Circumcision is grievous bodily harm, German judges rule

[riderinthestorm]

184. Thanks for a thoughtful convo. A lovely Sunday morning treat

"when something is a permitted religious practice it can only (and should only) be circumscribed legally with the greatest of care and even then only reluctantly"

I can agree with that. I believe having a tactful conversation about these kinds of rituals is tricky (and I mean that on every level - from personal conversations to the larger societal discourse). Your point about calling it "genital mutilation" vs "circumcision" highlights that. For a long time, in women's rights circles where I travel, FGM was called female circumcision. It didn't really catch on as a real problem in society's eyes until it was called female genital mutilation.

Now you and I (and others) can have a dialogue about whether male circumcision is a "problem" or not and that's clearly the goal of this thread, but I'm guessing anti-male circumcision folks are co-opting the language from the women's movement.

And I'm not sure excising (heh) "genital mutilation" from the discussion is correct. From the discussion on this thread, and other DU threads, there are more than a few people who DO see it that way. Is their POV any less valid? They believe their penis has been mutilated by having the foreskin cut away. They believe its troublesome for sexual activity and other reasons. Isn't this exactly the same language we use when we talk about this for female circumcision?

So why is it okay to talk about female genital mutilation but not male genital mutilation? Why can one be called FGM but the other must be called circumcision? I believe its because those who believe in the ritual prefer to call it by shall we say, its less "inflammatory" name. It sounds awful when we call it genital mutilation doesn't it? Societally acceptable when we call it circumcision. For those who think its a mutilation and are trying to get "activist" about it, which term would you choose?