn’t compare at all how dare you”.

So can…

Type I FGM — the mildest common form — consists of removal of the clitoral hood and the clitoris itself, making it equivalent to chopping off your entire penis.

In Type II FGM, the inner labia is also removed.

In Type III FGM, the entire labia is removed and the wound is fused shut, leaving only a tiny hole for pee.

Reblogging for truth bomb. Circumcision of the penis is not in ANY WAY comparable to FGM.

In my perspective this comparison is typically denied because of cultural and gender bias. I know it’s difficult to ascertain people’s behind-the-scenes reasoning, but that has been my impression based on my time reading and blogging about the issue. The best evidence I can give for my perspective is the frequent knee-jerk and EMPHATIC fashion in which this comparison is rejected, often by those who seem to know little about either practice, as well the fact that some people are actually offended by the comparison.

So here’s a complete and accurate breakdown of FGM classification. It should also be noted that, to my knowledge, all of these are prevalent. (In other words, it isn’t the case that one or two of these are the most common while the others are rare.)

• Type III - Much more damaging and harmful than male circumcision. Along with the drastic tissue amputation the wound is sealed to act as a permanent chastity belt until it is reopened upon marriage, and perhaps also before childbirth. As bad as all forms of genital cutting are, this is that much more traumatic, invasive, and potentially life-threatening in terms of health risks. Perhaps this is what some people think of when discussing FGM vs. male circumcision, whereas there’s considerable variety within FGM.
• Type II - Another relatively more extensive form genital excision.
• Type I - Here’s where freedominwickedness is incorrect. Type I “is the removal of the clitoral hood (Type Ia); or the partial or total removal of the clitoris, a clitoridectomy (Type Ib)”. This is a lot more in line with male circumcision, which is a lot more extensive and damaging than many people realize or are willing to acknowledge.
• Type IV - Yet another category, that is described as “all other harmful procedures to the female genitalia for non-medical purposes, for example, pricking, piercing, incising, scraping and cauterization.” A lot of this refers to the type of female genital mutilation that happens in Malaysia and Indonesia. This is good example of something that would probably be classified as Type IV, although beware that the page has graphic photos. This form of FGM is perhaps less extensive and damage than male circumcision, and is certainly less damaging than Type III.

Now the whole thing with ALL of these practices is that they are WAY past the line of what should be allowed to be done to children. We have no qualms about Type IV or even Type I being included with Type III and Type II, so why are we continuing to ignore the seriousness of the genital mutilation practice known as male circumcision?