There's nothing rational about religon.

In Australian law, children are entitled to protection from genital cutting, provided that they are female. If they are male or intersexed, they may be cut at the will of the parents.

We might like to argue that it isn't the same, that one is neutral or even beneficial while the other is harmful, that one is sanctioned by religion while the other is not and finally that one is customary and familiar while the other is not. However, the fact remains that about a half of humankind is protected from involuntary genital alteration while the other half is not.

If involuntary female genital cutting is against the law, then isn't it about time we considered the ethics of male circumcision?

Yes what about the massive torture of male circumcision, practised by the supposed peace loving and caring jews and christians. Cultural, how about superstitious and depraved, its all associated with religion and all religious cultures have used some form of barbaric torture, to restrain and control their flock.

A talented writer, would put across a balanced piece, not a politically correct feminazi format, concentrating on the gender suffering the least in numbers. I know they're pretty ignorant in some of those cultures, and support must be given to those wishing to get beyond those archaic practises. But if they want to be here, then they should give up all their cultural and religious ways to be really rid of its negatives. If they hang on to their culture, they can expect nothing, but that culture following them.

yes, i agree with mg1333. until there is opposition to =all= genital cutting of children, efforts to halt fgm will seem arbitrary.

it seems surprising, for example, that Liz Connor can pen the following paragraph:... "What about the Western medical intervention on children born of 'indeterminate' sex? What of plastic surgery and labioplasty, not to mention psychiatric operations ranging from lobotomy to removal of ovaries? What of unnecessary birth interventions such as episiotomy and some caesarian sections?"
.... without once considering any possible parallel between amputating parts of the genitals of girls & those of boys.

the truth is that in many cultures, female 'circumcision' consists of the removal of the prepuce alone, which modification is claimed by many women to improve sexual function, for an example see http://www.aznewage.com/female_circumcision.htm. what's more, female circumcision has been practiced therapeutically in the west in exactly the same way as male circumcision, for example, see http://www.noharmm.org/femcirctech.htm and http://www.noharmm.org/circumfemale.htm.

in contrast to removal of the clitoral prepuce, removal of the male prepuce involves a significant component of the skin surface & sensory capability, as well as the natural mechanical function of the penis. the impairment of sensuality inherent in male circumcision is quite explicit in the jewish and arabic religious importance of the practice. it is a sacrifice.

i don't want to trivialize the misery caused by female genital mutilation. many boys die of circumcision, but clitoridectomy & infibulation are, even in comparison to that, quite monstrous in conception & execution.

nor do i wish to align myself with The alchemist's 'feminazi' comments. i don't think genital mutilation is necessarily confined to to the domain of gender politics. wrt to male =and= female genital cutting i would simply ... "add another qualification, one that strips ambiguity from the issue. They are children."

it may interest readers to note that Africa itself is turning away from female genital mutilation. See http://www.todayonline.com/articles/134088.asp , http://www.ipsnews.net/africa/interna.asp?idnews=25793 , and many others.

Thanks for the replies.

There are indeed two omissions in the piece, one is male circumcision, which indeed falls under the principal ethical imperative I'm arguing for - they are children - and I lend my voice to calls that it be discontinued, until boys reach an age where they are able to decide for themselves, if it is central to religious identity and participation.

The last comment really needed to be followed through with the details and links so kindly provided by some of the readers. The piece popped up rather more quickly - I thought I had another week. I intended to do more research to add to that final comment, and I wanted to continue my previous efforts to get in touch with the Sierra Leone atheletes and run it by them first. Thanks to Liz SVRI and j0n0, I will certainly follow them up.

The comment by cmaro is also crucial - 'They did not approach the villages on a moral pedestal with the motive of converting those to their own superior way of life'. It's difficult however to take a position without that inference, and I imagine there may have been some women and men in those communities who did abandon the practice who nevertheless felt this was an imposed value from the West, and therefore paternalistic. That's why I make the comment about the difference between analysis and taking a position - a difficult distinction to make as an academic. And the question remains, is this a matter for 'outlawing'. Does this not make the practice more an assertion of state repressed traditional identity, and therefore more stridently pursued than it may have once been? The model cmaro refers to is undoubtedly where we should be lending our support, most crucially, I imagine, in the form of donations.