Because Sometimes More is More
You need to stop calling circumcision Male Genital Mutilation. Is it bad? Yes, but by calling it Male Genital Mutilation you are comparing it to and making it a direct parallel of Female Genital Mutilation, which is completely inaccurate. Male circumcision involves removing part of the foreskin from the penis. Female Genital Mutilation involves cutting off the clitoris (Which is really just a lady penis) entirely, and sometimes removing ALL of the external female genital. That would be like cutting off your penis and scrotum entirely. Because we are an androcentric society, by drawing a direct parallel between circumcision and female genital mutilation, you trivialize female genital mutilation and make it seem like it’s not as bad as it actually is.
I’m not trying to say that circumcision isn’t a bad thing, but you really need to call it something that’s not Male Genital Mutilation because you can’t even pretend it’s as horrific as Female Genital Mutilation.
Here’s the thing. NO.
I will continue to call it by what it is, which is male genital mutilation, I really could not give less of a shit about you throwing a temper tantrum over the terminology of it, simply because there are instances of FGM that are worse.
You clearly are un-educated about FGM, since it is in fact, split into 4 types, with subsections within.Type I(a): Removal of the Clitoral Hood (prepuce)
Type I(b): Partial or Total removal of the Glans Clitoris
Type II(a): Removal of the inner labia
Type II(b): Partial or Total removal of the Glans Clitoris & Inner Labia
Type II(c): Partial or Total Removal of the Glans Clitoris and the Inner & Outer Labia
Type III: Infibulation, Total removal of all visible external genitalia, with or without removal of the glans clitoris, with remaining skin sewn together and allowed to heal, leaving a small hole roughly the size of a matchstick, to allow for urination.
Type IV: Defined by WHO as “all other harmful procedures to the female genitalia for non-medical purposes, for example, pricking, piercing, incising, scraping and cauterization.”We can draw a direct parallel between MGM and Type I(a) FGM, because it is removal of the prepuce, it is exactly the same operation.We can also draw a less direct, but still apt parallel between MGM and Type II(a), and form of Type IV (which, by the way, is the FGM Type that was in fact pushed by the AAP, before FGM was outlawed)By drawing a direct parallel between MGM and FGM, it does not “trivialize” FGM, it shows exactly what MGM is, GENITAL MUTILATION.And y’know what, what you are doing, is in fact trivializing MGM, by saying “FGM IS SO MUCH WORSE, SO DON’T DARE CALL IT GENITAL MUTILATION”, despite the fact that is is genital mutilation.On a different track regarding this, I think I’m more likely to listen to survivors of FGM about THEIR feelings of MGM, and guess what, they consider it mutilation, and will refer to it as Male Genital Mutilation, or Male Genital Cutting, because that is exactly what it is.
But hey, what d’you know, shitty feminists talking over victims and people who have more knowledge and experience than them in a particular subject, nothing new there.
As a male-identified person with a circumcised penis, if you’re REALLY going to call men who have been circumcised “victims,” then I truly, deeply feel nothing but pity for you, because you’ll never know what it’s like to be an actual victim.
Also, I fail to see how I’m talking over anyone since, you know, it was a blog post with no direct response to anyone. And I’m pretty sure that I have just as much experience with circumcision as you do and that you’re really just a misogynistic imbecile who thinks the lack renders women inferior.
But hey look more butthurt MRA’s who want to pretend men have it bad. Go back to Reddit you disgusting fedora wearing buffoon.
Nice job actually responding to what I said, and not just throwing about baseless accusations.
Wait, that’s not what you did.
People who are genitally mutilated at birth, are victims of genital mutilation, so yes, anyone (and that DOES include men who are mutilated at birth) are victims of it.
You are doing nothing here but further showing contempt for the very idea that men and boys can be victims in this society, which is beyond disgusting.
You fail to see how you’re talking over anyone? How about when you so easily exclaim that male genital mutilation, shouldn’t be referred to as such because there are instances of female genital mutilation that are worse than MGM, despite the fact that victims of FGM who speak out against the act, also decry MGM as mutilation, and hold that it is a disgusting barbaric act that should be named as such?
THAT is how you are talking over people, when there are women who are victims of FGM who talk about MGM, and call it as such, and decry the act, you shut up, sit down and listen to them.
But no, really, please continue, show us all how biased you are, and how much you love to ignore the lived experiences of victims, continue to pretend that cutting of part of a child’s body without permission isn’t bad, show us how much bodily autonomy doesn’t matter, when the person in question is male.
The only disgusting buffoon here is you, and that is readily apparent to anyone who can read what you are saying.
Also, it’s not only MRAs that are calling circumcision genital mutilation, much like it’s not just radical feminists who call female circumcision genital mutilation. The governing medical body of the Netherlands issued an updated policy statement on circumcision in 2010 that made a very direct parallel between male and female circumcision, going as far as to conlude that, “There are good reasons for a legal prohibition of non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors, as exists for female genital mutilation.” I don’t think that very many of the 40,000 Dutch doctors wear fedoras, or are buffoons for that matter. But if you personally don’t think that this is genital mutilation, OP, than this certainly isn’t either. Have a nice day.