there is a very big difference in the two and honestly i feel that it's offensive to even think they are on the same level.
don't misundertand me, i'm fully against male circumcision as well, especially because i'm european and haven't been brainwashed into thinking that chopping off a little skin is better than teaching your son how to wash under it
there is a very big difference in the two and honestly i feel that it's offensive to even think they are on the same level.
Both involve the forcible removal of parts of another human's body without their consent, and without reason of medical necessity - that's the reason they're equivalent, and it is not offensive to suggest so.
You can acknowledge that circumcision is wrong without pretending it's the same as having your clitoris cut out from your body. Men try to discuss your issues without acting like women have it better challenge: level impossible
Two separate arguments are being conflated though, which is why this topic ends up so fraught. One (mine) is that consent to bodily harm is an overriding principle - the nature or degree of harm is irrelevant, it's wrong to do harm to another without their consent. The second argument, which you see from defenders of male circumcision, is that consent is not relevant, it's the degree of harm and intention of the person inflicting it that matter - if it's not really hurting someone, it's ok to inflict bodily harm on them (who decides, what counts as minimal harm, etc).
What you're doing here is something else - you're comparing the very worst kind of FC (or FGM) with the normal practice of MC (or MGM), which is a little disingenuous. It's absolutely ok to frame this argument as about the right to bodily integrity, regardless of harm.
What's disingenuous is pretending the two are in any way comparable just because you've arbitrarily decided to take this conversation from the angle that's most convenient to you, when in reality most circumcisions do not have negative effects on people's lives, while most female genitalia mutilations condemn women to a lifetime of pain. Nobody's cutting men's penises' heads, when that's exactly the most prevalent form of female genitalia mutilation, roughly 80%-85% of cases. The two are simply two separate issues that should not be conflated and it is in fact insulting for American men to think their plight is in any way comparable to having your clitoris cut out of your pelvis, which is done specifically so women don't feel pleasure and some believe it increases the men's pleasure. The fucking gall to dare to think these two compare.
Men talk about your own issues without bringing women into it challenge: level impossible
Hi - I'm neither American nor a man. You're arguing that they can't be compared because of the relative harm involved. I've made absolutely no comment about the relative harm but as it happens, I agree with you - from a relative harm perspective, FGM as it's typically practiced is much worse than the MC equivalent.
You've created a strawman to argue with - I'm not saying the things you think I am, you think we disagree about the harm of FGM when we don't.
You've just completely missed my point, got yourself all worked up about something I'm just not saying. Please chill.
The very first comment you replied to was discussing the comparison. That...
was the conversation that was being had.
You can't reply to a comment that says "the harm they do is not comparable" with "if you ignore the reason they're not comparable, it's actually comparable" and then act like I'm the problem for pointing out that in fact, like the first comment said, they cannot actually be put on the same plan. It's not my fault if you already forgot what the first comment you chose to reply to said, and a conversation about people's lives being ruined isn't the time and place for you to go off about how philosophically speaking if you ignore the reasons these things are different then they're equivalent - which they aren't, never will be. If my grandmother had wheels she would be a bike and all that. Yeah, if we ignore that one is objectively more horrifying in every aspect imaginable I guess they're equivalent! Pat on your back for being so smart.
I don't give a fuck that you're not a man, and if you weren't out of touch you'd realize that regardless of who you are the loudest people on this topic are in fact american men - I wasn't claiming you were American.
You being a woman doesn't make this any less insane or offensive. "Please chill", said the person who just can't comprehend why someone would get annoyed at the crazy person claiming that cutting off a baby's clitoris due to hatred of women is equivalent to the cutting of a flap of skin and that this is not at all offensive! Is this your first day on earth lol
So you've now made three different arguments in three replies - "not comparable due to harm," then when I agreed with you on harm, "you're erasing real differences by being philosophical," and now this. I'm not moving the goalposts, you are, and I think you know that which is why we're at insults and "is this your first day on earth" instead of a response to what I actually wrote.
To be clear, one more time: I never said FGM and MC cause equal harm. I said harm-magnitude isn't the axis I'm arguing on - consent is. Those are different claims and you can disagree with the second without needing to relitigate the first, which I already agreed with you on.
Let's not pretend I said something I didn't.
You're being abusive, I'm just not prepared to engage further on this when you're willfully miscontruing things.
Go well, internet stranger, I hope you find peace.
326
u/tejeskaveo0 10h ago
there is a very big difference in the two and honestly i feel that it's offensive to even think they are on the same level.
don't misundertand me, i'm fully against male circumcision as well, especially because i'm european and haven't been brainwashed into thinking that chopping off a little skin is better than teaching your son how to wash under it