MK Yoel Razvozov: Conduct Bris Milah at Israeli Embassies

 

In response to the declaration made by the Council of Europe that the circumcision of infants is a human rights violation, Knesset Immigration, Absorption and Diaspora Committee chairman Yoel Rozvozov has proposed that Jewish circumcision ceremonies be conducted at Israeli embassies.

"No one can force us and Diaspora Jewry to follow certain religious values and not others. We should be allowed to observe all Jewish customs... If necessary, we will instruct embassies to hold circumcision ceremonies on their territory, which is Israeli sovereign territory." ~MK Yoel Razvozov

Note, there is no ban on infant circumcision, yet.

European laws allow certain religious values and forbid others all the time. For example, female circumcision for whatever reason is strictly prohibited, and there is no exemption for religious practice. At this point in time, I'm not exactly sure where European laws stand on the marriage of children to other children, or even to adults. Someone please educate me, are bride burnings allowed in any country in Europe?

But I digress; let's stick to forced genital cutting.

What would be the political ramifications would that immigration ministries from countries where female circumcision is seen as an important cultural or religious rite, were to propose female circumcision ceremonies to be conducted at the embassies of their countries?

For example, female genital cutting is performed in Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei, Singapore and other countries, as a matter of religious and cultural custom, known there as "sunat."

What if the heads of immigration ministries in those countries were to propose having "sunat" ceremonies at their embassies in Europe?

Yes, I'm sure it sounds very poetic to say that "No one can force us to follow certain religious values and not others; we should be allowed to observe all of our customs."

Does it apply in all cases?

Or just with Judaism when it comes to male infant circumcision?

Related Posts:

COUNCIL OF EUROPE: Non-Medical Circumcision a Human Rights Violation

COUNCIL OF EUROPE: When Israel Says "Jump," Secretary General Says "How High?"

Related Links:

Jerusalem Post

Israel Hayom

New York Times - A Cutting Tradition

The Faces of Genital Mutilation

If you have to make a face like this man and woman are making in these pictures, then you know very well that you must be doing something wrong to a child.

Kurdish girl being circumcised

Men circumcising a newborn boy

Taking advantage of a smaller, weaker person, is the very definition of "abuse."

Related Posts:
Circumcision is Child Abuse: A Picture Essay

Male and Female Infant Circumcision: Which One is Worse?

So Where's the "Sunat Party?"

FORCED MALE CIRCUMCISION: NPO Clitoraid Denounces Germany, Appeals to UN

Clitoraid, a private non-profit organization, which aims to assist FGM victims who want to undo their mutilations, has spoken out to denounce the German decision to legalize the ritual genital mutilation of boys.

“Bodily harm is against the fundamental rights of all children, and we can’t understand when a so-called civilized country such as Germany would allow its male babies to be so readily mutilated legally!" said Nadine Gary, spokesperson for Clitoraid.

In addition to denouncing the German legalization of the ritual genital cutting of boys, the organization is urging a worldwide end to genital mutilation of male children as well, appealing to the UN to forced genital mutilation worldwide for both genders.

“On Nov. 28, the United Nations passed a resolution that condemns all cultural and religious arguments in favor of FGM because the act constitutes a gross violates of children rights, but how can the U.N. ban Female Genital Mutilation and not denounce Male Genital Mutilation as well? Is it exempting certain religions from respecting the fundamental right of baby boys?” Gary asked.

Gary continues, "According to the World Health Organization, 30 percent of males worldwide are circumcised. This means billions of people have been mutilated without their consent."

Brigitte Boisselier, Ph.D., head of Clitoraid, affirmed that mutilation of any baby or child in the name of a god is unacceptable.

“It’s been done for centuries under the pretense that a god requested it, but no religion should be allowed to harm infants or children who can’t give informed consent,” she said. “We’re setting up a hospital in Africa that’s due to open next year, where female victims can go to have genital repair surgery for free. “And, thanks to Clitoraid, thousands more can find relief at several clinics in North America. But we’ve also been getting e-mail from hundreds of circumcised men who want to have their own mutilation undone. They need help too! So, as Rael has repeatedly stated, it’s urgent to have all the old scriptures reviewed by an independent committee on human rights so that all religious group practices are in agreement with the Declaration of Human Rights.”

Rejected Amendments to German Circumcision Law
Amendments to the German law to legalize the genital mutilation of male children were put forth by circumcision opponents in the final Bundestag debates. Among the amendments that were rejected,  was a provision that parents cannot be allowed to circumcise a child if he is able to, and does verbally express his wishes to not be circumcised. (e.g., if the child can and does say "NO," the parents can no longer circumcise him)

The Bundestag majority rejected this amendment, meaning that according to the new law, the parents can physically drag him into the doctor's office, restrain him and circumcise him against his express wishes, and he has no protection.

Another amendment proposed that parents waited until he was 14 to decide whether or not he wanted to be circumcised.

This too was rejected.

 In Muslim traditions, boys are circumcised at later ages against their verbalized express wishes.

Sexist Double-Standards and Special Pleading
The tendency around female and male genital cutting is to sensationalize female genital cutting, while downplaying male genital cutting. While female genital cutting is rejected as "mutilation," and attempts to medicalize it are squarely condemned, the media seems to welcome, perhaps even encourage "research" which tries to find so-called "medical benefits" in male genital cutting.

While male circumcision advocates can get away with reading off a laundry list of the so-called "medical benefits" of male circumcision, advocates of female circumcision who try to clothe their cause in science are immediately stopped in their tracks.

Not so long ago, the AAP tried to approve a "ritual nick" for girls. The procedure wouldn't remove anything, and the AAP admitted that it was much less severe than male circumcision. The logic behind this move was that if they offered a "ritual nick" here in the States, then parents wouldn't take their daughters abroad to have more drastic procedures done. There was a world outcry, and the AAP was forced to retract their endorsement. The message was clear; under no circumstances were medical professionals to come near a girl's vulva with a knife, not even for a "ritual nick."


When AAP fellow Dr. Hatem al-Haj, PhD, MD published a 41-page Arabic-language paper titled “Circumcision of Girls: Jurisprudence and Medicine," where he says female circumcision is recommended and even “an honor” for women, he was fired by the MAYO Clinic. (Interestingly enough, a petition started to revoke this man's certifications states in bold lettering: "Remember: It doesn't matter how "little" you cut a little girl's vulva. It's still felony child abuse.")

Yet Jewish doctors who circumcise boys can get away with both reciting the "circumcision has medical benefits" sutra, and expounding with beaming pride that circumcision is this "time-honored tradition."

I'll have to steal the quote from above and make it part of the intactivist movement:

It doesn't matter how "little" you cut a little boy's penis. It is still child abuse, and a violation of the most basic of human rights.

To continue with my own quotes:

Genital mutilation, whether it be wrapped in culture, religion or “research” is still genital mutilation.

It is mistaken, the belief that the right amount of “science” can be used to legitimize the deliberate violation of basic human rights.

Thank you, Clitoraid, for acknowledging that the genital cutting of BOTH sexes is a gross violation of the most basic of human rights, and for resolving to help victims of BOTH genders regain what was stolen from them.

Visit:
http://clitoraid.org/

Related cause:
Help find ways to restore intact organs for men who want to undo their mutilations

 http://www.foregen.org/

Related Blog Posts:
Circumcision is Child Abuse: A Picture Essay

Germany "Protects" the Forced Genital Mutilation of Boys

The Cologne Ruling and the Limitations of Religious Freedom  

So Where's the "Sunat" Party?

GRANOLA BABIES: BIG MISTAKE

It's the internet; it's a freedom of speech free for all. I've seen quite a few pro-circumcision propaganda posters, and I've seen so many that I thought I was used to it.

Which is why I was surprised to find the this picture in my Facebook news feed today, particularly from a group that calls itself "Granola Babies."

Can you spot what this group craftily decided to sneak in there?

"Granola Babies" gives off the impression that it's a group for crunchy moms, and as far as I was aware, crunchy moms want everything that is the most natural for their kids, which is why I thought it rather revolting to see this picture trying to pretend like circumcision fits right up there with co-sleeping and breast-feeding. The "I work outside the home" seems pointless up there; who cares WHERE you work, as long as you're taking care of your kids.

The caption that accompanied this filth read:

"Let's celebrate our differences as mothers and that we love our babies the same. ♥"

I was fuming.

No, seriously, what self-serving, self-congratulating crap.

As if circumcision were this "choice" parents are entitled to, much less a "crunchy" one.

This to me seems like nothing more than a deliberate inflammatory piece of propaganda aimed at inciting the ire of human rights activists.

And they knew exactly what they were doing. Oh yes they did.

The caption continues:

"Update on this picture ~ Unfortunately the message was lost on some and many unkind posts towards other posters (now deleted) have been made and are not such that Granola Babies is willing to host. There were even a couple of posts stating that mothers do not love their babies the same if she did ___ (insert box) different than her.

In particular -
All posts that continue the circumcision debate will be deleted. This isn't a platform for this debate."

I've said it before on a different blog post, but if people don't want to hear it from us intactivists, if they don't want to host the "circumcision debate," why post inciteful things at all?

I posted more than a piece of my mind, and as promised, my comments were promptly deleted.

But they are gravely mistaken if they think they're going to post this crap and not hear about it from intactivists.

These self-serving idiots just want to pretend like mutilating your child is "just another choice" and we should all be "celebrating our differences."

Well, what do they think of mothers who have gone ahead and circumcised their daughters?

Should we "celebrate" that?

Maybe it's "different" with said mothers of circumcised daughters, and they don't "love their children the same?"

Sexist, self-serving double-standard to be treating male circumcision, and male circumcision ONLY as a "choice" mothers can be making.

The fact is, if being a parent justified everything you did with your children, then there wouldn't be a need for child protective services.

There is such a thing as horrible parents out there, and at some point what they do to their children crosses over into abuse, and shit has to hit the fan.

"Granola Babies" seems to be in the business of pleasing the masses and just issuing out touchy-feely slogans and propaganda that congratulates idiotic parenting.

In the words of John Steinbeck:

"No one wants advice, only corroboration."

And, it looks like "Granola Babies" is more than happy to supply it.

I've taken their sick disgusting poster and made a parody of it:

Yes, "Granola Babies," let's celebrate.

But you know what, this isn't about parents.

I don't blame parents for making a "choice" based on the "advice" their charlatan pediatrician or OB/GYN gave them. Can parents be blamed if they were told that not circumcising their children would result in their child getting penile cancer and dying of AIDS?

No.

That responsibility lies in the charlatans that sell the lies they need to to profit at the expense of children, and at the expense of parental trust.

The bottom line question is always this:

Without medical or clinical indication, can doctors even be performing surgery on healthy, non-consenting minors, let alone be giving their parents any kind of "choice?"

Without a medical or clinical indication, how is it doctors are even stoking in mothers this false sense of entitlement?

That is "Granola Babies'" biggest failure; they are perpetuating the myth that parents are entitled to perform needless surgery on their healthy, non-consenting children.

Does "Granola Babies" celebrate the "choice" of mothers who chose to have their daughters circumcised?

No?

What if it were a "ritual nick" as once approved by the AAP, where they said it dwarves in comparison to male infant circumcision?

Let's see how much support "Granola Babies" gives mothers who had "sunat" performed on their daughters.

Shameless, self-serving, disgusting pieces of shit.

Give TRUE crunchy advice, you lousy people-pleasers.

Related story:  GRANOLA BABIES: Responses to "Celebratory" Ad

Male and Female Infant Circumcision: Which One is Worse?

In the battle against male genital mutilation, intactivists always point out that while male circumcision is defended on the grounds of "religious freedom," "parental choice" and "medical benefits," the same is not true for female circumcision. At the same time, advocates of male infant circumcision always shoot back "male and female circumcision aren't the same!" There are some that even go as far as feigning offense and demanding "How dare you compare male and female circumcision! We're not moving forward until we agree that they're not the same!"

So we hear that male and female circumcision "aren't the same." But what is the basis for this claim? Are we supposed to believe it at face value without any demonstrable proof? When a circumcision advocate asserts that male and female circumcision "aren't the same," what does that person mean? What exactly is he comparing?

I've already written an extensive blog post on the matter here, so I won't spend too much time on this one.

I'm just going to briefly cover a few points of consideration for this debate that tend to be completely ignored, if ever even brought up.

Male circumcision as it happens in the United States to newborns and children is always compared to female circumcision as it happens in the African bush to teens and adult women.
This is a false comparison. Circumcision advocates always compare male infant circumcision, which is usually conducted by a professional, with sterile equipment, in the pristine environment of a health facility (sometimes) with analgesia, with the kind of female circumcision that is conducted in the African wilderness as a rite of passage, which is usually conducted by a shamaness priestess, using raw tools such as a rusty razor blade or a glass shard, under the harsh conditions of the bush. They are also comparing two different genital cutting procedures that are not analogous to each other.

Not all female circumcision is performed in the bush.
In fact, female circumcision is also performed by doctors with sterile utensils under pristine conditions. Some doctors also claim there to be "medical benefits," citing works and studies. They do this out of genuine concern for their patients, and not because they wish to justify their profession I'm sure.

Not all female circumcision is performed on teens and adult women.
Male circumcision advocates elicit an emotional response when they present the image of a teen or an adult woman being forced to undergo genital cutting. Male circumcision is supposed to somehow be justified by the fact that it is often performed on newborn babies that will not remember.

The fact is that circumcision is performed in baby girls in various parts of South-East Asia, namely Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore and Brunei. "She won't remember," however, seems to fail this litmus test.

Not all female circumcision is forced.
As in adult male circumcision, adult female circumcision is also often a rite of passage that a girl or woman is expected to undergo willingly. "Willingly" is a misnomer, as succumbing to social pressure can hardly be called "free will." This seems to be a good enough reason, however, to look the other way, when it concerns male circumcision as it happens in African tribes. In the "mass circumcision campaigns" in Africa, one often hears the acronym "VMMC," which stands for "voluntary medical male circumcision." With all the social pressure to get circumcised, lest one be seen as an HIV risk, one must wonder how much of the circumcisions in Africa are actually "voluntary."

For better or for worse, however, there are communities where a woman submits herself to get circumcised out of her own free will. While this is enough to justify male circumcision in various situations in Africa, "social pressure" only seems to be a problem when it involves female circumcision.

Not all female circumcision removes the same parts.
Male circumcision advocates always compare male infant circumcision as it occurs in the United States, to infibulation, which is a kind of female circumcision that removes the clitoris, inner and outer labia, and the remaining wound is sewn shut to leave only a small hole for menstruation.

In reality, infibulation is the WORST kind of female circumcision, and it is actually the rarest, comprising of 15% of female circumcision globally. There are various other forms of female circumcision, and not all of them remove the same parts of the genitals. There are forms of female circumcision that are as equal to, or less severe than male circumcision. At least in the United States, ALL forms of female genital cutting is considered "mutilation," and against the law.

What is true for female circumcision, is also true for male circumcision.
Just as female circumcision is often performed by shamanesses and priestesses with glass shards and rusty razor blades under harsh conditions, the same is true for male circumcision.

Every year, millions of men undergo circumcision  as a rite of passage in various parts of Africa, and every year, scores of men succumb to infection, lose their penises to gangrene, or die.

While these are concerns regarding female circumcision, they don't seem to be a concern regarding male circumcision.

Perhaps less women would succumb to infection or bleed to death if only these procedures would be done in hospitals. Perhaps it would be less traumatic if only these women were circumcised as babies so that they wouldn't remember the pain and anguish.

The suggestion that African states should provide sterile equipment and proper training to provide "infant female circumcision" would probably not make it very far.

So what is being compared?
The comparison of male infant circumcision as it occurs in America to female circumcision as it occurs in the African bush is self-serving hyperbole.

A more accurate comparison of male infant circumcision as it occurs in American hospitals would be female infant circumcision as it occurs in Singapore, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Brunei.

A more accurate comparison of female circumcision as it occurs in Africa would be male circumcision as it occurs in Africa.

Apples to apples
So what do people mean when they assert that "male and female circumcision aren't the same?"

When someone makes this claim, can we trust that this person has actually taken the time to do their research? That s/he has actually witnessed both male and female circumcision? Adult and minor?

How can we be sure that they're aren't blowing female circumcision out of proportion in order to trivialize male circumcision?

I dare say that comparing male infant circumcision as it is performed in US hospitals to female circumcision as it is performed in the African wilderness is a false comparison. It ignores the fact that circumcision is performed in males under the exact same conditions as it does in females. It ignores the fact that there are actually various kinds of female circumcision, some equal to, if not less severe than male circumcision as we know it. It ignores the fact that we would never accept female circumcision, not even the kind that can be compared with male circumcision, or even dwarfs in comparison.

Let's compare the same exact thing:

A baby in South-East Asia undergoes "sunat"

Original Text: "It happens so fast, with a bismillah and a snip,

a little bit blood and that's it, Zahra dah sunat!

She didn't cry even a drop, in fact giggling2 lagi.

I guess it wasn't painful for her, alhamdulillahh.."

The slit clitoris if you can find it (on the lower blade)

You can read the whole thing here:
http://aandes.blogspot.com/2010/04/circumcision.html

We're often told that male infant circumcision is "just a little snip," "he doesn't even cry," and they remove "only a little flap of skin."

Well, let's have "a little flap of skin,"

..and let's compare it to the slit clitoris above.

I'm somehow not convinced that the foreskin is "just a little flap of skin."

And I'm not convinced that female circumcision, as we see above, is "worse."

Remove the same exact amount of flesh you see above from the genitals of a baby girl, that would be "mutilation."

When we actually sit down and compare like with like, I dare say male infant circumcision is more severe than female infant circumcision.

Recap of the facts:
Female circumcision is not always as severe as male circumcision advocates would like their audience to believe. While it is often performed by a shamaness priestess, using raw tools such as a rusty razor blade or a glass shard, under the harsh conditions of the bush, the same is also true for male circumcision.

While male infant circumcision is often conducted by a professional, with sterile equipment, in the pristine environment of a health facility, the same can also be true of female circumcision.

While infection and hemorrhaging to death are risks of female circumcision, the same is also true of male circumcision.

Claims of "hygiene" and "medical benefits," as well as "literature" to back these claims exist for both male and female circumcision. While these seem to be perfectly good rationale to justify circumcision in males, there would never be enough literature that would ever make female circumcision "acceptable."


Conclusion
Comparing the severity of male and female circumcision, citing "potential medical benefits," "religion and culture," and "parental choice" are all red herrings that draw attention from the point that intactivists are trying to make:

Circumcision, male or female, is always abuse, genital mutilation, and a gross violation of basic human rights, when it is conducted on healthy, non-consenting individuals.

Whether it is performed by professional or amateur, in the hospital or in the bush, on babies, children or adults, with pain killers or without, with a glass shard or a scalpel, whether it removes a "tiny flap of skin," or a substantial chunk of flesh, for "potential medical benefits" or for "religious reasons" is irrelevant.

The Bottom Line
The foreskin is not a birth defect. Neither is it a congenital deformity or genital anomaly akin to a 6th finger or a cleft. Neither is it a medical condition like a ruptured appendix or diseased gall bladder. Neither is it a dead part of the body, like the umbilical cord, hair, or fingernails. The foreskin is normal, natural, healthy tissue with which all boys are born.

Unless there is a medical or clinical indication, the circumcision of healthy, non-consenting individuals is a deliberate wound; it is the destruction of normal, healthy tissue, the permanent disfigurement of normal, healthy organs, and by very definition, infant genital mutilation, and a violation of the most basic of human rights.

Doctors have absolutely no business performing surgery on healthy, non-consenting individuals, much less stoking a parent's sense of entitlement.

References:
For more information regarding female circumcision as it is performed in South East Asia, I recommend the following article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/20/magazine/20circumcision-t.html

The WHO classifies female circumcision into four types. Read more about them here:
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/

Closer investigation reveals that, contrary to popular belief, women who have undergone infibulation, which is the worst kind of female genital cutting, are still able to orgasm:
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118496293/abstract
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2837-female-circumcision-does-not-reduce-sexual-activity.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17970975

"Studies show" that female circumcision "reduces" the risk of HIV:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1442755
http://www.thebody.com/content/art12238.html
http://www.ias-2005.org/planner/Abstracts.aspx?AID=3138

Additionally:
"Female circumcision results in a reduction of infections resulting from microbes gathering under the hood of the clitoris"
"Attacks of herpes and genital ulcers are less severe and less harmful with women who have been circumcised"
http://www.themuslimwoman.com/hygiene/femalecircumcision.htm
http://www.islamictreasures.com/manners-of-welcoming-the-new-born-child-in-islam-sku16723.html

A mother in South East Asia blogs about her daughter's circumcision, or "sunat," as it is known there. The picture used in this blog post was also taken from here:
http://aandes.blogspot.com/2010/04/circumcision.html
Another blog similar to the one above:
http://malaysiansupermummy.blogspot.com/2010/10/sunat-baby-girl.html

In the following parenting forum for South East Asia, mothers describe their experiences in having their daughters circumcised, their own circumcisions as adults, and there are even some recommendations for doctors who perform it.
http://www.mummysg.com/forums/f40/have-you-sunat-your-girls-29826/

Note that if the forum above were discussing boys instead of girls, it would read like almost any other parenting forum on the internet, such as CafeMom or what have you. Cutting genitals in the name of "religion," "parental prerogative," or "potential medical benefits" is only an issue with girls; never with boys.

Genital Mutilation "Boosts" Sex

Would you ever take vegetarian advice from a butcher? How about smoking advice from a tobacco company executive? Would you believe the butcher if he told you that "studies showed" that eating meat is "healthier" than eating vegetables? Would you believe a tobacco executive if he told you that his brand of cigarettes "improves breathing?"

Sound too good to be true? Well, here we have circumcision "researchers" that want to circumcise the whole of Africa that have come out with "studies" that say that circumcision actually "boost" sex. According to this iafrica article:

"Researchers at the University of Makerere in Uganda interviewed 316 men, average age 22, who had been circumcised between February and September 2009.

A month after the operation, 82.3 percent said they were very satisfied with the operation and 17.7 percent said they were satisfied.

A year after the operation, 220 of the volunteers said they were sexually active, of whom a quarter said they used condoms.

A total of 87.7 percent said they found it easier to reach an orgasm after being circumcised, and 92.3 percent said they experienced more sexual pleasure.

Nine out of 10 said they were happy with how their penis looked — and more than 95.4 percent said they believed their partner was also satisfied with its appearance.

The data was presented by researchers in a poster session at the four-day conference in Rome on scientific and medical aspects of the world's HIV/Aids pandemic.

It updates previous findings that circumcised men found greater sexual enjoyment, thus easing one of the mental barriers to the campaign."

There are quite a few problems with these "studies," beginning with the fact that they were written by the very people who want to see "mass circumcision campaigns" rolled out across Africa. How can we be sure they're not presenting cherry-picked data that shows only favorable results? But the biggest problem is that a year is too short to measure anything. Most men who are unhappy with their circumcisions were circumcised from birth; let's visit these men 20 or so years down the line, when keritinization has really set in. I doubt that we'll ever hear from these men again.

And what exactly do these "surveys" really mean? What does "satisfied" and "very satisfied" mean? How is "satisfaction" and "sexual pleasure" measured? Can we really trust self reports from men who were told that circumcision has all of these "benefits?" Can we really trust that "researchers" who want to "ease mental barriers" to circumcision are reporting everything accurately? Men can talk all they want, but the Sorrells study, which measures sensitivity on various points of the anatomically correct and iatrogenically deficient penises shows that there is a clear difference. Circumcision removes the most sensitive parts of the penis, and it results in significant desensitization. The foreskin is laden with thousands of nerves and a network of blood vessels. It boggles the mind how "researchers" want to show with "studies" that "less is more."

"Advocates call it "surgical vaccine," describing it as a cheap, effective form of prevention."

"Advocates" are smoking crack. Nothing could be less scientific. Circumcision could not even begin to behave anything like a vaccine. A "vaccine" means that men's immune systems have been strengthened against pathogens that cause disease. When HIV invades the body, it doesn't matter that part of the penis has been cut off. It is NOT cheap, it costs millions of dollars, and that's not factoring in complications. "Effective" is not the word. Real world data shows that circumcision is anything BUT.

"Male circumcision does not reduce the risk for women who have intercourse with an HIV-infected man.

Women do get an indirect, statistical advantage, though. The fewer men who are infected with HIV, the lesser the risk to women."

How any respectable source can manage to put these two sentences together, one right after the other, is absolutely mind boggling. These claims are based on the dubious premise that circumcision does indeed "reduce the risk" for HIV. They also seem to be counting on Africans never using condoms. Even assuming the claims were true, the bottom line is circumcision offers women zero protection. Condoms protect BOTH sexes from sexually transmitted HIV 95%. And somehow proliferating a weaker alternative to this is advantageous because...?

"The theory behind the effectiveness of circumcision is that the inner foreskin is an easy entry point for HIV. It is rich in so-called Langerhans cells, tissue that the Aids virus easily latches on to and penetrates."

One of many "theories" that has long since been debunked. The so-called RCTs, as of yet, lack a working hypothesis by the way. Scientists cannot demonstrably prove that circumcision actually reduces HIV transmission. The best they can ever do is present carefully chosen data and attribute a "lowered risk" to circumcision. (And of course, as we know, correlation always, always equals causation... ;-) )

But let's ask ourselves, what would our reaction be, would that "researchers" could "prove" using "scientific study" that female circumcision "reduced the risk of HIV transmission" in women? What if "studies" could "show" that female circumcision "reduced the risk of HIV transmission" by, oh, say, 60%? What would we think if the WHO ever approved of such "study?" Because there are actually "studies" that show a "lowered risk," here, here, and here.

Some may say that these "studies" are "not enough." To which I would have to ask, would there ever be enough "study" to legitimize female genital mutilation? What amount of "benefit" would ever convince you to circumcise your daughters at birth? What would you think if "scientists" took it upon themselves to run an experiment where 1000 women were circumcised just to see if it made a difference in HIV transmission? What would you think if the "researchers" stopped the studies early because they saw a "reduced risk," and then circumcised the control group because not doing so would be "unethical?" Would you not think it strange that these "researchers" basically made it impossible to follow up on their own "study?" What would you think if such a half-assed "study" were then used by the WHO to endorse "mass female circumcision campaigns?"

Some may say that female circumcision causes "harm." That it "destroys a woman's ability to orgasm." However, "studies show" that even women who have undergone infibulation, which is the worst kind of female genital cutting, are still able to orgasm. You can see studies here and here. A recent article in Africa came out addressing this same point here.

But here this blog posts originally came in; what if "studies" could show that female circumcision could actually "boost" sexuality? Would that change your mind? Would it "ease" your "mental barriers" to the idea of female circumcision?

Actually, "studies show" that female circumcision, nicely euphemised as "labiaplasty" here, can actually increase sexual satisfaction for both the woman and her partner.

From the above link:
- The study found an overall satisfaction rate of 97.2% for women undergoing labiaplasty and clitoral hood reduction
- An overall satisfaction rate of 83% in women having a vaginal tightening procedure (vaginoplasty/perineoplasty), and 91.2% for women combining both “outer” and “inner” work
- Sexual satisfaction with 92.8% of women having both experienced improvement in their sexual satisfaction
- The data also revealed that those women undergoing vaginal tightening (vaginoplasty) reported an estimated 82.2% overall improvement in their partner’s sexual satisfaction as well.

Since this information is provided by doctors who stand to gain from "labiaplasties," I'm sure the information they present is completely objective and unbiased. ;-)

Circumcision is Child Abuse: A Picture Essay

There has got to be something very tragic, and very wrong, with a society impaired by its own cultural blinders. It is very disconcerting that while human rights advocates fly half-way around the globe to decry the genital mutilation of girls and women, the very same people display a willful ignorance to the genital mutilation of boys in their own countries. While their cameras faithfully bring back images of girls being restrained as they have part of their genitals forcibly cut off, they somehow fail to capture images of the boys who are enduring the same in the very same countries.

Every so often, we'll see pictures of the forced genital cutting of boys in the media, however the tone in presentation is different. While the presentation of the images of forced female genital cutting encourage an audience to deplore the actions depicted, the presentation of the images of forced male genital cutting encourage an audience to accept what they see in the scope of "cultural relativism." "Horror and torture" for girls and women, "the preservation of age-old coming-of-age tradition" in boys. Why the sexist double-think?

It is a glaringly obvious inconsistency to defend the forced genital cutting of one sex, but condemn it in the other, yet when advocates of human rights point out this inconsistency, we are often met with hostility. "How dare you compare male and female circumcision," retort some, especially those defending male infant circumcision, "they're not the same thing!" This is said in a matter-of-fact tone, as if these claims were immediately self-evident.

I must ask, on what are they basing these assertions? Of the people that make these claims, how many of them have actually witnessed a male circumcision, let alone a female one? Can these claims actually be substantiated, or do they expect us to take their word for it at face value? What double-think are they using to condemn the abuse of female children, while defending the abuse of male children?

Girls remember, boys don't

It is often said that female circumcision is worse because it is performed at an age when the girl will be old enough to remember.

Girl "receives" sunat, at a "free" circumcision event in Bandung, Indonesia, west of Java.

In people's minds, male circumcision is justified, because to their knowledge, it is performed in babies, when boys will be less likely to remember the pain and trauma. But are these same people aware that in other cultures, boys are circumcised at older ages? What is their reaction in these cases?

In the Philippines circumcision is a rite of passage known as "tuli." Most males undergo "tuli" as preteens, particularly during their school summer break from March to May. Here, boys in Marikina, east of Manila,  "receive" their "free" circumcisions.

Male circumcision is a religious ritual

The forced circumcision of boys is often defended as a "religious tradition." This argument doesn't seem to hold when defending the forced circumcision of girls, however. For better or for worse, the circumcision of girls is ALSO seen as a "religious tradition," and in some cases, it is seen as a religious duty.

Kurdish girl being circumcised

The image above is horrific. Most would decry what is being depicted here as child abuse, and rightly so. But would this be the same reaction if the sex of the child in this picture were different?

Muslim boy being circumcised

In Islamic tradition, boys are traditionally circumcised at older ages. Does this picture of a Muslim boy being circumcised rouse the same horror and disgust as the picture before? Why? Why not? What is the mental reasoning of why what is happening in these pictures is not the exact same thing?

What's being compared?

When people say "female circumcision is worse," what are they actually saying? What are they comparing male infant circumcision to? In order to sensationalize female genital cutting, but downplay male genital cutting, advocates of circumcision always compare the circumcision of babies to the infibulation of women. The fact of the matter is that there are actually quite a few variations of female circumcision. The kind of female circumcision most people know, where all external genitalia is removed and the vaginal opening is stitched up, known as Pharaonic circumcision or infibulation, is actually the worst kind of female genital cutting, and it accounts for only 15% of cases globally. Even the World Health Organization acknowledges that there are many kinds of female circumcision, and not every kind removes the clitoris. Would we be more accepting of the kind of female genital cutting that was equivalent to or less severe than male infant circumcision?

In Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore, the Islamic circumcision ritual for girls ranges from rubbing turmeric on the genitals, to pricking the clitoris to draw a symbolic drop of blood. In other instances, the procedure is more invasive, involving what WHO classifies as “Type I” female genital mutilation, defined as excision of the clitoral hood, called the prepuce, with or without incision of the clitoris itself. The amount of flesh removed, if any, is described by circumcisers as being "the size of a quarter-grain of rice, a guava seed, a bean, the tip of a leaf, the head of a needle." They use a small pair of sterilized scissors to cut a piece of the clitoral prepuce "about the size of a nail clipping." In some areas, they do cut the clitoris itself. In these countries, surveys show that over 95% of the female population undergoes some sort of genital cutting procedure, and the women seem to be doing fine.

In Indonesia, an infant girl undergoes "sunat" to fulfill religious and cultural tradition.

Not too far away, an infant boy undergoes circumcision for precisely the same reasons.

(Notice the mother: "Shh! Quiet!")

It is only through sexist double-think that we allow ourselves to feel disgust for only one of these pictures.

There may readers that delude themselves yet. Their minds will simply refuse to allow for male and female circumcision to connect. Groping for an alibi to keep them separate, and groping for reasons to continue to justify one while condemning the other, they cling to whatever they can find.

The reasoning may go something like this:
"Well, it may be true that boys in other cultures suffer, but at least where I come from, boys are circumcised at hospitals, in sterile environments, with clean utensils, by professionals, and local anesthetic. They won't remember anything because they're circumcised as babies."

Perhaps a boy circumcised as a newborn may not remember his circumcision. But is pain and whether or not it is remembered really the problem? Could we make the forced female genital cutting of girls more acceptable if it happened at hospitals in sterile environments with pristine utensils by the most caring of professionals? Would female circumcision be more acceptable if it were performed in a baby girl, when she would be least likely to remember? Or would it still be child abuse?

Because it is precisely what is happening right here:

A baby in South-East Asia undergoes "sunat"

Original Text: "It happens so fast, with a bismillah and a snip,

a little bit blood and that's it, Zahra dah sunat!

She didn't cry even a drop, in fact giggling2 lagi.

I guess it wasn't painful for her, alhamdulillahh.."

The slit clitoris if you can find it (on the lower blade)

You can read the whole thing here:
http://aandes.blogspot.com/2010/04/circumcision.html
Another blog:
http://malaysiansupermummy.blogspot.com/2010/10/sunat-baby-girl.html
And a parenting forum here:
http://www.mummysg.com/forums/f40/have-you-sunat-your-girls-29826/

The following is an excerpt from a parenting forum in South-East Asia (the last link above). If you asked me, it reads just like something right out of CafeMom, but regarding girls instead of boys. I've underlined the parts that jump out at me:

A_LIM: Have you Sunat your girls?
My husband is Malay and I am expecting a girl. My husband said he wants our girl to be sunat . What does this involve? and where can I do it? I have heard of male circumcision and my two boys from a previous marriage who have been circumcised. But I have never heard of female circumcision? he also said I should consider doing myself is that possible at my age?

Like your thoughts

NursMama: Re: Have you Sunat your girls?
yah... i also dont know how to explain how its done although i witnessed both my gals' procedures myself both done at different clinics by female Muslim doctors...

dont think it's like the cutting for boys.... it's more minimal.... baby can recover by the next day?

as for yourself..... errrrrrmmm... i'm not sure.... you might wanna ask the doctors wther its ok or not? i can give you the clinics address/no if you want

Ros0818: Re: Have you Sunat your girls?
hi hi
Yup, i brought my girl to d same doc; Dr Elly Sabrinadont worry. It will be very fast & quick!
It's done within a few seconds...  I brought my baby der when she's about 2mths old. Doc will then give you a cream to apply on your baby. My girl recovers very fast. She gave a quick shriek during the process but after that she's fine. She never even cry after that. you can just give the doctor a call if you want to find out more.

nora23: Re: Have you Sunat your girls?
Went to Dr Balkis at Bedok. My 1st gal was then 6 mths old. It was very fast and only a pint of blood. My gal didnt cry and everything was per normal seconds after e sunat. Planning to bring my 2nd gal when she is 6 mths too.

In sunat process, nothin is done on e clitoris. Only a small part of e clitorial HOOD is snipped. The Dr even showed me e snipped hood, very very tiny fraction.

As for adult female muslim convert, I dont think its necessary to sunat. But its not wrong for you to do it either. Its best you consult muslim female doctors on e procedures and healing.

A_LIM: Re: Have you Sunat your girls?
Thanks all.

I actually decided to go for Sunat. It is available for adults, so I thought I would go before I do it to my daughter. I think I will be in a better position to know if it is ok for her after my surgery. My hubby is also happy Im doing it.

They told me it will take about 15 - 20 mins. They did not explain fully what they intended to do, but they said something about cutting the hood of my clitoris, and said they would not touch the clitoris
itself.

Has anyone been through this as an adult or young girl?

haffa: Re: Have you Sunat your girls?
Hello mummies...

Auni had her sunat done last Tuesday. I brought her to Dr Adidah's Clinic located in Tampines. I didn't see what the doc did coz didn't have the heart to but my sister saw through the whole procedure which took about 5mins. Auni cried a bit only but i felt sorry for her . I was so glad it was over..phew.

A_LIM: Re: Have you Sunat your girls?
Did sunat a week ago. Actually very mild. They basically removed about a third of your hood and leave the clitoris in tact. So basically your clitoris is exposed rather than covered by the hood. No pain and recovered in under a week.

Thanks for everyone for there help

tika: Re: Have you Sunat your girls?
yup stonston yer right. different families, different customs. there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. I guess i failed to see to some Muslim families, customs are just as important as religion. To each his own aye.

Does any of this sound familiar? This is quite a contrast to the horror I am told female circumcision is supposed to be. There's not a doubt in my mind that if I showed this to parents discussing their son's circumcisions in an American forum, these same parents would be horrified. Their cultural blinders would not allow them to consider that there is anything wrong with what they have allowed to happen to their own children. It is only through carefully engineered double-think that we allow ourselves to justify what happens to boys in our own culture, while condemning what happens to girls in other cultures.

So in the end, what is it?
What is it that makes female circumcision "worse" and "not comparable" to male circumcision?

Some may yet expound:
"Female circumcision is different from male circumcision, because it is meant to subjugate women and control their sexualities."

Closer inspection reveals that in our culture, this was precisely the reason it was done to boys.

"...with regard to circumcision, one of the reasons for it is... the wish to bring about a decrease in sexual intercourse and a weakening of the organ in question, so that this activity be diminished and the organ be in as quiet a state as possible...
The bodily pain caused to that member is the real purpose of circumcision...
...violent concupiscence and lust that goes beyond what is needed are diminished. The fact that circumcision weakens the faculty of sexual excitement and sometimes perhaps diminishes the pleasure is indubitable. For if at birth this member has been made to bleed and has had its covering taken away from it, it must indubitably be weakened." ~Rabbi Moses Maimonides

"A remedy [for masturbation] which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision...The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind... In females, the author has found the application of pure carbolic acid to the clitoris an excellent means of allaying the abnormal excitement." ~Dr. John Harvey Kellogg

But in the end, is "intention" what defines abuse? Because for better or for worse, just like parents who circumcise their boys, parents who circumcise their daughters have the best of intentions.

Yet others may say:
"Female circumcision completely eliminates a woman’s ability to orgasm."

Closer investigation reveals that women who have undergone infibulation, which is the worst kind of female genital cutting, are still able to orgasm:
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118496293/abstract
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2837-female-circumcision-does-not-reduce-sexual-activity.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17970975

To sensationalize female circumcision, others will say:
"In Africa, women are often circumcised unsanitary conditions, with crude materials such as rusty blades or glass shards. They are performed by amateurs, they are left with impaired sexualities and sometimes they bleed to death."

But they will fail to mention that in Africa, boys and men endure the same thing. They will fail to mention that every year, scores of men bleed to death, or commit suicide, because their penises fail to heal properly and fall off due to gangrene. Some men live the rest of their lives with stumps where their penises used to be. Oh, but never mind them. It's a time-honored right of passage, and circumcision has been proven to protect against disease. Well... at least they won't get any more STDs, right?

Finally, some will say:
"Studies show male circumcision could have health benefits. The same is not true for female circumcision."

But what if it were? At least on the surface, advocates of male infant circumcision seem to care about a myriad of "health benefits." But let's examine this line of thinking further: what if female genital cutting offered the same "benefits?" Would we consider them? What if "studies showed" that removing a girl's clitoral hood and "redundant labia," could "help prevent HIV transmission?"

Because there are few studies that show precisely this:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1442755
http://www.thebody.com/content/art12238.html
http://www.ias-2005.org/planner/Abstracts.aspx?AID=3138

Additionally:
"Female circumcision results in a reduction of infections resulting from microbes gathering under the hood of the clitoris"
"Attacks of herpes and genital ulcers are less severe and less harmful with women who have been circumcised"
http://www.themuslimwoman.com/hygiene/femalecircumcision.htm
http://www.islamictreasures.com/manners-of-welcoming-the-new-born-child-in-islam-sku16723.html

How supportive would we be of further "research" into the matter? What would we think if the National Institutes of Health, Johns Hopkins, the CDC etc., funded "research" in female genital cutting in Africa? What about countries where female circumcision isn't as "severe?"

Is there a number of "potential medical benefits" that would ever cause us to re-consider female circumcision? Would there ever be enough studies to convince us to submit our daughters to have part of their genitals removed? How much would be acceptable for us to remove from our daughter’s genitals? What if "studies showed" that female circumcision could be performed without removing the clitoris or a woman's ability to orgasm? What if all that was removed were a little "flap of skin" 10x smaller than the foreskin? What if it were proven to be "cleaner" and cut back on the fish smell? What if "studies showed" that circumcising your daughter "reduced the risk" of prostate cancer in her male partner? Would we consider it then?

But let's ask a different question, would circumcision advocates be interested in finding alternatives to circumcision? Would they support research in finding alternative ways to provide the same "medical benefits" as male circumcision? What if doctors and scientists announced “We have great news! This new vaccine offers the same protections as circumcision and more! Now we don't have to circumcise babies anymore!" How would circumcision advocates react? Would they let out a sigh of relief, or would they panic? Would they gladly abandon the practice? Or would they scramble looking for other "reasons" to do it? The answers to these questions would speak volumes.

The fact of the matter is that neither the allegations of "medical benefits" nor the production of numerous "studies" would never be enough to justify the forced genital cutting of girls. Why this double-standard when it comes to the circumcision of boys? There are better, more effective, less invasive ways to treat and prevent disease. Instead of investigating these, instead of seeking to make the practice of forcibly cutting off part of a healthy, non-consenting boy's penis obsolete, why are we spending millions of dollars on "studies" to find ways to make the practice a requirement?

Conclusion

So in the end, which do you cut?

In the fetus, both male and female genitals develop from the same genital tubercle.

On the left is a male fetus, on the right a female.

Who is the monster?

On the left, a ritual circumciser of boys,

on the right, a ritual circumciser of girls,

both of them proudly displaying the tools of their trade.

Which child gets your sympathy?

A girl and a boy as they undergo ritual circumcision.

And does age really change anything?

Do we actually care about any "medical benefits?" Or is that merely an empty excuse? Is pain and whether it could be remembered or not really the problem? Isn't the principle of taking a healthy, non-consenting child and cutting off part of that child's genitals, the exact same principle?

Circumcision is child abuse. No matter what age, no matter what sex.

The New York Times wrote an excellent article on the kind of female circumcision performed in Indonesia, "A Cutting Tradition." Read the article here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/20/magazine/20circumcision-t.html

So Where's the "Sunat Party?"

So Marikina City officials in the Philippines, east of Manila, hope to establish a world record for people attending a "mass circumcision."

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1384549/Hes-smiling--Filipino-youths-wait-line-mass-circumcision-party-world-record-attempt.html#comments

According to vice mayor, Jose Fabian Cadiz, "We applied for the Guinness Book of World Records and we are recording everything so we can send all the data to them and hopefully it will be recognized."

In the Philippines circumcision is a rite of passage most males undergo as preteens, particularly during their school summer break from March to May. City officials took advantage of the season to throw a "circumcision party," as they had the local press sell the event.

They offered poor residents "free" circumcisions that would otherwise cost at least $40 in private hospitals. It sounds like a nice sentiment, since in rural areas, the surgery is sometimes performed by non-doctors using crude methods.

In Marikina, east of Manila, boys "receive" their "free" circumcisions.

Wherever I see this story, the comments all try to make light of the situation, with jokes and humor.

But let's stop for a minute.

What would be people's reactions if the gender of the subjects were female?

What if officials in some city in Malaysia or Indonesia were so starved for recognition they threw a "sunat" party and gave away free "sunat" for the girls there? You know, since girls are circumcised anyway, and they "might as well" be circumcised in a "clean environment?"

What if city officials planned to record this data and send it to the Guiness Book of World Records to see if they would get some sort of prize?

Girl receives "free" sunat, at a free circumcision event in Bandung, Indonesia, west of Java.

But it's not the same!

Before people start blubbering with their double-think, I'm going to attack some of the common myths that people spew to maintain the idea that "they're not the same" in their minds.

When female circumcision comes up, here are some of the common one-liners that people try to use to condemn female circumcision, but defend male circumcision.

"Female circumcision removes the clitoris, the labia, and the vulva is sewn up to leave only a small hole for urinating and menstruation; that's equivalent to castration in males."

Actually no, there are many kinds of female circumcision in the world, the WHO acknowledges this, and not every kind removes the clitoris.

The kind of female circumcision most people know, where all external genitalia is removed and the vaginal opening is stitched up, known as Pharaonic circumcision or infibulation, accounts for only 15% of cases globally.

In Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore, the procedure ranges from rubbing turmeric on the genitals, to pricking the clitoris to draw a symbolic drop of blood. In other instances, the procedure is more invasive, involving what WHO classifies as “Type I” female genital mutilation, defined as excision of the clitoral hood, called the prepuce, with or without incision of the clitoris itself. The amount of flesh removed, if any, is described by circumcisers as being the size of a quarter-grain of rice, a guava seed, a bean, the tip of a leaf, the head of a needle. They use a small pair of sterilized scissors to cut a piece of the clitoral prepuce about the size of a nail clipping. In some areas, they do cut the clitoris itself.

In these countries, surveys show that over 95% of the female population undergoes some sort of "sunat" procedure, and the women seem to be doing fine.

In May, last year, the AAP tried to approve a "ritual nick" for girls. The procedure wouldn't remove anything, and the AAP admitted that it was much less severe than male circumcision. The logic behind this was that if they offered a "ritual nick" here in the States, then parents wouldn't take their daughters abroad to have more drastic procedures done. There was a world outcry, and the month of May did not end before the AAP was forced to retract their endorsement. The message was clear; under no circumstances were medical professionals to come near a girl's vulva with a knife, not even for a "ritual nick."
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1988434,00.html

"Female circumcision is different from male circumcision, because it is meant to subjugate women and control their sexualities."

Actually, closer inspection reveals that this was precisely the reason it was done to boys.

"...with regard to circumcision, one of the reasons for it is... the wish to bring about a decrease in sexual intercourse and a weakening of the organ in question, so that this activity be diminished and the organ be in as quiet a state as possible...
The bodily pain caused to that member is the real purpose of circumcision...
...violent concupiscence and lust that goes beyond what is needed are diminished. The fact that circumcision weakens the faculty of sexual excitement and sometimes perhaps diminishes the pleasure is indubitable. For if at birth this member has been made to bleed and has had its covering taken away from it, it must indubitably be weakened." ~Rabbi Moses Maimonides

"A remedy [for masturbation] which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision...The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind... In females, the author has found the application of pure carbolic acid to the clitoris an excellent means of allaying the abnormal excitement." ~Dr. John Harvey Kellogg

But in the end, do the intentions really matter? What if doctors and parents seriously thought it made a woman's genitals cleaner and "more appealing" in their eyes? Just as many of us in America believe circumcision makes a boy "cleaner" and "more appealing?"

Let's change the intentions. For better for worse, mothers in these countries believe they are doing something good for their daughters. Does "sunnat" stop being abuse? Why this double-standard when it comes to male circumcision?

"Female circumcision completely eliminates a woman’s ability to orgasm.”

Contrary to popular belief, even women who have undergone infibulation, which is the worst kind of female circumcision are still able to orgasm.
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118496293/abstract
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2837-female-circumcision-does-not-reduce-sexual-activity.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17970975

Actually, "studies show" that female circumcision, nicely euphemised as "labiaplasty" here, can increase sexual satisfaction for both the woman and her partner.
http://www.labiaplastysurgeon.com/labiaplasty-clinical-study.html

From the site:
- The study found an overall satisfaction rate of 97.2% for women undergoing labiaplasty and clitoral hood reduction
- An overall satisfaction rate of 83% in women having a vaginal tightening procedure (vaginoplasty/perineoplasty), and 91.2% for women combining both “outer” and “inner” work
- Sexual satisfaction with 92.8% of women having both experienced improvement in their sexual satisfaction
- The data also revealed that those women undergoing vaginal tightening (vaginoplasty) reported an estimated 82.2% overall improvement in their partner’s sexual satisfaction as well.

"Male circumcision is an imporant religious tradition in Judaism."

Surprise, surprise, according to the Indonesian Population Council study, many Indonesians view circumcision for boys and girls as a religious duty. But this isn't important, right?

"Studies show male circumcision could have health benefits. The same is not true for female circumcision."

And if they did?

Let's see how far people care about the "health benefits." What if there were "studies" that showed that female circumcision offered "potential medical benefits" for girls? Would we allow, request it for our daughters?

What if there were "studies" that said female circumcision "reduced" the likelihood of some disease? What if “studies showed” that female circumcision “reduced the risk of HIV transmission?” Because there are few studies that show precisely this:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1442755
http://www.thebody.com/content/art12238.html
http://www.ias-2005.org/planner/Abstracts.aspx?AID=3138

Additionally:
"Female circumcision results in a reduction of infections resulting from microbes gathering under the hood of the clitoris"
"Attacks of herpes and genital ulcers are less severe and less harmful with women who have been circumcised"
http://www.themuslimwoman.com/hygiene/femalecircumcision.htm
http://www.islamictreasures.com/manners-of-welcoming-the-new-born-child-in-islam-sku16723.html

How interested would we be in the "potential medical benefits" for girls? Would we support further "research" into the matter? Would we allow the National Institutes of Health, Johns Hopkins etc., to fund "research" in Africa? Well what about these countries where female circumcision isn't as "severe?"

But let's ask a different question, would we support "research" in finding alternative ways to provide the same "medical benefits" as male circumcision? If doctors came into your child's birthing room and said "We have great news! This new vaccine offers the same protections as circumcision and more! Now we don't have to circumcise your child anymore!" How would American parents react? Would they be jumping for joy, or would they request their child be circumcised anyway?

That would be the litmus test for how much we actually give a crap about supposed "medical benefits."

(Here's another surprise; the so-called "benefits" of circumcision ARE already easily achievable through other means; American doctors, parents and "researchers" simply aren't interested.)

Incidentally, for being a nation with a circumcised male majority, the Philippines has one of the worst reputations for HIV transmission. In the 2010 Global AIDS report released by UNAIDS in late November, the Philippines was one of seven nations in the world which reported over 25 percent in new HIV infections between 2001 and 2009, whereas other countries have either stabilized or shown significant declines in the rate of new infections. Among all countries in Asia, only the Philippines and Bangladesh are reporting increases in HIV cases, with others either stable or decreasing.
http://globalnation.inquirer.net/news/breakingnews/view/20110102-312124/Philippines-HIVAIDS-problem-worries-UN
 
Maybe they want to see if they can add that to the Guinness Book of World Records?
 
American readers may yet delude themselves saying "babies who are circumcised as newborn boys, like we do here in the US, can't remember a thing." But does "not remembering" really make the act any more justifiable?

For readers who stomach it, I encourage you to visit these blogs. Here, parents in Malaysia, Indonesia, and Singapore discuss their baby daughter's "sunat" pretty much the same way American parents talk about their son's circumcisions online. Here too, the subjects of permanent genital modification will also "not remember" what has happened to them. But does this fact justify the act here? What is the list of things that you can do to a child because "s/he can't remember?" And isn't this, the taking advantage of the defenseless, the very definition of abuse?

Blog links here. CAUTION - Not for the squeamish:
http://aandes.blogspot.com/2010/04/circumcision.html
http://www.mummysg.com/forums/f40/have-you-sunat-your-girls-29826/
http://malaysiansupermummy.blogspot.com/2010/10/sunat-baby-girl.html

Bottom line
Abuse is abuse no matter what age, and no matter what sex.

It is sick, disgusting and despicable that the City of Marikina thought it graceful to throw a "circumcision party," and furthermore, to try and put this in the Guinness Book of World Records. We would be disgusted at the exact same notion for a similar event, such as a "sunat party" for girls; this "circumcision party" and the fact that city officials actually think it should be a world record is reprehensible.

The New York Times wrote an excellent article on the kind of female circumcision performed in Indonesia, "A Cutting Tradition." Read the article here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/20/magazine/20circumcision-t.html