[txlurker]

To: Squeako; JillValentine Equating female genital mutilation, which flat *removes* the primary sexual ganglia, with male circumcision, reveals either huge ignorance of the medical facets of these two things, or a hugely disingenuous agenda about something involved in one, or both, of the two procedures.

I think both Squeako and JillValentine were trying to be sarcastic. If not, then I applaud your statements and am sickened by theirs.

[Squeako]

"To: Squeako; JillValentine Equating female genital mutilation, which flat *removes* the primary sexual ganglia, with male circumcision, reveals either huge ignorance of the medical facets of these two things, or a hugely disingenuous agenda about something involved in one, or both, of the two procedures."

I think both Squeako and JillValentine were trying to be sarcastic. If not, then I applaud your statements and am sickened by theirs.

There certainly was much sarcasm in my post. However, there have certainly been many male infants who have died as a result of complications of routine neonatal circumcision, even when performed in a hospital. The procedure performed on this girl would be wrong even if it happened under such conditions.

My argument against doing this to males is that the tissue is there for a legitimate reasons, it isn't "extra", and its removal often does have consequences involving future sexual function. It simply must, and is the goal. The circumcised penis does not function the same way as the intact penis. This is the point in the discussion at which someone says, "I never had any problem." Maybe, maybe not. It would be hard to tell with parts that have been missing nearly one's entire life. The point is that it's typically unnecessary.

Of course there are differences in the procedures. I was primarily addressing the attitude I see most often from women, that it's perfectly fine to remove specialized male genital tissue, however much, but unacceptable to perform such a procedure on a girl. Often it has the appearance of a twisted N.O.W. procedure with the goal of emasculation.

I've heard all sorts of arguments from women, even "Uncircumcised is gross, so I'll gladly do that to my sons as a gift to my future daughters in law." (That one was here on FR!) God forbid a man is able to grow up knowing everything he was born with is still there simply because his mom thinks it's gross! Another was, "Do you know how hard it is to clean all that skin from being in a dirty diaper?" So, removing healthy, specialized sexual tissue unnecessarily simply because the outside is easier to clean (for a parent) is somehow a good thing?

The argument against the procedure for girls but supportive for boys really boils down to the amount of tissue. Females do have other erogenous areas, so all is not lost, right? (/sarc, BTW) Males still have the glans, so all is not lost, right? (/sarc again) Would male circumcision be wrong only if the glans is also removed? I think not. They are both wrong to be performed on an unconsenting, minor patient.