Are MGM and FGM comparable?

AskingToFeminists · 2020-09-23T13:00:25+00:00

Honestly, the question of whether some forms are worse or not is pretty much irrelevant to the question of whether it should be legal or not to perform routine GM on an infant for esthetic or cultural purposes.

That being said, it's a question without simple answer : some forms of FGM are less severe than the most common form of MGM. Some forms are worse. And then, some form of MGM are less severe than the most common form of FGM and some forms are far worse.

Now, if I'm not mistaken, one of the most common forms of FGM is "simply" pricking the top of the clitoral hood to draw blood, which is a far milder form of GM than the most common form of MGM. And even that form of FGM is forbidden, as it should be, but that make it even more perplexing why MGM is still regarded as normal.

To know more about GM than you should ever have to want to know, I recommend this video.

duhhhh · 2020-09-23T13:46:56+00:00

Clitoridectomy is awful and much worse than a typical circumcision. Feminists like to count FGM using one definition and then imply all FGM is clitoridectomy for political gain. However, FGM also includes a lot of stuff less bad than infant male circumcision and all FGM is bad, ergo MGM is also bad. There is also MGM worse than clitoridectomy as well such as recent pushes to physically castrate rapists. That can never be undone if the accused is found to be innocent later.

For example clit and labia piercings on sober consenting adults....

Women who have genital piercings will be recorded as having suffered female genital mutilation (FGM) under new NHS rules due to come into force next month.

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/women-with-vaginal-piercings-will-be-recorded-as-suffering-fgm-under-new-nhs-rules-10116464.html?amp

And a year later we hear about the epidemic of FGM perpetrated in the UK ... There has been a huge percentage increase! ... We need more funding! ... Except a couple news sources came out with some raw number details. Kinda sad when the dailymail is one of the few reporting the facts...

in the year to March 2017, only 57 were performed in the UK of which 50, or 87 per cent, were in the category for piercings, and all the women whose ages were known were over 18

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-5434125/amp/Almost-FGM-cases-Britain-legal-piercings.html

And a year later the data manipulation paid off...

Now eight walk-in FGM centres, in Birmingham, Bristol, Leeds and five London boroughs, will offer women aged over 18 expert care, NHS England says.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.bbc.com/news/amp/uk-49677983

Likewise activists in Australia and the UK are pushing to get labiaplasty on adults categorized as FGM.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/aug/26/female-genital-mutilation-is-alive-in-australia-its-just-called-labiaplasty

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/women/womens-health/11475276/Designer-vaginas-to-be-made-illegal-Have-MPs-gone-mad.html

To the point the medical community is concerned about being arrested or losing medical licenses over performing cosmetic surgery in the area of the vagina.

https://www.bmj.com/content/367/bmj.l6094

How about we promote stopping all routine genital cosmetic procedures till the patient is 18?

lorarc · 2020-09-23T13:12:09+00:00

It's not victim olympics. Does it matter which one is more wrong? What is important is one is allowed in the western countries and even encouraged in the USA while other is illegal almost everywhere and performed only in some 3rd world countries (and amongst immigrants from those countries). Even if we decided FGM is a million times worse it should never be used as an argument against banning MGM in western countries. What's more priority should be put on solving issues in our own countries.

mensmod · 2020-09-23T14:09:26+00:00

Stop trying to equate the two medically. It doesn't matter.

Ethically they are similar, and that is the only argument that matters. If women have the right to genital integrity, men should, too. If it is unacceptable on religious grounds for FGM, then MGM should be, too.

Memey-McMemeFace · 2020-09-23T14:56:14+00:00

I made a post on this subreddit a few months ago that highlights this: https://www.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/f30n2r/myths_about_male_genital_mutilation_and_the

I'll paste it here.

Disclaimer: We do not claim that Genital Mutilation is anything but the most barbaric of practices, nor do we have any anti-feminist or so agenda. This is a post which is strictly to be seen constructively.

This is a summary paragraph almost entirely based on research by Brian D. Earp. (Twitter: @ briandavidearp). The original thread can be found here

FGM, definition and clarification:

First of all, the definition of Female Genital Mutilation, which, based on the WHO definition, is "injury or cutting of female [genital] anatomy for non-medical reasons. In the Western media (and popular imagination) this equates to cutting off the clitoris with a septic blade. But this is wrong. There is no form of FGM that removes the clitoris, because the vast majority of the clitoris, including its erectile tissue + structures for orgasm, is under the skin. Only a small portion protrudes outside the body & only some forms of FGM affect that part. Other forms, e.g., 'nicking' (FGM Type IV) are often done by doctors w. sterile equipment & do not remove tissue; the most popular form in Malaysia and some other countries may involve removal of part of clitoral foreskin; some forms affect labia only. source for last90125-8)

For the second point, here is a list of common FGM practices and their similar female genital 'cosmetic surgery'. Taken from this paper

In other words, the mere alteration of female genitals for non-medical reasons is not morally wrong per se. What is wrong is cutting someone's genitals without their consent.

So what about male circumcision (MC)?

There is a wide range of M.C. practices, including some that are far more invasive & deadly than many forms of 'FGM' from the WHO typology. The most deadly form of genital cutting in the world is probably MC among the Xhosa of S. Africa, not FGM. Just visit ulwaluko.co.za for more information.

Part of the problem is that when people think of MC (male circumcision), they think of American MC done in a hospital & when they think of FGM they think of clitoral excision or infibulation by an unskilled traditional cutter. But neither of these cherry-picked examples is representative.

Every group that practices female genital cutting also practices male genital cutting. When within-group practices are compared, MC is often more severe. Leading anti-FGM campaigner Ayaan Hirsi Ali had this to say:.

I think male circumcision is worse than incision of the girl. With boys, a lot of skin is removed, and where the people who carry it out don't possess the necessary skills, the consequences can be worse for boys than girls.

Another thing, as noted, is that there are no societies that single out girls for cutting; the boys are also cut, usually in parallel, often more severely, and in many cases, for similar reasons. Both practices are associated with overlapping norms and motives depending on the society.

The notion that FGM is always about 'controlling the sexuality of girls' is simply false. The notion that male circumcision is always about 'health and hygiene and elevating the male' is simply false. The shared symbolism across societies is substantial. Source, by Brian D Earp

There is another r/UnpopularFacts post that also takes heavily from research by Brian Earp: You can read it here.

Blutarg · 2020-09-23T15:08:08+00:00

It's not a matter of "how much," it's an issue of 1) an unnecessary and 2) potentially harmful procedure 3) done on someone who can not possibly consent.

intactisnormal · 2020-09-24T00:44:21+00:00

IMO don't even entertain the discussion about what is equivalent, or which alteration is worse than another alteration. Just don't even go down that path. It's emotional and there's no way to discuss that. Say that this is not a harm competition, his is not an oppression olympics, they are both bad.

What I say:

I'm not interested in comparing the two, just know that the foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.)

For more information on the detailed anatomy and role of the foreskin, I recommend watching this presentation from Dr. Guest for about 15 minutes as he discusses the innervation of the penis, the mechanical function of the foreskin and its role in lubrication during sex, and the likelihood of decreased sexual pleasure for both male and partner.

GingerRazz · 2020-09-28T17:27:17+00:00

Here's how I see it. The conversation is often done in bad faith. When it comes to FGM, people act as if only the most extreme forms exist. Things like removal of the clitoris, labia, and sewing the vagina smaller. It ignores that most studies reporting FGM consider piercings, adult elective cosmetic surgery, and ceremonial nicks to be FGM in their numbers while acting as if all the numbers reported are extreme forms of FGM.

When it comes to MGM, people talk about routine male circumcision in the first world and the outcomes there. They ignore third world practices that include more extreme forms of MGM like penile infribulation. They also discard the data showing that even when done to infants who can't form memories well, they still have primal memories leading to PTSD symptoms and attachment issues later in life compared to men who are uncut. They also compare per captia rates of complications to show MGM is less risky while ignoring the context that MGM, as compared to FGM is more fat common in nations with quality medical systems. If you compare FGM to MGM within the same location, the risks of complications are roughly equivalent.

They're both terrible ideas, but you can't declare one worse than the other as a blanket statement. In the USA, MGM is worse than FGM because FGM gets sympathy and MGM is treated as acceptable and you need to just man up if you're offended or damaged by it.

Also, circumcision can be done in multiple ways. Sometimes they remove the frenulum and sometimes they don't. Sometimes they remove more skin and sometimes less. Removal of the frenulum, sometimes called the male g spot, has a drastic effect on sensitivity. Excessive removal of skin causes painful erections, and can cause chafing during sex as the skin can't glide the way it is meant to. It also causes keratinization and drying of the glans leading to more pain for women during sex and less sensitivity for the man.

On top of all of this, the reasons that places like the USA use to justify MGM are the exact same reasons that places in Africa use to justify FGM. It just doesn't make sense how people can so easily see through to the problems of FGM but then suddenly go blind the them when the exact same arguments are applied to MGM.

Title	Are MGM and FGM comparable?
Author	Moronic-Simpleton
Upvotes	10
Comments	14
Date	September 23, 2020 12:01 PM UTC (5 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/iy8qfs/are_mgm_and_fgm_comparable/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/are-mgm-and-fgm-comparable.1194964 https://theredarchive.com/post/1194964

Comments