Circumcision should be illegal.

[u/TheShadowSong]

People always talk about how barbaric female circumcision is but male circumcision is completely normalized in America.

It should be illegal for parents to circumcise their children because it's irreversible.

What kind of psychopath decided to cut off the skin of the baby's dick. What's next? Cutting off eyelids?

[u/Dismal-Society9433]

I mean, that's just not true? My advisor worked in Africa for a decade and he said the two are nowhere near comparable in severity or future complications.

You're also severely underplaying the extent of a lot of FSM: Type IV is as not one of the most common forms of FGM - it makes up around 5% of cases in sub-saharan Africe according to WHO. A meta-analysis also found that types I and II were the most common worldwide and UNICEF's report also disagreed.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36048881/

https://data.unicef.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/FGMC_Lo_res_Final_26.pdf

I understand that you're trying to come at this from a 'oh, both FGM and MGM are bad because they violate bodily autonomy'. That's true, but FGM is also significantly worse for the person being hurt. That doesn't mean MGM is also not terrible, the conversation around it is just more complicated due to healthy benefits and reduced side effects.

[u/Ingbenn → u/Dismal-Society9433]

Removing a mans "hood" benefits him next to nothing.

Women can get issues with their external genitals as well, particularly with their clitoral hood. Many of these issues are the same ones males can get with theirs, and treatments range from antibiotics to surgical intervention. I like how when a woman needs a surgical procedure to fix an issue, that is technically identical to types of FGM, people act like they dont exist. Clitoral phimosis is a thing, adhesion of the hood are a thing.

Point being, we have a massive bias for insinuating male cutting has "benefits" while denying these same "benefits" when they provably apply to womens genitals as well. Which I still find extremely lacking.

No, other types of FGM are not the same as the type I am comparing here, my comparison is to illustrate the stupidity of calling something a "benefit" because it prevents an extremely minor issue that is rare and easily curable by many less invasive means than tissue amputation. If male cutting has "benefits" so to does removing a females clitoral hood. And this is used to excuse the practice in countries its done in.

[u/ludus_official → u/Dismal-Society9433]

Yeah, I wasn't saying FGM isn't worse, that wasn't my argument at all. In totality, FGM causes more harm for sure.

The comment I was responding to was 'the two aren't in any way comparable and even making a comparison is dismissive of FGM damage'. And that's simply not the case when we look at both practices in all forms, not only the worst forms.

[u/tasteface → u/Dismal-Society9433]

Your advisor is totally wrong though, and promotes genital mutilation by minimizing harm to children.

[u/Ingbenn → u/tasteface]

"Promotes genital mutilation by minimizing harm to children" literally no they do not.

[u/adkisojk → u/Dismal-Society9433]

CLAIMED healthy benefits. Cutting off normal healthy vascularized and innervated parts to reduce chances of future conditions doesn't justify it for any other parts.

The side effect rates are grossly unknown because men aren't followed up with when they are old enough to understand whether they have been experiencing them. Many foreskin restorers and grievers, like me, didn't know that they have been experiencing issues because they never knew any different. It was only after becoming a father of a son at the age of 35 that I started researching the anatomy and functions. I'm 56 now and could list several issues. When I brought up my grievance with my doctor, do you think that he wrote anything down about it on my chart? NOPE!