This is the second post in a series on genital mutilation I'll be writing. In part I, I talked about the similarities between the justifications and rationalisations that mutilating cultures employ to defend these traditions and how those that manage to break free see them—as innately similar.

In this post, I will be write about the physical, practical differences between the different procedures that add up to what we collectively refer to as genital mutilation.

This post was inspired by freedom0speech's video on the subject which while interesting was not really as accurate or in-depth as it could have been.

I will start here with a question: how do you quantitatively measure the differences between different kinds of genital mutilation? Almost everyone that discusses this subject takes this for granted; of course some forms of genital mutilation are worse than others. Note that I am not disagreeing, but right away it should be apparent that this is the first instance where a different answer to that question can lead to each party being unable to understand the other.

Most people would say that we should look at the intent behind the action, the damage being done, the suffering being caused or a combination of the three. In my previous post I argued that there is no actual difference when it comes to the reasons that families choose to mutilate their children, regardless of sex. Yet we are still left with two reasons, seemingly at odds. They are really not if you think about it: damage in this context (the physical, bodily kind) implies suffering, whether immediate, deferred or unrecognised by the sufferer—and of course inflicted suffering is itself a form of damage.

So we're looking at two sides of the same coin, for all the good it does us because we're still far from being able to decide how to rank the different types of genital mutilation along this suffering-damage axis.

In one of his blog posts, the ironically Jewish Eliezer Yudkowsky asked his readers which one of these scenarios was worse: 

"Would you prefer that one person be horribly tortured for fifty years without hope or rest,   or that 3^^<sup>3</sup> people get dust specks in their eyes?"

Most that replied, at least those that didn't try to evade the question with sophistry, gave a definitive answer and even went on to elaborate in great detail why it was the correct one. Except that there was, surprisingly, no consensus among these nerds as to which of the two choices was morally optimal.

So lets take advantage of their discomfort and look at our problem in that light. What is worse, a comparatively smaller number of women suffering relatively worse kinds of genital mutilation or a larger number of men (six times as many) being subjected to a relatively less severe form of genital mutilation? I will not attempt here to provide an answer to this particular question.

Now you might be wondering why am I using terms such as "worse" and "less severe". Well, like freedom0speech, I have my own personal ranking of the different kinds of genital mutilation, which I've written about about here on r/MensRights before and will refer to now:

  • Castration
  • Penectomy
  • Infibulation
  • Penile subincision
  • Extensive internal clitoridectomy
  • Partial external clitoridectomy
  • Complete removal of the foreskin and frenulum
  • Partial removal of the foreskin without loss of the frenulum
  • Penile urethral perforation
  • Dorsal slitting for the foreskin and foreskin perforation
  • Labial ablation with or without removal of the clitoral hood
  • Excision of the clitoral hood
  • Pricking, slicing and otherwise damaging the glans
  • Pricking, slicing or otherwise damaging the clitoris

Notice that this is a comprehensive list that includes all currently practised forms of genital mutilation, regardless of target, rarity or intent, and none of those such as penile skin stripping which are thankfully extinct as far as I know. I used two criteria to determine this ranking based on my knowledge of the subject; invasiveness and loss of function. The latter in particular is relevant as another one of those factors which people rarely consider; most only go as far as recognising the fact that the glans and clitoris are roughly analogous in one aspect without also considering all the other functions the penis serves that the clitoris does not.

I will end this post by acknowledging that I did not go into detail about certain standards for comparison, such as: "FGM is usually performed out in the bush by a one-eyed, arthritic tribe elder with a piece of twine and a broken shell." Statements such as these are the result of ignorance and ethnocentrism from Westerners (usually Americans) that universalise their particular brand of MGM. This is closer to the average male circumcision than whatever advert of peaceful, happily anaesthetised and eternally grateful babies Americans fantasise about.