Talk:Genital modification and mutilation

Removal of medical ethics statement and information about the foreskin

May these improvements be reinserted for readers?

Since I got a warning about a "conflict of interest" I'll note that I'm involved in opposing the genital cutting of intersex and male individuals and that the Brussels Collaboration on Bodily Integrity is also something I was deeply involved in. However, I don't see a problem if this is stated up front. The Brussels Collaboration on Bodily Integrity was a landmark paper that represents the current consensus of those working in the field of child genital cutting, and "includes physicians, ethicists, nurse-midwives, public health professionals, legal scholars, human rights advocates, political scientists, anthropologists, psychologists, sexologists, sociologists, philosophers, and feminists from Africa, Asia, Australasia, Europe, the Middle East, and the Americas with interdisciplinary or experiential expertise in child genital cutting practices across a wide range of cultural contexts." Circumcision is the most common form of genital modification and mutilation (e.g. the non-consensual, non-therapeutic cutting of an individual's without consent) in the world. It would therefore me be an utter wrong to not mention it in any detailed capacity. That's not biased in the least. The article at the current moment wrongly implies an artificial distinction between male-female genital cutting that has been utterly discredited and rejected by scholars, with an emerging consensus that ethical separation by sex or gender no longer makes sense.

I don't see how this is advocacy as this is just repeating what those in the field are saying. It's inevitable that the most common forms of modification/mutilation are going to be addressed the most. @Horse Eye's Back:, @MrOllie:, @Chrono1084:. Information about the foreskin being erogenous and the most sensitive to light-touch has also been removed. This is despite the famous 2007 Sorrells et al. study which analyzed the foreskin and found exactly this. WholeAndProud (talk) 00:44, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

As Kate Goldie Townsend notes in 2021: "At the time of writing in mid-2021, policy on child genital cutting and modification is inconsistent in the UK, US, and most European states, and there is growing consensus that this inconsistency should end."

This is not the ramblings of a few crazy people. This is the predominant view of scholarship. The article currently labels most forms of male genital cutting "circumcision" while female genital cutting is labeled as "mutilation". This is an outdated paradigm that has been debunked by nurses, sexologists, sociologists, political scientists, philosophers, anthropologists, and genital cutting experts. The article should make some reference to this discrepancy. The foreskin should also be identified as the most sensitive part of the penis to light-touch and heavily erogenous, as research papers have made clear. I don't see a reason why this should be hidden. WholeAndProud (talk) 00:57, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorrells et al. is a primary source, and per WP:MEDRS isn't usable for biomedical information on Wikipedia, particularly when the sources that do meet MEDRS requirements (like position statements from the World Health Organization and the American Academy of Pediatrics) say differently. Looking through the sources you cited, none of them look to comply with WP:MEDRS either. MrOllie (talk) 01:03, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry WholeAndProud, the page likely needs improvement, particularly because the info seems to be outdated, but for now I'm a bit busy with maybe helping keep endosex male child genital cutting/circumcision expert J. Steven Svoboda's page. Also, I'm not sure I want to get too involved in genital cutting articles, particularly because of the vandalism: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/KlayCax/Archive I seem to remember litterature reviews that confirm the foreskin could be the most sensitive penile part. That would be ok to publish? Or maybe just already use the 2024 American Journal of Bioethics article? "healthy, sensitive genital tissue" (page 50). It's probably a good idea to mention the WHO. Currently it seems to only mention Voluntary Medical Male Circumcision (VMMC), as a possible way to help prevent HIV infection https://www.who.int/en/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/hiv-aids (22 July 2024 update) Concerning the 2012 AAP policy : "AAP policy has been allowed to expire [apparently in 2017], with no known plans to renew or reaffirm it" (page 49) https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/epdf/10.1080/15265161.2024.2353823 "the AAP might be “trying to just stay out of controversy for a little while.” A spokesperson for the AAP said the organization was unable to comment." https://undark.org/2024/01/01/contested-science-circumcision/ Maybe the WHO also wants to stay away from the controversy surrounding involuntary non-therapeutic child genital cutting? Other organizations policies (also page 49) could be interesting for this article and others:

"Accordingly, the claim about net health benefits has not been adopted, or has been explicitly rejected, by all other comparable health authorities (i.e., mainstream national-level medical bodies to have issued specific policies or guidance on the subject), including the Canadian Paediatric Society, the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, the British Medical Association, the Royal Dutch Medical Association, the Danish Medical Association, and the Finnish Medical Association (see Lempert et al. 2023 for a recent summary, with a focus on UK guidance)."

Also maybe let's avoid having too much text at the article's sections.Chrono1084 (talk) 04:07, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

recent additions

@Slatersteven: @MiracleDinner: The two of you are attempting to add "Significant percentages of the global population are victims of surgical intervention into the genital, sexual, or reproductive anatomy of a child" into this article using this as the citation. There is no mention in the cite of how much of the global population is affected nor is there any mention of "victims". The phrase is decidedly not neutral and must be removed unless you can find a specific citation that supports such wording. I remind you that per Wikipedia:Verifiability policy, "Any material that needs an inline citation but does not have one may be removed." This will be removed unless a supporting citation is found for this non-neutral language. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:48, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

That's better, Slatersteven. --Hammersoft (talk) 16:50, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, this is why we talk. Slatersteven (talk) 16:59, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

MiracleDinner was a sock, might want to deal with their edits

w:en:Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/KlayCax Doug Weller talk 12:33, 7 January 2025 (UTC)