Are We Equal?

While the message of "we should stop this" is good, the "are we equal" question is actually a wasteful and even offensively dismissive distraction.

Every culture where female genital mutilation is practiced, male genital mutilation is also practiced, so the answer there would be "yes, you are equal." In terms of number of victims worldwide, male genital mutilation has many more, though, so the answer there would be "no, not equal, you are less commonly mutilated."

Asking "are we equal?" makes zero argument for stopping female genital mutilation.

Where female genital mutilation is outlawed, male genital mutilation is still legal, so the answer there would be "no, not equal, you are more protected." In those cases, would they want to be equal?

Asking "are we equal?" makes zero argument for stopping female genital mutilation.

In addition, they use the same old "female genital mutilation is much worse than male circumcision" argument, which serves no purpose besides suggesting one should get attention and the other shouldn't.

Again, "are we equal?" is a pointless question, because not only does it not provide any argument against female genital mutilation, but they obviously don't want to be equal, or they wouldn't portray the issue as "horrible genital mutilation" for one sex and "just circumcision" for the other.

I am of course all for ending genital mutilation, but people need to think through things before they go making videos which don't provide intelligent arguments and attempt to trivialize the issue regarding anybody not within their pet demographic.

What I wish I had said...

I attended a lecture about infant male genital cutting yesterday and afterward I found myself being asked questions about my interest in the subject by somebody writing an article on it. One of the lines of questioning went something like this:

Interviewer: So, you oppose the practice based on how it violates the child's right to body integrity?

Me: Yes.

Interviewer: Are there any other reasons?

I didn't have a good answer for that one, because there was just too much to say in response. Everything covered throughout the entire lecture was another reason, from myths that clearly have no factual or rational basis forming the foundation of the pro-cutting position, to the attempted imposition of moral "pre-punishment" and sexual control the mutilation represents, to the procedure being in violation of every modern medical ethics measure, to the dishonest way it is marketed, to the shitty way the legal system handles the subject, to the fact that it can be viewed as violation of the child's religious freedom, etc.
However, this is what I wish I had said:

Other reasons?

Isn't that one enough?

A cosmetic surgery which drastically changed the function and appearance of my genitals was forced on me without my consent. The mutilation left me with virtually zero fine touch sensation and greatly, severely diminished erogenous sensation of any type, from what I gather, possibly much less even than many other mutilated men. The mutilation also left me with damage to vital subcutaneous structures resulting in consistent pain and ever-present risk of further, much more severe complications in the future. The only real option I have for resolving the most concerning damage and corresponding pain is additional surgery, which carries risks of its own and is probably as likely to make things worse as it is to improve anything.

I will spend my entire life not knowing what it is like to look down and see my genitals the way they were meant to appear. To feel the sensations I was meant to feel. To experience sex without at least as much pain involved as pleasure. To not have to put substantial effort into the sometimes futile attempt to acheive orgasm, not just within a specific timeframe, but at all.

I will spend my entire life "playing through" the discomfort, disfigurement, disfunction and dysmorphia that I was never given the option to refuse, simply because the people who were supposed to be looking out for my interests apparently thought their perverted aesthetic preferences about a helpless infant's genitals were more important than my right to not have normal, healthy parts of my body crushed, ripped and cut off without my consent.

And the real kicker is, mine was considered a "successful" mutilation, because I was lucky enough not to be one of the victims to bleed to death, or contract a fatal infection, or lose much more of my genitals to the procedure than was intended, or end up with any number of other more severe deformities than I did.

Isn't a person's right to decide for themself whether they want to be subjected to such an unnecessary violation of their body enough reason to oppose the practice, so somebody else has the opportunity to choose whether they risk going through the rest of their life dealing with the same things I do...or worse?

I guess it likely wouldn't have made much difference to say it.
Probably would have been a bit too long of a quote to make it into the article anyway.

Africa Prediction: Female Genital Mutilation Increased as AIDS Prevention

No, I'm not advocating any type of genital mutilation.
If you clicked on the title to rip me a new one for being such a horrible person, too bad. I hate the idea just as much as you do. I'm simply predicting that it will happen.

With that disclaimer out of the way, let's get to the actual content.

How can I make such a prediction?
How can the two possibly be linked?
How can that even be possible?
Why do I suspect that's where things are headed?

I'll tell you, but first, let me tell you when it started.

Now.
Well, not exactly, but we'll get to that in a bit. However, let me tell you why now is important.

As you may have heard, three groundbreaking studies have recently concluded that circumcision of males prevents HIV transmission. This seems like great news, because a simple snip of the foreskin will make a huge dent in the epidemic, right?

Wrong.

What you may not have heard is that all three of those studies were designed by known male circumcision advocates - and later manipulated, specifically to conclude that circumcision was the answer, in contradiction to the actual data. Here's how:

• In all three studies, the circumcised group had to abstain from sexual activity for a period of time, while the uncircumcised group were free to maintain normal sexual activity. Obviously, the circumcised group contracted fewer cases of HIV, because they were not having sex. Abstinence was the only relevant variable at that point.

• In all three studies, when the circumcised group started sexual activity again, they actually started catching up in number of HIV infections to the uncircumcised group, demonstrating that if anything, they may have been contracting the infection more readily than the uncircumcised group. This does not at all suggest circumcision is an effective preventative measure.

• All three studies were terminated early, before the numbers could equalize, even though in one of the three studies the circumcised group had come close to matching the number of infections as the uncircumcised group. This demonstrates that when things didn't go the way they were hoping, the circumcision advocates running these three studies decided it was best to cut them short, before the results could prove the theory wrong. They then announced their findings to the world and the "Circumcise Africa!" campaign was born.

Pretty sneaky, huh?

How does this relate to Female Genital Mutilation?
Hold on, I'm getting there. First, let me tell you what I think will happen next and where it came from.

Next, they will start routinely circumcising infant boys.

It is reasonable to assume that male circumcision will progress in Africa in a similar manner to the way it did in the USA - That is, it started as a way to "protect" certain people at risk for diseases - in the USA it was "masturbation, infection, venerial disease, cancer, blindness, insanity, death..." and a whole huge list of other afflictions the foreskin was blamed for causing. The issue actually started a long time ago in the USA. It then became a "preventative" measure which was routinely performed on infants, because it was promoted as "harmless and even beneficial." "Harmless and beneficial? Why not just get them right out of the womb to make it easier?" I suspect this is the next stage in the progression of genital mutilation in Africa.

But, you still haven't told me how this relates to FEMALE Genital Mutilation!
OK, now I'll tell you.
The answer is, The Stallings Study.

That's right. There was a study, claiming that female circumcision decreased the chances of contracting HIV. It exists. It happened. It is out there, waiting for concerned (or motivated) Africans to find and interpret however they want to.

Results
The crude relative risk of HIV infection among women reporting to have been circumcised versus not circumcised was 0.51 [95% CL =0.38

In fact, this study makes the specific assertion that female genital mutilation, not male is the main statistical difference in relative risk:

Both circ vs male only = 0.56 Relative Risk Estimate
Both circ vs neither = 0.55 Relative Risk Estimate
Male circ vs neither = 0.97 Relative Risk Estimate

But how could that be?
It's actually very simple. It's probably true. It's probably true for the same reason those three "groundbreaking" male circumcision studies found an initial difference between the two groups: decreased sexual activity. When a woman receives little or no pleasure (possibly even intense pain, depending on the specific procedure) from sexual activity, she is less likely to participate in sexual activity, therefore lowering her risk of contracting HIV. The question is, do you think the Africans who heard "male circumcision prevents AIDS" and didn't bother to question why will be more concerned with the reason why female circumcision has been shown to have the same effect, or do you think "female circumcision prevents AIDS" will be enough once again?

But they'd never go THAT far, would they?
They already do. Female Genital Mutilation is happening in Africa right now. On top of that, "more advanced" cultures have now told them that cutting off parts of genitals is not only the answer to the AIDS epidemic, but is even a good thing for the person's general health. "Civilized" people advocating circumcision + lower risk of HIV for circumcised females? At some point, somebody is going to add 2 + 2 and get 4. When that happens, a whole new wave of "preventative" Female Genital Mutilation will begin. Last I heard, women contracting HIV from rape and then infecting other men was considered a major cause in the spread of the disease, so why wouldn't they try to do everything they possibly could to prevent women from contracting it? Remember, these are also the people who are advocating putting all homosexuals to death. Do you really think they're going to stop short of female children in the effort to solve the epidemic, when they already cut the genitals of female children, or do you think they'll just do it more?

What if we just hide that study?
Even without that one particular study, how long do you think it will take for the people who advocate Female Genital Mutilation to find other studies, or pick up on the statistics and start doing studies themselves? Hell, even without medical justification, people are already doing it, so why wouldn't the advocates decide to do the same kind of shifty study that was done to promote male genital mutilation? The notable thing is, this may even encourage them to suggest the less invasive forms be intensified to increase the "benefit" of the procedure. Women who would have otherwise only been subjected to the lesser forms of genital cutting may instead be subjected to the forms which are designed to make any sexual activity as unpleasant as possible.

Who's to blame for this? What can be done to stop it?

Who's to blame?

You are.

Every person who has not stood up for a child's right to genital integrity, whatever form they may be in, has contributed to the idea that it is acceptable to mutilate children.

Every person who has participated in the "circumcision" of infants, whether they be a medical professional or not, has perpetuated the tradition of mutilation.

Every mother or father who did not protect their child from being cut when they were able has let that child become yet another victim, instead of an example.

Every person who has said Male Genital Mutilation is "not the same thing" has contributed to the environment which lets people not only condone, but advocate genital mutilation in Africa.

Every male who is angry about having his basic human rights violated and yet refuses to speak out is contributing to the silence which allows ignorance.

And every person who has been witness to somebody claiming genital mutilation in any form is a human rights violation and still couldn't be bothered to read an article and pass on a link to somebody else is guilty of maintaining that ignorance.

What can be done?
People need to be taught that proper hygiene, safe sex practices and medicine are preferable and more effective methods of controlling disease than genital mutilation. We need to start advocating the benefit of condoms and safe sex education, the dangers of rape (even for the perpetrator) and the sanctity of genital integrity for everybody.

Sadly, I think the seed has been planted already in Africa and the idea of cutting genitals to prevent AIDS will invariably result in the mutilation of more children, both boys and girls, than would otherwise be subjected to such abuse. In my opinion, the only way to convince the people in Africa that genital mutilation is wrong, is if the rest of us "civilized" societies can agree that ALL genital mutilation is wrong, be they female, male, or intersexed genitals. Every child must be protected from non-therapeutic genital surgery before any child can truly be safe. Then, when we tell Africa we were wrong to suggest it in the first place and plead for them to stop mutilating their own children, they won't simply look at us and say "Why shouldn't we, when you still do?"

Originally written 12-27-2011

How to dispute an argument in favor of male genital mutilation:

Question: If any of the arguments in favor of cosmetic (non-essential for immediate health) modification of a male baby's genitals (such as "reduced HIV infection" or "it's just a little snip") were also true for in any way cosmetically modifying a female baby's genitals, would it be beneficial for cosmetically modifying a female baby's genitals to become a common practice as well?

---

Possible Answer 1: No.

Rhetorical Response: So, since cosmetic modification of males isn't a problem, but cosmetic modification of females in any way and for any reason is abhorrent, You think people should be treated in fundamentally different ways dependent on nothing but their gender?

---

Possible Answer 2: Yes.

Rhetorical Response: So, since studies have shown that female genital mutilation actually does produce many of the same touted benefits in a statistically significant way and some forms of it are actually less invasive, you think we should start routinely cosmetically modifying female babys' genitals then?