-
FGM is very different in it's purpose and consequences.
Is it though? I mean, unless you're going to make a distinction between the various types of mutilation, from removal of the prepuce all the way to clitoradectomy & infibulation, then as an argument, it's weak.
NotThamesWater-
I doubt anyone can put an argument forward saying they have the same consequences. So I'll leave that point.
But from my understanding yes.
Male circumcision is a practical way of ensuring male hygiene, and reducing disease when you're wandering about in the desert with sporadic access to water in a pre-condom world. I'm not up on Jewish hygiene practices, but for Islam cleanliness is a fundamental part of life.
When constructing a philosophy for you and your community to live your lives by, including cleanliness is pretty reasonable. Who here likes sitting next to smelly people on a bus? Or thinks cooks should wash their hands?
Preventing girls/women from sexual pleasure because "you know what they'll get like if we don't" is fundamentally different. It's about control, and deep cultural misogyny. Even before you get to the process.
hugo7
Appreciate that you were countering Clockwise's point of having things done safely, but FGM is very different in it's purpose and consequences.
Although there are religious reasons for male circumcision it's interesting how cultural it is. In the US it's pretty common regardless of faith. It's a good eg of where humans often just do things "because".
Not sure if this factored into anyone else's view, but when I read the story in the thread I assumed the policy was proposed by a right wing party, and was slightly uneasy. Then when I read it had been proposed by the Progressive Party I felt more comfortable, as I felt it seemed less likely to be routed in prejudiced.... although in a plot twist the Progressive Party is apparently centre-right.