Today F is for Foreskin, or the removal thereof. In the United States (my home country) circumcision
for baby boys is routine and almost universal.
The American Academy of Pediatrics, and the American Medical Association
recommend it for all baby boys. For
Muslims and Jews circumcision is done for religious reasons. Secular reasons for circumcision are getting
hazier but revolve around hygiene and disease prevention, and historically, to
prevent masturbation. Phimosis (where
the foreskin does not fully retract) is the only medically therapeutic reason
for circumcision, and even then, there are nonsurgical alternatives.
The policy of non-therapeutic, non-consensual, secular circumcision
is getting quite controversial. The intactivists
(intact activists, clever!) use much of the same arguments that intersex
activists use. They claim any non-therapeutic
procedure, especially an irreversible one, cannot ethically be consented to by
anyone other than the patient. They feel
non-therapeutic, non-consensual, secular circumcision violates the baby’s
bodily integrity (sound familiar?) Some anti-circumcision
activists extend their view of bodily integrity to oppose intersex surgery and
female genital mutilation (FGM). Laws in
most western countries, including the United States, protect baby girls from FGM,
but don’t protect baby boys or intersex children.
It is very controversial to compare circumcision to FGM,
once euphemistically called “female circumcision.” Circumcision does not alter sexual
functioning or overall health, FGM and intersex mutilation does. Thus I do agree that non-therapeutic,
non-consensual secular circumcision is not ethical and should be stopped. I
am also glad the anti-circumcision crowd is giving intersex issues much needed
exposure, but I disagree that the two are really comparable.