Both psychological and physiological benefits are claimed for all genital cutting practices, regardless of whether it involves male-typical, female-typical or intersex genitalia.
These claims often fail to educate the reader/patient/parent about the anatomy, purpose, and functions of the body part as well as the inherent harms of cutting living tissue.
Any time living tissue is harmed, there can be nerve myelination, scar tissue, and effects on blood distribution.
The least invasive female cutting (FGM/C) involves nicking the prepuce. This is unlikely to cause any noticeable physical harm, but how likely does this affect the individual psychologically compared to molestation? Where do we draw the line?
In other cases, the prepuce is removed (both male and female). In both male and female genitalia, the prepuce covers the glans (glans clitoris or glans penis). Other terms include “foreskin” and “clitoral hood.” The glans extrudes out of the prepuce at varying degrees depending on many factors. Claims are made that removing the prepuce reduces the chances of infections and build-up. These concerns are easily addressed with hygienic practices and modern medicine. For more on the anatomy and functions of the male-typical prepuce, go here. For more on the risks, complications, and harms of removing the male-typical prepuce, go here. For more on the alleged benefits of removing the male-typical prepuce, go here.
Some forms of female cutting involve the removal of labia. There is the inner labia (labia minora) and the outer labia (labia majora). Much like the prepuce allows for expansion, the labia is necessary for the expansion of the vaginal canal for both sexual activity and birth. Just like claims can be made about reducing chances of foot cancer by pre-emptively removing toes, claims are made about fewer chances of vulva cancer by having less vulva. These may seem like completely unreasonable suggestions, but they are made by those that desire to defend the practices.
Common searches on the internet include “Circumcision Benefits” or “Pros Cons of Circumcision.” Such searches will easily exclude sites/pages that identify the cons and organizations attempting to counter the claims of medical benefits do not have the funds to sponsor links to their pages so that they show up at the top of those searches.
Many people in the cultures that regularly perform these practices will know someone or know of a story where a person had to get their genitalia cut later in life. The challenge with these cultures where a large majority of the individuals have modified genitalia is that the populace does not know how to properly care for those that are intact. This is true for BOTH young and old. For baby boys, it is common for people to believe that they need to forcefully retract the prepuce (aka “foreskin”) to clean inside it, which is actually the harm that leads to infections that leads to the recommendation to remove it later. For adult men that are being cared for in a nursing home (check out “Nursing Home Argument” at LittleImages.org), nurses become too accustomed to men without a prepuce and fail to take proper care of intact men by either never retracting the prepuce or using harsh soaps.
Consider reading more about how institutions mislead the public to perpetuate this form of sexual abuse.
Page last updated February 19, 2022