From the folks who banned toys in Happy Meals, the steamroller is still on the move. From the San Francisco Examiner :
A proposed ballot measure for the November 2011 ballot – when voters will be electing the San Francisco’s next mayor – would amend The City’s police code “to make it a misdemeanor to circumcise, excise, cut or mutilate the foreskin, testicle or penis of another person who has not attained the age of 18.”
Doing so would result in a fine of up to $1,000 and up to one year in jail, according to the proposed measure submitted to the Department of Elections.
“What are you in for?”
“Taking tips.”
Putting aside religious traditions, it’s not nearly as crazy as it appears at first. Are we not outraged at genital mutilation of young girls? Why, then, is the surgical removal of a male baby’s foreskin any different?
The bill’s leading proponent, San Francisco resident Lloyd Schofield, explains :
Your support will help us to protect ALL infants and children in San Francisco from the pain and harm caused by forced genital cutting. Damage ranges from excruciating pain, nerve destruction, loss of normal, natural and functional tissue, infection, disfigurement and sometimes death.
Despite the absence of specific support for its claims, it’s hardly a stretch to believe that the removal of a foreskin from a penis is an unpleasant experience. If someone was inclined to do that to a man in his, say, 30s, without his consent, they might have a fight on their hands.
I suspect that circumcision is the norm in the United States today, though I haven’t done a personal inspection to support my suspicion. There are some health reasons proffered for this, as well as aesthetic expectations that have become routine. But then, are they really of sufficient merit to withstand the challenge of inflicting such pain on an infant?
There’s significant doubt that this bill can pass, even in San Francisco. For many, it just points to the insanity that’s gripped this crunchy city in its efforts to micromanage its own Utopian vision. And certainly, the creation of a crime for something done by nearly every parent within an hours drive from a moyel could present a serious prison over-crowding problem. Would they build a bris wing?
But in the scheme of wild ideas for new crimes and a painless society, the rationale behind this one is far better than the elimination of toys from Happy Meals. Thinking hard, why is circumcision of a male infant different than clitoral circumcision of a female baby? We would take up arms to prevent this atrocity from happening to girls, but hand over our boys willingly? Because that’s simply what we do?
Of course, even if these Frisco outliers were to ban it, I would be due a religious exemption. No descendent of mine will escape the lesson of conformity on his eighth day of life.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
It is political correctness gone wild. That’s the age we live in. The Crazy Years started decades ago, and the news snippets in Heinlein’s later novels—starting with, I think, Stranger—are now commonplace.
We can, if we choose to, distinguish between circumcision and female genital mutilation. Or we can choose not to. The proponents of hacking away at the little girl’s genitals would prefer that we don’t; that way they get to do what they want to do.
But, yeah, it’s kind of crazy. I can’t find the cartoon right now, but I remember it distinctly: a patriarch, obviously Abraham, looking up at a cloud, and saying, “now let me get this straight. You want us to cut the tips off of our Dicks?”
Relative insanity is the new norm.
And Moses said unto the lord, “We are your chosen people and you want us to cut the tips off our what?
If toys in Happy Meals are outlawed, only outlaws will have toys in Happy Meals.
There’s considerable epidemiological study of the effect of (male) circumcision on the transmission of HIV. You can google (WHO circumcision HIV) to find a plethora of reports.
On the other side of the argument, there’s not much beyond some anecdotal reporting by men who were circumcised as adults as to the loss of sensitivity.
Given that balance, it appears that SF, not for the first time, buys into the junk science. (I say ‘junk’ not because it’s wrong, but that it’s unquantifiable, thus not scientific.)
On the issue of comparing male and female circumcision, well, it depends. The female circumcision that draws the most attention is essentially a clitoridectomy. That isn’t at all like male circumcision; rather, it’s equivalent to surgically removing the glans. Big, big difference.
There are other forms of female circumcision, though (the UN notes four different ones), one of which is essentially the same as male circumcision: nicking or reducing the clitoral hood. This practice is one that is being encouraged by some doctors as a replacement for more drastic and disabling measures. Doing this, the doctors argue, might fulfill the ritual requirements without doing serious damage.
Male circumcision in the US is, in fact, waning. In the 1970-80s, some 74%-90% of boys were circumcised. Now, it’s around 60%. This includes both ritual (Jewish and Muslim) as well as non-ritual circumcisions.
How much of moral outrage in the US is based on culturally defined ethics? For example, I remember the case where the parent or close relative was charged with a sexual offense for kissing the genitals of a baby girl. This is actually a sign of affection in many countries, nothing sinister. The genital mutilation issue for girls has been used as ammunition against Middle Eastern culture, when Americans do basically the same thing to boys. Yet the former is used as one of the many justifications for wars that have killed millions of people.
There is a legitimate movement to stop circumcision for various reasons, and some of my Jewish friends are among its most vocal proponents. I’m not losing any sleep over it these days. In the Philippines, circumcision is often carried out when the boy is between eight and ten years old, at least in the locality where my wife is from.
Things that get studied tend to support the things that get studied. While the health benefits of circumcision clearly exist, the question remains whether the tradeoff is worth it. I would think the pain inflicted might be more significant a factor than potential loss of sensitivity. Most men have an issue with excess sensitivity already.
The point of this law isn’t that circumcissions are inherently wrong, as much as they shouldn’t be forced upon babies by their parents. There lots of things we do that have serious health implications, yet we do them (and are allowed to do them) anyway. The question raised is why should this be different?
I think it’s got a lot to do with cultural norms. We’re suckers for the validity of our own traditions.
FYI – FGM isn’t a middle eastern issue. It’s done primarily in African countries. You won’t see it in Iran, Iraq, etc. and certainly not in Afghanistan or Pakistan. The purpose of it is not hygiene, it is to make sure the woman does not experience sexual pleasure and, in extreme cases, well, forget let’s just say that in extreme cases it is extreme.
A passing familiarity?
You’ve been taken to task for comparing FGM to circumcision, and the corrected numbers are still way to high (33% circumcision rate in 2009, it’s been under 60% since 2006), but the overall question is still valid.
What body modifications should parents be allowed to perform on infants based on traditional norms? Tattoos are banned all over the place, but you can clip off a piece of the male sexual organ. That’s cool.
I personally, would be cool with surgery to “normalize” polydactylism, but would everyone? I like Hemingway’s extra-toed cats, so why not an extra-toed kid? What about infants whose sex is unclear at birth? Parents are normally given the choice on construction. That hasn’t always turned out well, but is a forced sex kid much different than a forced gender roles kid? Would they be better off hermaphroditic until they could make a fully informed choice? What age would they have to be to choose? 5? 13? 18?
Would this even be subject to the religious exemption? Most things subject to the religious exemption are for the individual and their property, but don’t allow conduct forced upon someone else. Does the religious exemption (in current settled-ish law) include the body of an infant? Should it?
But I was taken to task by a Muslim feminist. You know how chicks like that can be.
Muslims and chicks have rights, too, except in airports, public buildings, subways, small towns (gotta love prostitution fighting blue laws), and schools (gotta also love catholic school uniforms until you’re old enough that it’s creepy). Despite all that, they might occasionally have a valid point.
John seems to be more dangerous to me, but your takedown was sufficient, though with less pithy snark than I think proper. Does he really think that parents circumcize their infants because they think their kids are going to have unprotected gay sex promiscuously 15 to 30 years later? Is forced gay conversion therapy cool because it lowers the chance of HIV, and being gay is a much larger risk factor than being uncut?
I agree that my response was short on pithy snark, but I’ve only got so much available every day and would hate to use it all up on one comment.
Well, we could, if enough of us decided to do so, outlaw it. But that means outlawing getting little girls’ ears pierced, too, right? Or making little boys wear funny haircuts? Or just about anything else we want if only we can gather a mob sufficiently large to force a change in law.
It’s a fair enough question about where to draw a line when it comes to parents’ authority over their children’s bodies. But we already grant them huge latitude for things like corporal punishment, authorizing potentially fatal surgery, driving them in cars. Find a rational place to draw a line and maybe I can be persuaded it needs to be drawn somewhere other than ‘child endangerment’.
tgt: Do you mind if I ask what you’re talking about? I neither said nor implied a thing about ‘gay’. Where did that come from? The WHO studies are on heterosexual transmission.
No, I don’t think parent have their kids circumcised to reduce homosexual transmission of diseases. I think they do it because they want Junior to not freak out when he notices he’s different from Dad or most of the kids in the school locker room. Unless they have a religious reason behind it. Or if they have a vague recall about the effects of non-circumcision and HPV transmission, though the latter isn’t much of an excuse with HPV vaccinations on offer.
I’m not sure we ought to be in the business of denying parents rights over their chidlren. While some make strange, even dangerous, decisions, I would still rather the decision rest in the hands of parents than politicians, government or mob. All things considered, it got us this far. I’m good with it.
The WHO study is used as a red herring by religious circumcisers. I was just giving it it’s proper due and taking it to it’s logical conclusion. No one circumcises for their kids’ teenage health. Bringing it up screams troll.
I agree that most people circumcise for religious reasons or because they think its normal. Only one of those can I understand, and it seems the point of this post is: what is normal? Where’s the line?
Do we really want the mob owning property? All things considered, slavery got us this far. I’m good with it.
Good closing for a jury. Bad closing for the internet where there are random 12 year olds with philosophical educations. The points in front of it are valid, though. I have no idea where the line is and what should and should not be legislated. Is it like obscenity? I know it when I see it? I think John and I agree that’s not an option, but neither of us have something more workable.
[Feel free to edit the parody. The slur might have punched it a little over the top. The mob?]
And there’s the problem. We all agree that FGM is barbaric, but why is it really different. I still don’t want the government making the rules for parents, but it ultimately comes down to cultural preference as there’s little rational basis to come up with a definitional line.
Well, one man’s red herring is another’s kipper.
The question is, though, Who gets to draw the line? Is the state a better line-drawer than the parent? In most cases, I’d say, ‘no’.
The state may have all the good intentions in the world, but as we see with everything from reusable grocery bags (Now, with lead!) to capital punishment, the quality of the intention is very much dependent on the quality of execution (no pun intended). Is there any actual evidence that male circumcision is an actual harm? Or are there only philosophical and rhetorical arguments to be made against it? If a decision is based on philosophy, it’s way too easy to shoot down or find those black swans. If there’s some actual proof, then it’s a different story.