Sheryl Saperia: Male Circumcision is Not Mutilation, Period.

Drainedsoul · 2012-07-03T21:55:14+00:00

This person is one of the dangerous kind of people who don't have proper argumentative skills, but who have just enough argumentative skills to pass themselves off as if they do to the population-at-large.

You'll notice that her arguments and conclusions are dependent on omissions or misdirections, or on hoping that her audience will be too overjoyed about her conclusions to question the odious implications of her arguments.

For example:

[...] means that [security of the person] should be balanced against other compelling rights, such as religious freedom.

Circumcision has nothing to do with "religious freedom". Religious freedom is a negative right, i.e. it constrains the state from doing things to you -- i.e. you cannot be punished for simply believing as you do.

But "religious freedom" does not give you rights. You do not -- because of "religious freedom" -- gain rights -- such as the right to mutilate someone else's body, just as "religious freedom" doesn't give organizations like the WBC the right to assault, kill, et cetera homosexuals.

Another example, she quotes:

FGM has no health benefits, and it harms girls and women in many ways. It involves removing and damaging healthy and normal female genital tissue, and interferes with the natural functions of girls' and women's bodies.

Notice how this argument against FGM rests on:

No health benefits.
It inflicting harm -- "removing and damaging healthy and normal female genital tissue".
Interfering with function.

Then as the "other side" -- addressing MGM -- she quotes:

That it "is one of the oldest and most common surgical procedures worldwide, and is undertaken for many reasons: religious, cultural, social and medical. There is conclusive evidence from observational data and three randomized controlled trials that circumcised men have a significantly lower risk of becoming infected with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)."

She totally forgets about points #2 and #3, which she rigorously raised (the quote only mentioned the lack of "health benefits" in passing) in opposition to FGM, and focusses in on so-called "health benefits".

A resistance to HIV, which is extremely contagious, doesn't necessarily attack via the sexual contact vector, and isn't completely obviated by the procedure (i.e. the gained resistance is not 100%), is not a compelling counter balance to the harm and loss of normal function.

FGM and MGM are both mutilation, and both indefensible, full stop.

(I posted a condensed version of this comment on the article...whenever (if?) it gets out of moderation...)

hardwarequestions · 2012-07-03T22:14:23+00:00

and certain people wonder why we feel the need to argue against circumcision...

because others out there are arguing FOR it.

Irrel_M · 2012-07-04T01:30:57+00:00

[permanently deleted]

rapiertwit · 2012-07-04T02:30:47+00:00

I consider circumcision debate to be the male equivilent of the abortion debate.

Feminists tell men that if we don't have a womb, we don't really get a say... and for the most part I agree with them.

However, since cigendered women do not have penises, in this case, they should not get a say.

memymineown · 2012-07-03T22:37:04+00:00

Don't comment here. Everyone already agrees with you.

Go there and tell her what you think!

ThePigman · 2012-07-04T02:02:03+00:00

She doesn't really believe this - if she did she would let a doctor hack off her clitoral hood and not complain about it.

J__Man · 2012-07-04T03:15:57+00:00

HOW! How in the fuck can being cut reduce my chances of getting HIV?

2012-07-04T17:51:08+00:00

What a relief, some lady said it's ok ,so now I feel all better about it.

MockingDead · 2012-07-05T19:59:36+00:00

Well then I can dismiss Sheryl Saperia out of hand. If cannot see that purposefully modifying a human's body without their express consent is mutilation, then we can't converse. Because if circumcision is not mutilation, then neither are foot bindings.

AryoBarzan · 2012-07-04T07:40:17+00:00

Sheryl Saperia is the Director of Policy for Canada at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. In that capacity, she will expand FDD's national security work among Canadian policymakers, media and allied organizations. Based in Ottawa, Sheryl joins an international team of FDD professionals working out of Washington, D.C., Brussels, Berlin, and Prague.

Sheryl served previously as the director of government relations at a public policy consulting firm in Ottawa, and the senior legal and policy advisor for a counterterrorism advocacy organization. She has been heavily involved in drafting Canadian federal legislation that would allow victims of terrorism and their families to launch civil lawsuits against local and state sponsors of terrorism. She has also testified as an expert witness before Canadian parliamentary committees and appeared on television and radio. The bill, now a piece of government legislation, has been introduced in the House of Commons.

Can SOMEBODY please tell me how somebody so unbelievably stupid, ignorant, unable-to-assess proper points and literally pushing to REMOVE rights away people has this list of achievements? It really baffles me that THESE kind of people are allowed to enforce legislation. Is there really NOT anybody else for the job then this nitwit?

Celda · 2012-07-04T04:47:53+00:00

I don't have a strong opinion on the larger part of this editorial, or on whether male circumcision represents a potentially tolerable habit in general. Regarding the title and her comparisons to female circumcisions, however, there's a good scientific point hiding in there behind her petulent and unjustified absolutes.

Male circumcision as generally performed, and certainly as performed in a western hospital, is indeed not medically an act of mutilation. There are indeed no compelling benefits, but likewise it's no more risk than if a doctor gave you a tongue or navel piercing. There are likewise degrees of female circumcision that are analogous to male circumcision, and could probably be just as medically safe when correctly performed.

There are much more severe types of common female circumcision, however. In an infibulation, practiced in various cultures clear across Africa and Asia, all layers of the labia are removed, and sometimes the clitoris. The woman's legs are tied together from hip to ankle for weeks while the scarring process proceeds, with a tiny obstruction in place to preserve a passage for blood and urine.

Thus the woman cannot have sex until the scar is pierced by a blade, penis, or other intrusion; the process of breaking through the scars via intercourse takes at least several days and often several weeks of repeated attempts. Some scars are never pierced without blades; doctors have reported breaking scalpels upon some women, requiring the surgical equivalent of poultry shears to reopen the vagina. Many women never have intercourse without severe pain, and others never at all. In cultures where non-virgin brides are ostracized, her sexual liberty is completely gone. It's impossible to mistake whether or not she's still a virgin when someone looks at her.

Beyond the severe interference with sexuality, the procedures also increase risks of vaginal sepsis, fistulas between the vagina and the bladder or anus which cause other infections, hemorrhages, etc.

So please don't confuse all this woman's babble about religious freedom, all of her ignorant, misandrist bluster, with any real medical or cultural equivalence between male and female circumcisions. Some types of female circumcision as performed in some cultures are highly analogous to the male procedures, both medically and culturally. Others are absolutely inexcusable from any medical or ethical standpoint, leading to dangerous infections and severe social subjugation, and rightly require abolition.

Title	Sheryl Saperia: Male Circumcision is Not Mutilation, Period.
Author	MikeFromBC
Upvotes	18
Comments	34
Date	July 3, 2012 9:44 PM UTC (14 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/w00is/sheryl_saperia_male_circumcision_is_not/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/sheryl-saperia-male-circumcision-is-not-mutilation.1018635 https://theredarchive.com/post/1018635

Comments