By A.M.
This piece explores how I came to believe that no person who cannot consent should be subjected to any form of genital alteration.
When I first learned about female genital cutting (FGC), I immediately questioned the male equivalent. A quick Google search taught me that FGC is incredibly dangerous and has significant, long-term physical and mental health effects. Meanwhile, male circumcision is considered safe, without negative health effects, and is said to reduce HIV transmission and promote cleanliness.
There is no denying that FGC has life-long impacts on survivors’ health which is not found at the same level of severity in male circumcision, but I questioned if the data on the safety of male circumcisions was truly representative of the actual experience.
Male circumcision is a common practice in the West, where it is often performed in hospitals, but it is also practiced widely in the East, where, like FGC, it is frequently performed outside healthcare settings. So, it is possible that the proposed consequences and dangers of male circumcision are not representative of male circumcisions as a whole, but rather of the practice in Western countries. According to a study published in Urology, a scientific journal, the overall complication and risk of male circumcision is 3.84%.
However, another study, “Clinical outcomes of circumcisions and prevalence of complications of male circumcisions: A five-year retrospective analysis at a teaching hospital in Ghana,” published on PubMed Central, found the incidence of complications to fluctuate depending on who performs the circumcision. The study took place in the Volta region of Ghana and found that the incidence of complications was relatively low when the procedure was performed by doctors, midwives, and nurses. However, eight out of the ten circumcisions performed by Wanzams (traditional surgeons who specialize in male circumcision) during this study had complications. The discrepancy between a 3.84% and 80% complication rate suggests that male circumcision complication rates which do not consider region and setting of circumcisions are likely not representative of actual complication risk.
In the West, we consider male circumcision to be fairly homogenous. It is generally performed in a hospital or as part of a religious ceremony. There are four different types of FGC, which are considered vastly different from one another and are mentioned often. According to a paper entitled, “Female genital mutilation (FGM) and male circumcision: Should there be a separate ethical discourse?,” male circumcision also takes many forms, including traditional Muslim circumcisions, neonatal American procedures, metzitzah b’peh practiced by some ultra-Orthodox Jews, and subincision in parts of Australia. The belief that male circumcision is uniform is a fallacy. The idea that male circumcision is the same everywhere is a fallacy.
Male circumcision and its complications are not as widely understood as those associated with FGC. It is not considered a complex topic, dangerous, or a human rights violation, while FGC is often defined as such. FGC is considered a patriarchal practice; in some regions where it’s practiced, its goal is to prevent women’s sexuality. However, the same paper explains, Western medicine began practicing male circumcision during the Victorian period to prevent masturbation, and Jewish philosopher Maimonides argued that part of the purpose of male circumcisions was to lessen sexual sensitivity to prevent sexual urges. The central reasons for both these practices are rooted in patriarchy which produces negative effects for all people living within it.
It’s also possible to see how the proposed ‘benefits’ of FGC and male circumcision are similar. FGC is falsely believed to promote ‘cleanliness’, as is male circumcision. Though according to the Mayo Clinic, male circumcision is related to a lower risk of sexually transmitted infections, urinary tract infections, penile cancer, and the prevention of penile problems.
Both practices are believed to increase cleanliness, but where the false benefits of FGC are scrutinized, the same proposed benefits for male circumcision are accepted. FGC is understood through its long-term negative physical and psychological effects, however, male circumcision is not viewed under the same lens.
FGC is also referred to as FGM (female genital mutilation), both names show the practice as something negative. While male circumcision is neutral and sounds more medical than cultural.
The complication rates, lack of distinction between male circumcision types, reasons for the continuance of the practice, proposed benefits, and its very name are construed in a way to make male circumcision permissible. While these same considerations in FGC are considered proof that it is not permissible. It appears partially rooted in the belief that women must be protected, while men must deal with pain. This not only underestimates women, but is unfeeling towards men .
I believe neither FGC nor male circumcision should be performed on anyone who cannot consent. While consent is central to arguments against FGC, it is rarely considered in discussions of male circumcision, perhaps because it is more common in the West. Ending the practice would require Western cultures to confront the ethical consequences of their own traditions.This selective reasoning is evident in policies like “Protecting Children from Chemical and Surgical Mutilation”, which bans other forms of genital alteration but excludes male circumcision. It appears that Western countries are quick to determine which practices Eastern countries should not continue but are unwilling to consider the morality of their own practices. I do not believe the solution is to consider either FGC or male circumcision as admissible, but rather for each person to consider how culture influences the frameworks through which we make decisions and view ourselves and the world, including those frameworks that allow harm.
Disclaimer: All blogs published on Sahiyo’s website are a reflection of the views of the author, and not necessarily Sahiyo’s views. For more information on Sahiyo’s mission, please click here.
