Will Female Circumcision Be Medicalized Like Male Circumcision?

As a man circumcised as an infant by a U.S. doctor and very satisfied with the procedure, I find it hard to support the notion of female circumcision. Intricately rooted in religious covenants, male circumcision is a practice I believe brings little to no harm and cleaning benefits. However, female circumcision, when performed as a painful and often brutal procedure, is not something I can condone. The idea of simply nicking the hood of the clitoris to draw blood strikes me as unethical, and I strongly believe such a practice does not contribute positively to women's sexual pleasure or well-being. I feel a sense of commitment to ensuring we do not inflict these procedures as a medical norm, especially when they carry no religious or health benefits.

Female Circumcision and Its Distinctness from Male Circumcision

The practice of female circumcision differs dramatically from male circumcision. While male circumcision involves removing the glans—the tip of the foreskin—which can have some health benefits, female circumcision often involves the removal of clitoral tissue or labia, which is more akin to removing foreskin. Male circumcision, when performed medically, is primarily to address health issues, while female circumcision is often rooted in cultural and religious practices and can involve mutilating procedures with no health benefits.

Removing the external clitoris or other parts of the female genitalia is, in my opinion, a heinous crime. The term 'circumcision' becomes erroneous when dealing with these procedures, as they involve radical and harmful alterations to the female body. The comparison to male circumcision in terms of pain and health benefits is not valid.

Medical and Cultural Perspectives on Circumcision

In Western societies, both female and male circumcision are highly controversial. The practice of female genital mutilation (FGM) is widely condemned and is illegal in many countries. However, male circumcision is still somewhat prevalent, albeit not routine, with some benefits recognized for children's hygiene and preventive health.

For males, circumcision may offer some benefits in terms of reducing the risk of urinary tract infections and reducing the risk of transmission of certain sexually transmitted infections. However, these benefits are not widely seen as compelling enough to warrant routine circumcision in the general population.

I believe that both male and female circumcision should be treated as personal decisions made by parents and children in a non-coerced, informed manner. These practices should not be subject to state control or religious mandates but should be performed in a medical setting with consent.

Conclusion

As a male who has experienced the benefits of male circumcision, I strongly believe that female circumcision is an unacceptable practice. It is essential to distinguish between these procedures and understand the severe implications and ethical concerns surrounding female genital mutilation. While male circumcision may have some medical justifications, female circumcision does not. The ideal scenario would be a consent-driven, informed choice by individuals.