Comparison MGM and FGM
"MGM and FGM cannot be compared."
MGM stands for Male Genital Mutilation. FGM stands for Female Genital Mutilation.
One often hears that MGM and FGM cannot be compared; FGM would represent a much more intensive intervention so that a comparison would be forbidden by itself.
This pseudo-argument is in a so-called thought-terminating cliché[1], which works because many people have harrowing images and reports of mutilated women's genitals in their heads which get triggered by this argument. Since shocking images and reports about mutilated boys and the consequences for those affected have only rarely been offered in the media so far, we can rarely find a comparable association that refers to MGM. So it is easy to agree to the pseudo-argument after a superficial comparison with our stored associations.
The media often only spread part of the information available. Many people e.g. aren't at all aware today that fifty years ago, if at all, people used to speak of circumcision among women and girls, too. The association of the term mutilation was accomplished through the emergence of feminism and the political work of the women's movement. Today, based on the WHO classification of the FGM methods found, it is known that there are the most varied types of FGM worldwide, ranging from slight incisions on the clitoral hood to the most brutal, actual mutilations. Affected reports such as Waris Dirie's autobiographical novel "Desert Flower" are familiar to many as the common cliché of association with FGM, not least because it was made into a film.
In the media, MGM has not yet reached the society's consciousness as mutilation this much, especially in the western world. In Europe and e.g. in the USA MGM is regularly associated with "medical intervention", "operation", "sterile", "small incision", phimosis, "hygienic benefits" and with "religious practice" by Jews and Muslims. Viewed worldwide, there are just as many variants of MGM as of FGM, many of which would "make us vomit" just as much as the story of the "desert flower". Australian forms of MGM among the Aborigines (Subincision) or the MGM initiation rites in parts of Africa[2] have nothing in common with our predominant association. But so far the WHO has not carried out a corresponding classification of the MGM methods found. The political work of the intactivists movement has been adjusting this inequally published information since several years and brings the various forms and effects of MGM into the consciousness of society as well.
All this does not mean that a competition between FGM and MGM is permissible in the circumcision debate. The depth of intervention is no valid argument when it comes to the medically not necessary circumcision of children. Everyone has certain inalienable rights from birth onwards. These also include the right to physical integrity. This right can be interfered with on the basis of medical necessities by e.g. vaccinate or perform a necessary operation that either saves the child's life or significantly improves the quality of life.
However, circumcision is regularly neither medically necessary nor does it improve the quality of life. Therefore, it always remains legally and ethically an unjustifiable serious bodily harm to a child who is unable to consent.
Any further discussion could of course be carried out, but this pseudo-argument of incomparability alone effectively invalidates all possible counter-arguments because it appeals to our socially conditioned morality. In the case of non-medically justified circumcision in both girls and boys, it is immensely important to compare the type of circumcision, the consequences and the reasons in order to be able to identify similarities or differences. The justifications for FGM are varied and shockingly similar to those presented for MGM.
Anyone who uses this thought-terminating cliché of non-comparability does not want to face a debate about the meaningfulness of non-medically justified circumcision.
Medically not indicated, irreversible body modifications in a child are not covered by parental rights, but can only be decided of the children who in adulthood can do whatever they want with their body.