I’m pleased to see that this post hasn’t turned into a “What about the MENZ?!?!” shitshow. Unfortunately, the same thing can’t be said for Amanda’s post on the same topic, even though she specifically expressed her irritation with such comments. Just a dozen or so comments in, a dude shows up to inform everyone of the “fact” that female genital cutting is almost the same thing as male circumcision.
In a word, no.
First, let me say that I would not circumcise my male child. I personally think that altering someone’s genitals when they’re a baby and are unable to consent is seriously fucked up. I also understand that many parents are under the impression that circumcising boys is healthy, and so I can’t fault parents who have circumcised their sons. We all do our best. But I feel fairly strongly that circumcision is wrong when done without the consent of the person having their genitals altered.
It’s also worth pointing out that in some societies, male circumcision is a rite of passage into adulthood, not a surgery done in infancy — meaning that boys around the age of 12 are circumcised. I’m not arguing that circumcising a 12-year-old is worse than circumcising an infant, but there is something that seems more troubling about forcing someone to undergo a painful, involuntary surgery when they’re an age where they are fully conscious of the pain and will be able to remember it.
That does not, however, mean that male circumcision is anything like female circumcision.
Male circumcision involves removing foreskin. It may slightly decrease sexual sensitivity, but that’s hard to know, since most men are circumcised as infants or children. As an aside, I did know someone who was circumcised as an adult, and he said that it felt “different” but never said if it was better or worse. But no one argues that male circumcision takes away a man’s ability to feel sexual pleasure.
That is what female circumcision does. Clitoridectomy, the least bad of the four types of female genital cutting, splits or removes the clitoral hood, and/or removes part or all of the clitoris. Type II FGC, called excision, removes the clitoral hood, the clitoris, and most or all of the inner labia. What’s left of the inner labia are often sewn together. Type III, infibulation, is the removal of all external genitalia — the clitoris, the outer labia, the inner labia, everything. Wikipedia describes it like this:
Infibulation involves extensive tissue removal of the external genitalia, including all of the labia minora and the inside of the labia majora, leaving a raw open wound. The labia majora are then held together using thorns or stitching and the girl’s legs are tied together for two – six weeks, to prevent her from moving and allow the healing of the two sides of the vulva. Nothing remains of the normal anatomy of the genitalia, except for a wall of flesh from the pubis down to the anus, with the exception of a pencil-size opening at the inferior portion of the vulva to allow urine and menstrual blood to pass through, see Diagram 1D. This type of FGC is often carried out by an elderly matron or midwife of the village on girls between the ages of two and six, without anaesthetic and under unhygienic conditions.
A reverse infibulation can be performed to allow for sexual intercourse (often by the husband using a knife on the wedding night) or when undergoing labor, or by female relatives, whose responsibility it is to inspect the wound every few weeks and open it some more if necessary. During childbirth, the enlargement is too small to allow vaginal delivery, and so the infibulation must be opened completely and restored after delivery. Once again, the legs are tied together to allow the wound to heal, and the procedure is repeated for each subsequent act of intercourse or childbirth. When childbirth takes place in a hospital, the surgeons may preserve the infibulation by enlarging the vagina with deep episiotomies. Afterwards, the patient may insist that her vulva be closed again so that her husband does not reject her.
Even calling that “circumcision” doesn’t really do it justice. And that is why the Pandagon thread makes me want to hit something.
Writing about female genital cutting and asking that we stay on the topic of female genital cutting is not the same as defending, excusing or giving a pass to male circumcision, the same way that writing about rape and not mentioning groping is not the same as defending, excusing or giving a pass to groping. This isn’t even analogous to the “what about men who are raped” conversation — at least there, we’re talking about the same thing, just on a different scale. Yes, male and female circumcision both involve altering someone’s genitals without their consent. But that does not make them analogous, and bringing up male circumcision in every post about female genital cutting is not only tiresome, but incredibly offensive.