ABSTRACT: Say it with me now, female genital mutilation (FGM) and male circumcision are not equivalent. This is a really, really simple concept to grasp.
It has come to my attention (rather unfortunately since I’m going through a period of high stress at the moment and I have a hard time dealing with this level of stupid at the best of times, really) that everyone’s favorite shrill concern troll has yet again decided to trot out a thoroughly discredited line of argument against male circumcision. I’d like to say at the outset that I’m not pro-male circumcision: if I ever have a son, I’m not sure what I would do. I have no problem with people advocating for abolishing the procedure. What I most decidedly DO have a problem with, is people mobilizing florid rhetoric, faulty logic, and stupid lines of argumentation at the expense of women. But mostly, the bad logic hurts me.
This, to me was the most telling juxtaposition in the relevant post:
“But I’ll stick to facts, rather than opinion.”
“Now, don’t worry too much about the facts. I’m sure they’re debatable and I accept that I might have made a few assumptions. Just concentrate on the question.”
Well, which is it? I can’t answer the question if the underlying facts and premises are wrong. That’s not how logic works. That’s a REASONING FAIL. So, lets look at some facts, shall we?
FACT: The clitoris is NOT equivalent, in any sense, to the foreskin. The foreskin does not contain anywhere near the number of nerves the clitoris contains. The clitoris, in point of fact, contains twice the nerves of the entire glans (including the foreskin) The clitoris even has its OWN tiny foreskin. If people were running around chopping the entire head off of baby boys’ penises, you’d have what we call equivalency. But I haven’t heard of anyone doing that, soooo…
FACT: Female Genital Mutilation (FGM, sometimes referred to as female genital cutting or FGC) is practiced with the express purpose of removing ANY AND ALL pleasure from the sex act for the female in question. It is a means of oppression. Its entire purpose is to reduce the woman to her husband’s property and to remove her bodily and sexual agency. It is horrific. On the other hand, whatever you think of male circumcision, I don’t think anyone can argue with the fact that there are lots of circumcised penises out there that still *really* enjoy sex. Not so with women who have undergone this intentionally barbaric ritual, which is often performed in unsanitary conditions and without anesthetic. And it would be laughable to argue that circumcision has kept men down or somehow made them second-class citizens. So argue all you want about how terrible circumcision is for teh menz, I won’t stop you. I might even agree. But it’s completely beside the point, because the two procedures (if you can even call the butchery of FGM a “procedure”) are not even remotely comparable. This is like playing “which of these things is not like the other” with a particularly dense child.
FACT: There is a growing body of evidence that circumcision protects against the transmission of more than just HIV. It prevents the infection of the owner of the penis and it protects anyone the owner of said penis might penetrate later. And in developing countries where condoms aren’t always readily available, this is a good thing. You can choose whether you find this compelling enough to have the procedure done or not: that’s up to you. If you consider an individual and public health benefit to be worth a slight loss in sensation (as I said before, circumcised penises are completely functional). You might think it’s worth it, someone else might think it’s not. And, regardless of what you chose, you should be thankful you live in a place where you have steady access to condoms.
Gee, now that we’ve established that FGM and male circumcision are not equivalents, how could I possibly consider your question, o prolific and cacophonous concern troll? The fundamental premise is false. Your hypothetical has become magical thinking (“Yeah it’s wrong, but what IF IT WERE TRUE?! WHAT THEN?!”).
So the question is, will facts prevail over opinions? I think there’s a lot to be said for both sides of the male circumcision issue: what I don’t want to see happen is for parents who decided to have their sons circumcised, whether out of cultural momentum or some pretty compelling medical data, to become demonized. These decisions are very personal and involve a lot of personal decision-making. The issue isn’t black and white. What is clear, however, is that comparisons of male circumcision to FGM are not only disingenuous, they’re intellectually bankrupt. Worse, refusing to acknowledge the severity of FGM is reality-denying (which doesn’t look good on anyone) and is typical of a lot of misogynist thinking.
If you want to have a crusade against male circumcision, go for it, everyone will be bowled over by your passion. Start introducing misinformation, concern trolling, and false equivalencies that trivialize very real, very horrible problems that women face, and you will run into problems. Come up with a new line of argument, tighten up the reasoning a little, and lay off the misogyny.
But alas, this particular concern troll has in the past displayed a stunning unwillingness to engage facts and learn. To borrow from Barney Frank, having an argument with said troll would be like trying to argue with a dining room table, and I have no desire to do it.
UPDATE: Apparently, everyone’s favorite concern troll™ claims he didn’t compare male circumcision and FGM. To which I and everyone else with basic reading comprehension skills says: bullshit.
I linked to the relevant post, but let me reproduce another section of it here:
“And, finally, assuming that a man’s foreskin (containing 50,000 nerve endings) is equivalent to a woman’s clitoris (also containing 50,000 nerve endings) I asked the following:
If you knew it would reduce your daughter’s chance of HIV infection, should she choose to have unprotected sex with somebody who was possibly infected, from 1 in 750 to 1 in 1,250, would you advocate a ‘clitectomy’ – removing her clitoris – at birth, like the CDC is advocating boys are circumcised?”
Sooo… his entire point hinges on the claim that male circumcision is just as bad as FGM, that once that similarity is understood, everyone will cease and desist with the male circumcision. I’d now like to post a definition from the OED (just so there’s no confusion):
compare, n: The action, or an act, of comparing, likening, or representing as similar.
So, in other words, you keep using that word: I don’t think it means what you think it means. It just makes me feel tired when people don’t even understand what it is they’re arguing. Like I said, dining room table.