Intactivists

I often get this comment from people. Here is an essay I wrote explaining why using that argument is faulty:

Comparing FGM and MGM (female or male genital mutilation) is actually a difficult comparison and intactivists tend to avoid using that as an argument for several reasons. There are different levels of FGM from just a tiny nick to full infibulation. The most often performed female circumcision, though, is removal of the clitoral hood and exposing that very sensitive little button permanently, which would be the equivalent to what is typically done to males in circumcision... so if you use that comparison since it's the most equal "level", the male version is actually worse because you're taking away thousands more nerve endings and the foreskin itself is a huge source of sexual pleasure for the man, whereas the woman's nerve endings are more located in the clit itself. Also, keep in mind... if you compare two intact individuals, one male, one female... the clit has about 8000 nerve endings for sexual pleasure... the male foreskin has 20,000.

This argument is usually avoided because no matter what, it's sexism. It's harder for people to accept that males can be discriminated against as well as females just for what gender they happen to be. That goes back to the attitude that men should just "suck it up", they are not allowed to have emotions, and god forbid if they cry or demonstrate anything that might hint they have any sort of weakness.

When it comes down to it, ALL genital mutilation is wrong when done without the individual's consent, and a child is just not capable of understanding what is going to be done and therefore it's impossible for them to give consent. Doctors are violating their oath to "do no harm" and forced circumcision (and yes it is forced when it's a child or infant) is basically abuse, molestation, and rape... sexual and physical assault at its most cruel. Abuse of power, one individual who is stronger is abusing his power over someone who is smaller and weaker.

And who decided it was wrong to do this to females yet it's still ok to continue this torture on male infants? That is without a doubt sexist and there is no way around that. As of 1997 it became ILLEGAL in the United States to do this to females (yet its still going on in some places such as NY state, but that's another story for another post), but laws that were attempted to protect boys have all been shot down. Why?

Men who allow this to go on and are not voting to outlaw male circumcision are continuing the cycle of abuse. Women who allow this to happen and do not support making it illegal are not protecting their children, ignoring their instincts, and are accessories to the crime of abuse.