The reason for the difference in attitudes to male and female genital mutilation is that one has the support of wealthy and well-established groups across much of the West, and the other doesn't. Morally, both are indefensible: there's not a hair's breadth between them.

one needs to understand the difference between clitoridectomy and circumcision.

for thousands of years circumcision is and has been used .over 50%of Egyptian mummys are so .why? if it is not a beneficial it would have fallen out of favor .

while clitoridectomy has no benefits, only harm .

they are not comparable. anyone that dose compare them misses the argument

ben

I totally agree with the author.
All genital mutilation should be outlawed... Male or female.

The only real difference is that sometimes males suffer from a tight foreskin, leading to problems with urination, and thus a circumcision is necessary.
There is never any reason for female circumcision .

Anyone who wants their son mutilated so he will 'look like Daddy' , should be made to hold down their newborn while the foreskin is being cut off.
Once a few parents are forced to do this, the barbaric practice may cease.

Female circumcision is already illegal in Australia.
I would like to see male circumcision outlawed too...

@ben: "for thousands of years circumcision is and has been used .over 50%of Egyptian mummys are so .why? if it is not a beneficial it would have fallen out of favor ."

Then exactly the same can be said for clitoridectomy, which has also been used for thousands of years, and hasn't 'fallen out of favor' with a large part of the world yet. The fact that a practice has a long history and a wide use doesn't make it healthy or rational.

Male circumcision has some effects not addressed in this article or previous comments. See this and related World Health Organization papers: http://www.who.int/hiv/pub/strategic_action2012_2016/en/index.html

Once again religious superstition dictates its fear, by this macabre ritual of brutalising a male child.
Surely if their "god" did not want males to have a foreskin, he or she would not have included it in the male body planning.

This is a complex issue with diverse explanations that vary from society to society, culture to culture, and across history.

It is usually to do with the politics of gender in traditional societies. Especially in the Middle East and Melanesia.

It's a topic that's best left to anthropologists and sociologists to explore. If you're interested in delving into this subject then there are plenty of studies of it in the various anthropology and sociology journals.

The author is dead right. There is some mysterious double standard when it comes to male circumscision. It is extraordinary to see the near universal opposition to FGM and compare it to the tepid, vascillating attitudes amongst medical colleges on the subject of the circumscision of infant boys.

If an adult of either sex chooses to alter the way they look, there's not much any of us can do about that other than let him or her get on with it. But to mutilate a child of either gender is simply abhorrent.
As concerns a girl, the practice of clitoridectomy is so outside any standard of civilised behaviour that I can recognise that it boggles my mind it can still be tolerated anywhere in the world. It's illegal in Oz, and let's keep it that way. There is no place for cultural relativism here.
As concerns a boy, to make the blood sacrifice of an infant's foreskin is wholly barbaric, whether the deity being appeased is Jehovah, Allah or the Rainbow Serpent.
Think about it. A newborn (or under-aged teenager for that matter) is handed over to the priests (doctors).
Snip. Howl!
"Welcome to the world, son. We just did that for your own good."
"Gee, thanks, Mum. Thanks, Dad. I certainly do feel better now."

Why do so many stupid adults force their idiotics onto defenceless little kids ? I suppose if they were not stupid they'd wait till those kids are old enough to make a decision for themselves.

SOME GREAT MINDS ON HERE.
GREAT CHANGE COMES FROM LOOKING FORWARD NOT BACK.
SURELY THERE ARE BIGGER FISH TO FRY.
UNSCATHED.

legs2041, "The author is dead right. There is some mysterious double standard when it comes to male circumcision"

Agreed

Amazingly, it is OK to prosletyse for circumcision, a religious ritual, arguing that some women 'like' a circumcised penis. If men made the same comment about trimming the saddlebags on a normal healthy vagina there would be hell to pay. In fact there will be righteous anger at the reference to 'saddlebags' - just to prove a point.

Doctors report that the occasional skin adhesions of the penis of some boys is caused by mothers mistakenly forcing the foreskin back on infants and young boys for 'cleaning'. However that is not required in the young and the foreskin will become moveable at the right time. Mothers need some advice in that respect.

Above all, mothers should take their child home intact from hospital.

butchering the unborn is okay but snipping a bit of skin is barbaric. More idological garbage than any substance in the arguements.

It seems obvious this issue is not going to go away, so I think it worthwhile, in fact essential, to get some facts on the matter.
I have no recollection of a foreskin, so I have no knowledge of its usefulness, sensitivity (ie to touch, etc), benefits or disadvantages in sexual intercourse - for either participant - and any downsides/disadvantages generally, and particularly as relates to health, hygiene, and the contraction or transmission of infection.
In the absence of further factual information, my assessment is that the foreskin serves no useful purpose, but is rather a hindrance, with potential for various forms of irritation and greater susceptibility to the acquisition and transmission of infection. Where's the upside?
Alternatively, my assessment of the female labia is that they do serve a number of useful purposes, have reasonable sensitivity and therefore a role in sexual activity, and little capacity to contribute to the contraction or transmission of infection - that is with reasonable hygiene maintenance. Where's the downside?

Surely one does not need to bring the clitoris into this - its nature, purpose, sensitivity, etc are beyond question. Hands off!

FGCS: If some women can not learn to love their mimmy, who-ha, or whatever, without some minor trimming of some loose bits, then who has a right to tell them not to seek some adjustment - as long as they are fully informed of the dangers, etc, before proceeding, and as long as this would only ever be undertaken by a fully licensed cosmetic surgeon (medically qualified - no technicians please).
However, anyone seeking adjustment to a clitoris would appear to be in need of psychiatric evaluation.

Pending contrary evidence, I consider the merits of the foreskin to be miniscule, and to consider it a Human Rights issue is little short of ludicrous. Emotional issue, cosmetic issue, maybe.

Labia? Different story. But let's not interfere with women's rights to self-determination. Choices in conception, pregnancy, motherhood, etc. So, why not labia, if it will make her happy?

I am ready to be convinced otherwise.

"Alternatively, my assessment of the female labia is that they do serve a number of useful purposes, have reasonable sensitivity and therefore a role in sexual activity, and little capacity to contribute to the contraction or transmission of infection - that is with reasonable hygiene maintenance"

No different to the foreskin.

But then boys and their bits are dispensable.

Oh if only boys were not made of "Slugs and snails: And puppy-dogs' tails", and they could grow up as girls do into 'wonderful women' and 'goddesses'. A woman's life is worth much more than a man's. It follows that boys' bits are not worth anything at all.

No-one, absolutely no-one can threaten to remove a bit of what makes a 'wonderful woman'. Sacrilege! That societal perception makes all of the difference.

Circumcision on its own, as a physical worldly act, is bad - but the intention is far more important that the result.

If one's intention in circumcising their son (or daughter for that matter) is PURELY and UNSELFISHLY to serve God, then their actions (even when misguided) are blessed, overriding any negative material effects.

Beware, though, those who do the same for social/cultural reasons: if the motive is to gain social acceptance or recognition by one's tribe, then it is impure and not unselfish.

Those who circumcise their children in the service of God (perceived or otherwise, it makes no difference) will do so no matter what - such as whether it's legal or otherwise. As first resort they will make every effort to give birth overseas or travel with the baby shortly after birth to countries where circumcision is legal, but if not possible, then they will become true martyrs and have no hesitation going to jail or even be burned at the stake as a result. God always comes first!

So the challenge is how to deter opportunistic circumcisions without persecuting God's people.

The state is in no position to determine people's intention, to tell what's in their heart of hearts. Just imagine the slippery-slope and the level of corruption arising if it attempted to do so!

But unlike intentions, facts are clear and obvious, so if it is made publicly known that "this person circumcised their boy/girl" (perhaps even on police records), then potential employers/partners/friends/investors/clubs/students/etc. can raise questions and judge for themselves how pure were a circumciser's intentions, then decide based on that whether or not they still wish to engage with the circumciser.

Another obvious measure for preventing opportunistic circumcisions is to not provide free medical care, but rather charge parents, for medical complications arising from circumcision.

Religion/culture/tradition cannot be separated in some cases and it is useless arguing the toss. Our laws are relevant, not some imported abomination.

First, the State must provide the same rights, legal protections and education for children. That must be regardless of birth accident. For instance, that they were born to aboriginal parents where 'culture' or religion have it as you will, decrees that they, girls and boys (although only girls are only cared about by Oz society) will be molested with impunity by male and female elders.

Similarly, any noxious practice against our morals and way of life, but especially against our laws should always be deterred. An example could be ritual slaughter, where it must be non-negotiable that prior lawful effective stunning be applied.

Regarding circumcision, it would be intolerable if it was supported by the State through Medicare or through private funds unless medically necessary. First do no harm. But the cutters are forever lobbying for taxpayers to fund their nasty business.

Dear Onthebeach,

<<Religion/culture/tradition cannot be separated in some cases and it is useless arguing the toss.>>

It may be difficult to separate between culture and tradition, but religion is a whole different matter and should have NOTHING to do with the other two.

<<Our laws are relevant, not some imported abomination.>>

Your laws are irrelevant if they go against God. If they aren't imported, then very well, then they are a home-grown abomination.

<<First, the State must provide the same rights, legal protections and education for children.>>

Why "must"? That's how you want it to be, and I don't disagree, but its a personal preference, not a must. You have been indoctrinated for too long by this "politically-correct" fashion (imported, BTW).

If so, then the answer is simple: anyone inspired by God to cut off parts of their child/ren should be free to do so, regardless of gender or culture.

Nevertheless, as I mentioned in my previous post, those parents who cut off bits of their children should be named-and-shamed and those who do it for impure (such as cultural) reasons should be ostracised.

<<That must be regardless of birth accident.>>

Birth is not an accident - a child chooses to born to his/her parents.
The reason you consider birth an accident is that you have no regard but for the material world and material body, as if we were nothing but a bunch of organic molecules. You are entitled to your view, but not to impose it on others.

<<For instance, that they were born to aboriginal parents where 'culture' or religion have it as you will, decrees that they, girls and boys (although only girls are only cared about by Oz society) will be molested with impunity by male and female elders.>>

That's none of your business - you invaded their country in the first place!

You robbed their land, you robbed their dignity, now you also want to rob them of their spirit.

How is trying to impose your Western values on everyone around different than Muslims trying to impose THEIR values on others?

(continued...)

(...continued)

<<Similarly, any noxious practice against our morals and way of life, but especially against our laws should always be deterred. An example could be ritual slaughter, where it must be non-negotiable that prior lawful effective stunning be applied.>>

I am vegetarian, I am not in favour of slaughter, ritual or otherwise, with or without stunning, of animals as well as of humans, but while I don't impose my vegetarianism on anyone else, it seems that you are setting yourself on a collision course, attempting to set YOUR biased morals and way of life above others'.

As you set for an open war, be warned that your beloved state will lose and be destroyed as a result. It may not be immediate, there may be a period of darkness, but in the end nobody can defeat God. In the interim, your Julia will achieve full employment: the construction industry will be doing overtime building new prisons and every job-seeker will be immediately accepted to work as a warden. I suspect that Kim Jong-Un will arrive as a guest-of-honour to study the Australian advanced methods of incarcerating those of dissenting values.

<<Regarding circumcision, it would be intolerable if it was supported by the State through Medicare or through private funds unless medically necessary. First do no harm. But the cutters are forever lobbying for taxpayers to fund their nasty business.>>

Here I agree without reservations!

Those who circumcise their children at the service to God (again, whether God actually asked for it or not is irrelevant, what matters is that they truly and honestly believe that He did), will not mind the extra sacrifice of some dollars, while those who do so merely for cultural reasons may be deterred by the financial burden.

Yuyutsu: "If one's intention in circumcising their son (or daughter for that matter) is PURELY and UNSELFISHLY to serve God, then their actions (even when misguided) are blessed, overriding any negative material effects."

Prove God exists, and you have a case. Till then it befits us to behave like rational and compassionate human beings.

Yuyutsu,

This is a secular State. Its laws apply to religions too. Tolerance of religion does not extend to breaking laws. No 'ifs' or 'buts'.

The laws were arrived at through democratic processes and yes, the laws do express the community's subjective judgement of morals and values. That is the intent of laws.

There is nothing more crystal clear than the Australian people's demand that children be protected to the full extent of the available law and that all children are free to live a normal childhood and to receive the full benefits, including education, of living in this society.

If you want other laws you will have to convince people through the lawful and democratic processes that are available. If you don't like that, tough.

All rather instructive....Parser links to evidence showing the health benefits of circumcision and everyone avoids mentioning or noticing it like the plague. It seems that those opposed to the cut are determined to not see anything that might deflect from their just knowing that its all about religion.

Many of the things that become religious ritual are done for health purposes. The Semitic religious sanction against pork or any pig meat makes sense in a climate where such meat can go off in a spectacularly short time. Ditto the Jewish compunction to bury the dead within one day of death.

When the uncircumcised Roman armies first ventured into those climes where circumcision was practised many men suffered terribly from the hot dry dusty conditions. Now we know that, among less well developed cultures, circumcision has definite health benefits.

So circumcision isn't part of the culture because of religion, it is part of religion because of the culture.

Now it is true that these health benefits have diminished as we have become healthier, especially those of us who don't live in hot dry climates and for those reasons my own off-spring aren't cut.

But just mindlessly blaming it all on religion is...well mindless.

What records were kept of deaths and other healthy complications from improving on nature because the male body was never designed to cope with dust?

Honestly, how did women keep clean in the dust? Or was it as you imply, that only the male body evolved defective, with the fatal flaw of a foreskin?

But to play along with you just a wee (awful pun, sorry) bit more, how did 'culture' dictate ritual slaughter?

Religious superstition to control people, that is the reason, nothing deeper than dirty old buggers interfering with boys' penises and inventing an excuse to do so.

There is no justification whatsoever for requiring the Australian taxpayer to fund unnecessary procedures, religious rituals, violence with actual bodily harm, against infants who cannot give informed consent.

"Behind the religious sanitation, the motives for circumcision are pre-historic, primitive, barbaric, and cruel. Circumcision sprang from sacrificial impulses, from the desire to control individuals and to mark them with tribal identifiers, to initiate the youths into the tribe, and, through the infliction of an excruciatingly painful procedure, gain proof of the youths' fortitude and courage.12

It is likely also that mutilating the genitals of others has a deep sexual motive. This motive combined with the urge to control people when, in the nineteenth century, doctors first introduced 'medicalised' circumcision in the vain attempt to prevent masturbation."

http://www.cirp.org/library/legal/price2/

onthebeach,

I think you should take a look at the following for some more accurate information about circumcision and its history, because most of what you are stating as fact is highly inaccurate, and at best is pure, though misguided, supposition.

http://www.circinfo.net/history_and_recent_trends.html

Dear Jon,

<<Prove God exists, and you have a case.>>

What's that got to do with this topic? I suspect you already read many of my posts on OLO to know that I do not uphold that God exists - in fact I keep claiming that God's supposed existence would be a logical contradiction.

<<Till then it befits us to behave like rational and compassionate human beings.>>

I like the "like". So you already realise that humans in general are NOT rational beings, and a large proportion are not compassionate either (like those who try to enforce their values on others) and I can go further and add that we are not human beings in the first place, but you are now proposing that it befits everyone to display a good-old British stiff-upper-lip, PRETENDING that we were those "rational and compassionate human beings".

Even the most rational thoughts rest on a bed of irrational assumptions. For example, that obsession with existence, that silly and IRRATIONAL assumption as if the moral code by which we conduct ourselves should be based on what exists.

Dear Onthebeach,

<This is a secular State... If you don't like that, tough.>

This is a common logical fallacy, named "Argumentum ad baculum"!
(if you don't know what this means, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_baculum)

You have already declared an open war on God's people, yet you day-dream on them happily surrendering their hearts and minds and that which is dearer to them than the breath of their life, to your evil Godless lifestyle. You are up for surprises, lad. Your human-made laws mean less to me and the other people of God than discarded nail clippings.

Dear Mhaze and Saltpetre,

Robert Darby based this discussion on the assumption that circumcision is as bad on boys as it is on girls. If that assumption fails, then this whole discussion is meaningless, but let's not divert the topic midway.

Saltpetre, what about Condoms! They would have saved a lot of STD infections over the past century.
HIV came to light in the late seventies and was fully recogonised and information publically made known in 1982. Today medicine has gained control of HIV to the benefit of persons afflicted, who now live fulfilling lives.
HIV is predominent in Africa, where Condoms are not freely available, nor the medicine to contol the infection.

Saltpetre

You didn't care to mention that Brian J. Morris is the author of the site you posted. Morris's recommendations are highly controversial figure, as a Google search will show.

As far as I was able to establish, Morris is a biologist, not a member of any of the professions one would look to for advice on elective cosmetic surgery of infants. Goodness knows why he is on a mission against little boys' bits.

All anaesthetics and surgery carries some risk. That risk is so much higher for infants. Why would a mother put her perfect little infant at risk unnecessarily? Did she and Nature produce a defective child?

Infants can lose a critical amount of blood into a nappy without it being noticed as concerning.

Forget improving on nature, just wash with clean water and do not try to move the foreskin on a child to 'clean'. That can cause skin damage. The foreskin will move of its own accord later.

Should be, " Morris's recommendations are highly controversial, as a Google search will show".

I would agree. after reading about Brian J. Morris "Crusade" for male circumsion.
To quote him as a criterion for overall child male gentital mutilation, is medically dangerous.

Onthebeach and Kipp,

I provided that link for access to comprehensive factual information about circumcision and related issues, and if you only looked at the site you would quickly see that your criticism of Morris and of his motives is totally unfounded.

BTW: I was looking for facts in my original post. None have been forthcoming. So, here are some facts: The anterior tip (prepuce, or opening end) of the foreskin contains significant sensory nerve cells, and in that respect is similar to the female's clitoral prepuce; the sensitivity obtained is one reason for retention of the foreskin; however, if there is evidence of phimosis in the infant this may mitigate sufficiently in favour of circumcision.

http://www.circinfo.net/physical_problems.html

Onthebeach, your advice re care of the intact male infant should be part of the education of all prospective mothers. Good-on-ya.

However, does the following brief extract on Dr Morris' credentials sound as though he is not qualified to research and discuss this issue?

"Brian J. Morris was born in 1950 in Adelaide, South Australia, graduated from the University of Adelaide in 1972 and obtained his PhD from Monash University and University of Melbourne (jointly) in Melbourne in 1975, before doing 3 years of postdoctoral research in the USA, firstly at the University of Missouri, Columbia for a year, and then at the University of California, School of Medicine, in San Francisco.
He returned to Australia in 1978 after being appointed as an academic at The University of Sydney in 1978, won the Edgeworth David Medal (state award for science) in 1985, was awarded a DSc in 1993, and was appointed to a Chair in the School of Medical Sciences in the Faculty of Medicine from 1999. He was elected as a Fellow of the American Heart Association in 2003. In 2006 he won The Faculty of Medicine Award for Excellence in Postgraduate Research Supervision."

<Circumcision booklet slammed by sexual health expert
“A serious disservice to parents”

BOOK REVIEW
Brian Morris, In favour of circumcision. University of New South Wales Press, 1999 (Paperback, 104 pp, $16.95)

Reviewed by Basil Donovan
Director, Sydney Sexual Health Centre

The author (Morris) is an eminent molecular geneticist, but not a clinician, though a layperson could be forgiven for failing to discern the latter fact from the author’s biographical details. He gives himself away with his first clinical anecdote, received via email correspondence to the author’s pro-circumcision website:

A concerned father: “We have a boy of two years and four months with balanitis and retraction problems (not confirmed). Right now it is 3 am, and my son is crying as he has done since yesterday. We are waiting until we can take him to his paediatrician. … I feel bad at not having my baby circumcised when newborn. … What can be done to relieve the pain until the doctor sees him? (Today is a holiday in my country.)”

A clinician would have advised this distressed father that we don’t forcibly retract two-year-old foreskins. The lay readers of this book should also have been told this, but they were not. Moreover, balanitis is rarely so painful – this child should be directed to an emergency department to have more sinister pathology excluded. Indeed, a number of the author’s email correspondents seemed to have more serious problems above the belt than below it.

................
I have no strong feelings about the medical indications for male circumcision either way. It is a culturally entrenched practice with mainly murky evidence to inform the debate. This sort of document adds to the murk and amounts to a serious disservice to parents.

Basil Donovan is Director of the Sydney Sexual Health Centre and Clinical Professor in the School of Public Health and Community Medicine, University of Sydney.>

http://www.historyofcircumcision.net/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=64&Itemid=50

'Prove God exists, and you have a case. Till then it befits us to behave like rational and compassionate human beings. '

Dare I say JonJ supports butchering children in the womb. Very compassionate! Oh thats right we will use science to redefine a child.

Sometimes the consequences of circumcision are beyond comprehension:

http://www.straitstimes.com/breaking-news/se-asia/story/indonesian-mother-kills-son-over-small-penis-police-20130228