Timeline for In most U.S. states, female genital mutilation is illegal. So why is male circumcision legal?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
23 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 1, 2020 at 13:52 | history | edited | Russell McMahon | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 282 characters in body
|
| Apr 9, 2020 at 5:30 | comment | added | Swedish Architect | Let us continue this discussion in chat. | |
| Apr 9, 2020 at 0:18 | comment | added | Russell McMahon | @SwedishArchitect Datapoint only. I have friends who spent time on a 'mercy ship' with a team doing fistula repair - mainly for women who had been butchered by more than (hopefully) usually incompetent FGM. That helps to add some bias to one's perspectives as an olde antipodean male looking on from far away. I was personally involved in MC at a very young age :-) which further adds to my bias and perspectives. We left our own son as-is, but I have never had any personal problems that I am aware of with my personal involvement in the process. | |
| Apr 9, 2020 at 0:14 | comment | added | Russell McMahon | @SwedishArchitect I suspect that getting a -1 overall vote ("Not Useful"!) after the re re editing is not engaging with the brains of the participants abd to cast more pearls is unlikely to be an overly good use of time. It somewhat balances the overall information input (which is NOT a veiled criticism of other input) , and those who find it useful can pursue such links as seem of value to them. I do not claim to be an expert in the field but felt that some commentary on the initial premises seemed useful. Ypour input has been useful for me and I hope to look at it in more detail sometime. | |
| Apr 8, 2020 at 17:42 | comment | added | Swedish Architect | This answer would be improved by a commentary which justifies neonatal circumcision when the health benefits accrued are largely limited to sexually active men. It would be further improved by some political commentary on the situation | |
| Apr 8, 2020 at 12:25 | comment | added | Swedish Architect | @RussellMcMahon - that's not exactly the picture on the ground. Many American (But not Australian) doctors will recommend it to expectant parents, even if that is not the stance taken at the health authority level. Now compare circumcision rates in US vs AUS/NZ - currently us at 60% of neonates, AUS/NZ nearer 10%, I see a fairly large discrepancy given the health authorities in both countries take the same stance. The US does promote MC, at the scale of doctor-parent, albeit not at a health authority level. | |
| Apr 8, 2020 at 11:31 | comment | added | Russell McMahon | @SwedishArchitect The US medical community hardly "promotes" MC. They say it has neyt medical benefit but not enough to warrant the choice being other than the parents'. Australians say the same. | |
| Apr 8, 2020 at 11:26 | history | edited | Russell McMahon | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 974 characters in body
|
| Apr 8, 2020 at 11:05 | comment | added | Swedish Architect | These health benefits are known about globally. Howver, amonst developed nations only the USA promotes male circumcision for health benefits. Across Europe, UK, China, Japan, South America health authorities do not recommend neonatal circumcision. This answer begs the question of cuktural bias in the US, which my answer addresses. | |
| Apr 8, 2020 at 0:55 | history | edited | Russell McMahon | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 745 characters in body
|
| Apr 7, 2020 at 21:13 | comment | added | Tim | @PoloHoleSet again, I understand your point. I think the answer is very unclear in expressing what you’ve said in your comments. There’s a very strong implication made by listing (only) the benefits of something, that said thing is beneficial. An edit could clear things up. | |
| Apr 7, 2020 at 21:13 | comment | added | PoloHoleSet | @Tim - The answerer makes NO CLAIMS, at all, about whether it is beneficial, overall, and mentions that it is debated, possibly, to avoid false claims that the answer is making those claims. This person is actually sticking to the subject, and you are criticizing them for not going on a tangent that is not responsive to the question. | |
| Apr 7, 2020 at 21:11 | comment | added | PoloHoleSet | @Tim - but that's a clearly documented medial claim of benefits.Pointing out that some benefits do exist is not a claim that something is, overall beneficial. Whether it is, in total, positive or negative is also not relevant to the question. It doesn't matter if you can find seven people who dislike anyone mentioning that there are medical benefits to something they might feel is negative overall. The question asks about FGM vs circumcision. The answer isolates a very discrete aspect - that there are some claimed medical benefits for one, and compares it to there being none for the other. | |
| Apr 7, 2020 at 21:06 | comment | added | Tim | @PoloHoleSet that sentence, to me (and 7 other people who agree with my comment) is a claim that circumcision has benefits. There’s no point saying that these are debated if you then only show half of the debate. | |
| Apr 7, 2020 at 21:05 | comment | added | PoloHoleSet | @Tim - So what is unclear about - "Male circumcision has medical benefits which have been and are debated ongoingly. There are modern well qualified experts who recommend it on solely medical grounds. I am not aware of any competent medical expert who recommends FGM on solely medical grounds." | |
| Apr 7, 2020 at 21:02 | comment | added | Tim | @PoloHoleSet it would be helpful if the answer explained that then. Right now, that’s entirely unclear. | |
| Apr 7, 2020 at 20:13 | comment | added | PoloHoleSet | @Tim - except this answer isn't claiming that male circumcision is beneficial, and isn't comparing benefits vs drawbacks. The answer is pointing out, and documenting, that there are no supposed medical benefits to FGM that could even be claimed, while there are some that can be claimed for the circumcision. That is a difference. It's not a biased answer, at all, unless you make the false assumption that this answer is trying to claim it is a beneficial practice, overall. | |
| Apr 7, 2020 at 12:45 | comment | added | Swedish Architect | This answer consists merely of a list of health benefits (which are indeed debated, and with good reason - many of the health benefits are more readily obtained with non-surgical means - condoms and safe-sex are far better at preventing STDs/HIV than circumcision). This does not explain why neonatal circumcision is permissible - given many of the health benefits apply exclusively to sexually active adults, and are therefore not applicable to neonatal circumcision. Also - if we imagine this as a table of "advantages" and "disadvantages" - the foreskin, the tissue removed, is not counted. | |
| Apr 7, 2020 at 12:43 | comment | added | Tim | You’ve missed all the documented negative effects of make circumcision, which makes this a very biased answer. | |
| Apr 7, 2020 at 11:56 | history | edited | Russell McMahon | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 6139 characters in body
|
| Apr 7, 2020 at 8:48 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| Apr 7, 2020 at 10:20 | |||||
| Apr 7, 2020 at 1:59 | history | edited | divibisan | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Though they would deserve it, let's not call for violence here
|
| Apr 7, 2020 at 1:37 | history | answered | Russell McMahon | CC BY-SA 4.0 |