This week's Philadelphia Public Record is calling for a ban on infant genital mutilation -- but only for those born female. I've submitted the following letter:
There are a couple blind spots in your editorial about genital mutilation.You write that female genital mutilation "is sometimes euphemistically called female circumcision." What this overlooks is that the word circumcision is also routinely employed as a euphemism for male genital mutilation.Medical organizations around the world have rejected non-therapeutic infant circumcision as not medically indicated (http://www.cirp.org/library/statements/ ). From ancient Egypt to as recently as the Victorian era, it has been stated quite openly that its purpose is to reduce "excessive" sexual pleasure -- much the same as with female genital mutilation ( http://empathygap.uk/?p=519 ). There is scientific evidence that it does have adverse effects on sexual function, as well as increasing propensities for aggression.The vast majority of this mutilation in Anglophone countries is not done for religious reasons, poor excuse as those are in any case. It's simply a customary, and lucrative, practice of many doctors.In addition, thousands of infants born with "ambiguous" genitalia are likewise subject to genital surgery in which they have no choice and which is in no way medically necessary, simply to appease cultural expectations. These procedures, too, create great anguish. ( https://aeon.co/essays/people-born-intersex-have-a-right-to-genital-integrity )There is no legitimate reason for you to be calling for an end only to female genital mutilation. All infants -- male, female, and intersex -- have a right to genital integrity.
I might add that the adverse effects on sexual function not only reduce men's satisfaction, but also that of their partners.
You can contact the Public Record at:
Philadelphia Public Record
21 S. 11th Street, Suite 205, Philadelphia, PA 19107
Tel: 215-755-2000
Fax: 215-525-2818
E-mail: editor@phillyrecord.com
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment