Quote:
Originally Posted by Goofle
A counter argument to genital mutilation is don't needlessly cut off a part of your child.
|
There you go. You did it. Some might debate you on 'needlessly', but I won't. It's a strange tradition. I'm not sure if it rises to the level of harm, but too each their own. Literally the only thing I wanted out of this "argument" is to bring the language back to where it belongs with this issue.
It's cutting off a part of a newborn. Not hacking. Not carving. Not mutilating.
Frownland, you need to show injury (I was circumcised and it works just fine), disfigurement (looks fine too), or imperfection (arguable, but we also have vestigial organs, the foreskin made a lot more sense when we wandered the savanna, naked), for your application of "mutilate" to fit. How about just circumcision? It's the clinical term for a specific medical procedure. If you want to describe it, how about 'slicing off the foreskin'? I don't get why it's so important to apply the term 'mutilate' to something it doesn't apply to. MRA types, of which I don't think you are one, use culture's general blase attitude toward circumcision as proof of anti-men biases in society. The word mutilation is then introduced to make a direct comparison to FGM, which we both agree is a far more violent, painful, and medically unnecessary, and actually harmful, procedure. I bring this back up, because I think it explains why specificity when talking about issues around gender, race, sex, etc. are important. Hysterical misappropriation of strong, visceral language helps no one.
I can't believe I've made like 7 posts about circumcision... *trundles off toward the music section*