ENGLISH Hello peeps, Welcome to another issue of Girlsplaining, where I - a girl - explain things. I don't pretend to be an expert on these topics; in fact, I am not. But I'm a fast learner, and I can easily explain the basics to increase your chances of someday winning 'Who wants to be a millionaire?' with every article you read.
Sorry but this was cringe and it illustrates why we shouldn't be feminists! Genital mutilation is essentially the same irrespective of the genitals being mutilated and the creed or culture of the victim. It is done to brand the new generation as belonging to the community and it is generally worse for boys than girls. The sources you use are all biased and the reasons you come with to construct a false distinction between the cutting of male and female genitals is boysplaining and an insult to male victims, some of whom have paid the ultimate price.
You claim cutting males is religious whereas cutting females isn't, not true. First even if it were true does it make any real difference? If a religious person could convince you that it was also religious to cut females, would that make it more palatable, acceptable, for you? Religion is an aspect of culture and whether religious or not it is still a cultural practice, a harmful one. You write that to many it is regarded as a religious practice. When people of a certain religion say a practice is part of their religion, who are you to tell them otherwise? The Islamic Council of Malaysia have declared not only that female cuttting is a part of their religion but that it is mandatory, would you tell them to their faces they are wrong? The Islamic sect the Dawoodi Bohra also say it is part of their religion and in the court cases there have been in USA and Australia, the prosecution has never denied this. Then t here is the fact that as good as all girls cut outside of Africa, are Muslim. What possible connection is there between girls cut in the Philippines and those in Somalia other than Islam? The historical data is clear, female cutting was introduced to Southeast Asia with Islam as an Islamic practice within the Shafi'i branch, one of the four branches in Sunni Islam with today hundreds of millions of followers.
Nobody knows how exactly ritual genital cutting started as it originated in Africa when we were all Africans long before Jesus Christ who, incidentally wouldn't have had a posthectomy as practiced later, but a acroposthion, a much less radical cutting. Cutting is always seen as beneficial to those practicing it just as any other harmful cultural practice. How about removing the clitoral foreskin to make it easier for a women to become aroused and increase fertility? The fact is that many justifications are given which naturally fit with community values and norms so exactly the same ones can be found for men and women and in different communities at different times. So the claim of sexual enhancement for women is made for example in some parts of Malaysia and indeed in the modern West, starting from the 70s when feminists emerging from the sexual revolution of the 60s siezed on the issue and Blue Shield insurance in USA removed it from it's health insurance cover. the same goes for the opposite claim, that it diminishes sexual pleasure in men, which is one of the major reasons it started in USA, check out the cereal man, Kelloggs. Since you take a particular interest in the Jewish practice, this is what revered Jewish leaders have stated:
"Circumcision is a symbol of two things necessary to our well being:
1. The excision of sexual pleasure
2. To check a man's pride"
Philo Judaeus, 30 AD
"The bodily pain is the real purpose of circumcision. One of the reasons is to bring about a decrease in sexual intercourse and a weakening of the organ. The fact that circumcision reduces sexual sexual pleasure is undeniable."
Moses Maimonides 1180 AD
"Foreskin represents man's worst animal-like urges and must be forcibly harnessed."
Nosson Schermann, 1985 AD
"Impairment of sexual sensation is a special virtue of circumcision."
Paysach Krohn, 1985 AD
One real difference between the cutting of boys and of girls is that the spectrum of procedures is far more limited in the former, although I have already covered one which was historical. Genital surgery, as in a medical. not ritual, procedure, is naturally performed on female genitals just as it is on male ones, there being nothing magical about female genitals! Genitals are fleshy highly innervated and vascularised bodily appendages whether male or female and broadly susceptable to the same ailments, although the female more often. In genital surgeries, as with others, stitching or clamping of the wound is required to complete it. When female genitals are stitched it is almost invariably after the very common medical procedure called an episiotomy. In contrast when male genitals are stitched it is almost invariably after the very common ritual procedure called circumcision. Other genital surgery may be required due to adhesions, cancer etc. and just as with an episiotomy, naturally the advantages are considered to outweigh the disadvantages. Whether a procedure is regarded as mutilating has nothing to do with advantages or disadvantages to health. When a women shows off her breast enlargement it would be very derogatory to say she had been mutilated despite there being only health disadvantages to the procedure. If on the other hand the result was not as she had been led to believe it would be and felt it left her disfigured, then she could quite rightly be said to have been mutilated.
You are buying into very stupid cutting myths if you truly believe parts of the normal body are amputated for the benefit of ease of cleaning! If you think it is true for boys why not girls? Normal genitalia in cultures where the norm is for it to be cut, is considered unclean irrespective of gender. Since the discovery of germs cutting cultures have conflated spiritual and physical cleanliness, saying those not cut are smelly and dirty whether girls or boys. It is all bodyshaming the normal genitals as part of the pressure to force social conformity of the practice.
No, cutting boys is not about UTIs or STDs, that's just cutting cultures seeking scientific justification and again it is used irrespective of gender. Independent research out just a couple of months ago shows that it is the reverse, that cutting increases the risk of STDs and both male STDs and male UTIs are far more common in USA where most boys are cut soon after bírth than in Europe where only the fewest are. In fact the estimated death toll from UTIs in days old male babies is almost 50 times higher in USA than here in Denmark! The notion that creating an open wound in an environment with faecies and urine reduces infections, is frankly nuts! If you think amputating parts of the normal male genitalia prevents infections, then why wouldn't you think doing the same with female genitalia wouldn't have the same effect, and females get far more infections?
Here is a list of complictions from up to 100% risk for genital cutting irrespective of gender:
Short term:
Haemorrhage
Urinary retention
genital swelling
Damage to the urethra - fistulae
Infection
Long term:
Genital scarring unsightly and painful
Keloids
Epidermoid inclusion and sebaceous cysts
Neuromas
Poor urinary flow
Dyspareunia
Apareunia
Dysorgasmia
Anorgasmia
Nerve impingement
Impaired sexual function
lacerations during intercourse
Psychological sequelae:
Flashbacks
PTSD
Anxiety
Difficulties to reproductive functions
anejaculation/haematocolpos
Don't tell me they are different! As long as this is feminism, nobody should be a feminist!
Sorry but this was cringe and it illustrates why we shouldn't be feminists! Genital mutilation is essentially the same irrespective of the genitals being mutilated and the creed or culture of the victim. It is done to brand the new generation as belonging to the community and it is generally worse for boys than girls. The sources you use are all biased and the reasons you come with to construct a false distinction between the cutting of male and female genitals is boysplaining and an insult to male victims, some of whom have paid the ultimate price.
You claim cutting males is religious whereas cutting females isn't, not true. First even if it were true does it make any real difference? If a religious person could convince you that it was also religious to cut females, would that make it more palatable, acceptable, for you? Religion is an aspect of culture and whether religious or not it is still a cultural practice, a harmful one. You write that to many it is regarded as a religious practice. When people of a certain religion say a practice is part of their religion, who are you to tell them otherwise? The Islamic Council of Malaysia have declared not only that female cuttting is a part of their religion but that it is mandatory, would you tell them to their faces they are wrong? The Islamic sect the Dawoodi Bohra also say it is part of their religion and in the court cases there have been in USA and Australia, the prosecution has never denied this. Then t here is the fact that as good as all girls cut outside of Africa, are Muslim. What possible connection is there between girls cut in the Philippines and those in Somalia other than Islam? The historical data is clear, female cutting was introduced to Southeast Asia with Islam as an Islamic practice within the Shafi'i branch, one of the four branches in Sunni Islam with today hundreds of millions of followers.
Nobody knows how exactly ritual genital cutting started as it originated in Africa when we were all Africans long before Jesus Christ who, incidentally wouldn't have had a posthectomy as practiced later, but a acroposthion, a much less radical cutting. Cutting is always seen as beneficial to those practicing it just as any other harmful cultural practice. How about removing the clitoral foreskin to make it easier for a women to become aroused and increase fertility? The fact is that many justifications are given which naturally fit with community values and norms so exactly the same ones can be found for men and women and in different communities at different times. So the claim of sexual enhancement for women is made for example in some parts of Malaysia and indeed in the modern West, starting from the 70s when feminists emerging from the sexual revolution of the 60s siezed on the issue and Blue Shield insurance in USA removed it from it's health insurance cover. the same goes for the opposite claim, that it diminishes sexual pleasure in men, which is one of the major reasons it started in USA, check out the cereal man, Kelloggs. Since you take a particular interest in the Jewish practice, this is what revered Jewish leaders have stated:
"Circumcision is a symbol of two things necessary to our well being:
1. The excision of sexual pleasure
2. To check a man's pride"
Philo Judaeus, 30 AD
"The bodily pain is the real purpose of circumcision. One of the reasons is to bring about a decrease in sexual intercourse and a weakening of the organ. The fact that circumcision reduces sexual sexual pleasure is undeniable."
Moses Maimonides 1180 AD
"Foreskin represents man's worst animal-like urges and must be forcibly harnessed."
Nosson Schermann, 1985 AD
"Impairment of sexual sensation is a special virtue of circumcision."
Paysach Krohn, 1985 AD
One real difference between the cutting of boys and of girls is that the spectrum of procedures is far more limited in the former, although I have already covered one which was historical. Genital surgery, as in a medical. not ritual, procedure, is naturally performed on female genitals just as it is on male ones, there being nothing magical about female genitals! Genitals are fleshy highly innervated and vascularised bodily appendages whether male or female and broadly susceptable to the same ailments, although the female more often. In genital surgeries, as with others, stitching or clamping of the wound is required to complete it. When female genitals are stitched it is almost invariably after the very common medical procedure called an episiotomy. In contrast when male genitals are stitched it is almost invariably after the very common ritual procedure called circumcision. Other genital surgery may be required due to adhesions, cancer etc. and just as with an episiotomy, naturally the advantages are considered to outweigh the disadvantages. Whether a procedure is regarded as mutilating has nothing to do with advantages or disadvantages to health. When a women shows off her breast enlargement it would be very derogatory to say she had been mutilated despite there being only health disadvantages to the procedure. If on the other hand the result was not as she had been led to believe it would be and felt it left her disfigured, then she could quite rightly be said to have been mutilated.
You are buying into very stupid cutting myths if you truly believe parts of the normal body are amputated for the benefit of ease of cleaning! If you think it is true for boys why not girls? Normal genitalia in cultures where the norm is for it to be cut, is considered unclean irrespective of gender. Since the discovery of germs cutting cultures have conflated spiritual and physical cleanliness, saying those not cut are smelly and dirty whether girls or boys. It is all bodyshaming the normal genitals as part of the pressure to force social conformity of the practice.
No, cutting boys is not about UTIs or STDs, that's just cutting cultures seeking scientific justification and again it is used irrespective of gender. Independent research out just a couple of months ago shows that it is the reverse, that cutting increases the risk of STDs and both male STDs and male UTIs are far more common in USA where most boys are cut soon after bírth than in Europe where only the fewest are. In fact the estimated death toll from UTIs in days old male babies is almost 50 times higher in USA than here in Denmark! The notion that creating an open wound in an environment with faecies and urine reduces infections, is frankly nuts! If you think amputating parts of the normal male genitalia prevents infections, then why wouldn't you think doing the same with female genitalia wouldn't have the same effect, and females get far more infections?
Here is a list of complictions from up to 100% risk for genital cutting irrespective of gender:
Short term:
Haemorrhage
Urinary retention
genital swelling
Damage to the urethra - fistulae
Infection
Long term:
Genital scarring unsightly and painful
Keloids
Epidermoid inclusion and sebaceous cysts
Neuromas
Poor urinary flow
Dyspareunia
Apareunia
Dysorgasmia
Anorgasmia
Nerve impingement
Impaired sexual function
lacerations during intercourse
Psychological sequelae:
Flashbacks
PTSD
Anxiety
Difficulties to reproductive functions
anejaculation/haematocolpos
Don't tell me they are different! As long as this is feminism, nobody should be a feminist!