Talk:Genital modification and mutilation/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3

Female Mutilation but Male Modification?

The act of removing a part of a child’s body, especially without their awareness, for cultural or religious purposes is a form of mutilation. Why is male circumcision labeled modification but female as mutilation? Seems extremely culturally biased. 94.216.111.30 (talk) 15:20, 6 September 2023 (UTC)

Because male circumcision doesn't cause sexual dysfunction when properly performed. FGM encompasses procedures that often remove erogenous structures such as the clitoris. KlayCax (talk) 15:41, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
"FGM encompasses procedures that often remove erogenous structures such as the clitoris."
The foreskin is the most innervated part of the penis. How exactly do you justify excision of erogenous stuctures while simultaneously condeming excision of erogenous structures?
This is a classic argument that cherry picks the most extreme form of Female Genital Mutilation (Type 1b), while occluding all subsequent types including those that are comparitively equal or less invasive (damaging) relative to male genital mutilation. Type 1a (excision of the clitoral hood) is directly analogous to excision of the foreskin. Would removal of the clitoral hood not be considered removal of an erogenous structure? Conversely, why would removal of the foreskin not be considered removal of an erogenous structure?
"Because male circumcision doesn't cause sexual dysfunction when properly performed."
"Properly performed" is begging the question by assuming the conclusion (the validity of male genital mutilation) in the premise. Sexual dysfunction is inherent as innervated tissue is excised, consequently denying normal human sexual experience and sensation. You cannot feel tissue that has been amputated which is inherently a loss of sensitivity. Additionally, scar tissue forms at the excision which is of course damaged and less sensitive. Additionally the exposed glans progressively desensitizes over time via keratinization. 198.217.117.133 (talk) 10:12, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Circumcision being described as mutilation

A sentence was recently readded into the article that - at least to me - implies that the dominant viewpoint within the scientific and medical communities is that circumcision is a form of mutilation. This seems like a WP: Weight problem.

Tagging involved editors. @Prcc27: @MrOllie: @Bon courage: @Man-Man122:. Thanks. KlayCax (talk) 06:12, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

@KlayCax I agree. I believe that it shouldn't be there Man-Man122 (talk) 14:15, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
@Prcc27:. Now you're trying to outrageously imply that circumcised men have mutilated penises? There's clearly not a consensus for this change. Reliable sources overwhelmingly contradict it. KlayCax (talk) 15:39, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
Okay, but that is not what the sentence or KNMG says. KNMG questions why the ethics are viewed differently. Prcc27 (talk) 16:04, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
I was referring to the edit summary which stated: "Add KNMG viewpoint on MGM vs. FGM". Which I'm assuming was supposed to mean "m[ale] g[enital] m[utilation]"? (e.g. and that was your reference to circumcision).
Promoting a WP: POV that is systematically bias towards autonomistic Western conceptions morality is a WP: Weight issue. Even then, as Martha Nussbaum states, it is overwhelmingly fringe outside of perhaps the Nordics.
That's the issue. KlayCax (talk) 16:20, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
KNMG is a small organization as medical associations go and their opinion is an outlier. Adding a mention is undue weight, so it ought to be left out. MrOllie (talk) 16:28, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
How is it a small organization? Isn’t it the largest medical organization in the Netherlands? Also, minority viewpoints can be included in the article per WP:DUE. Prcc27 (talk) 16:31, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
Isn’t it the largest medical organization in the Netherlands? Have you ever heard the phrase 'damned by faint praise'? MrOllie (talk) 16:36, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
My mistake, it was the Danish College of General Practitioners that views it as MGM, not the Royal Dutch Medical Association. It is not promoting a POV, this is an article about genital modification and mutilation, so it makes sense to compare and contrast it with FGM. I do not oppose including Martha’s viewpoint in the relevant FGM section of this article.. Prcc27 (talk) 16:28, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
And circumcision isn't regarded as mutilation by the overwhelming majority of medical professionals.
Is labiaplasty mutilation? KlayCax (talk) 21:55, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
That doesn’t mean there isn’t some debate about whether or not there is overlap. Prcc27 (talk) 22:46, 15 October 2023 (UTC)
Labiaplasty, piercings, and other body alterations would be mutilation under this criteria. KlayCax (talk) 12:44, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Hegemonic reasoning. The vast majority of cultures that perform Female Genital Mutilation morally justify the act. Should we trust the validity of their perspective because of their culture intrinsically?
Propagators of any cultural act are unreliable sources given intrinsic cultural bias. American cultural bias producing post-hoc justifications via studies with invalid methodology and echoed by the heavily American-influenced WHO are not indepenent sources. The validity of studies performed and conclusions drawn by cultures free of bias are far more valuable.
The influence of an organization does not make their argument valid. They simply have more power. 198.217.117.133 (talk) 10:24, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

RFC: What should the title of this article be?

There's been a longtime dispute on this page on what the article should be titled. Several editors believe that the current title fails WP: CRITERIA and presents WP: NPOV issues. Others support it.

  • Proposal A: Name the page "genital modification"
  • Proposal B: Keep the content of the page. However, redirect the page to body modification.
  • Proposal C: Name the page "genital modification, enhancement, and mutilation"
  • Proposal D: Name the page "genital modification and enhancement"
  • Proposal E: Name the page "genital modification and mutilation"
  • Proposal F: Name the page "genital modification, enhancement, and mutilation"
  • Proposal G: Other proposal not listed above.

What proposal best fits Wikipedia's guidelines? KlayCax (talk) 03:28, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

Didn’t we just have a discussion on this not too long ago..? Prcc27 (talk) 16:27, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
  • [Note: RFC submitter] Option A or B: Either proposal would suffice. I personally prefer option B because the present article on body modification is already too short and could probably fit every kind of human body modification imaginable within its 250,000 possible bytes. Although I'm open to option A as well for it's simplicity. It is clear that the current title of the article fails WP:CRITERIA.
It fails the criteria of precision, as it encompasses related but dissimilar topics, and has often been misinterpreted to mean that all genital modifications are mutilations.
It fails the criteria of concision. As all genital mutilations are forms of genital modifications, genital modification would suffice. (e.g. A page that had "List of dogs and bulldogs")
It fails the criteria of neutrality, as it implies to readers — problematically — that gender-affirming surgery and circumcision are forms of mutilation. It also associates "modification" with exclusively negative terminology. To make it neutral, you'd have to add "enhancement" or another positive term, a proposal that would further fail the criteria of concision. Renaming it to "genital modification" or transferring the page's contents to body modification are the best choices.

The answer here is obvious to me. Currently, the article's name has significant problems, and is inconsistent with other articles surrounding the subject, such as body modification. KlayCax (talk) 03:35, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

  • The discussion to date (such as it is) shows that there's going to be POV-pushing. If you don't like the implications of the current article name, you'll claim it's not neutral, but if it gets changed, then somebody else will surely claim that it's at least awkward and probably not neutral.
    • If the subject of the "modification" is old enough to make an informed decision, then it would not be considered to be "mutilation". We suspect that only a male would do this voluntarily. So it's "modification" if done to someone who's old enough, it's "mutilation" if it's done to a female. If it's done to an underage male, there may be an honest difference of opinion which is reflected in the ambiguity of the existing name of "modification and mutilation". Anything else suggests that somebody has an agenda. Fabrickator (talk) 06:16, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
    Self-mutilation is a thing. It's not usually based on consent. Rather, the effects it has on the body. KlayCax (talk) 06:59, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Note This is not an RfC matter. Please use requested moves. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 08:38, 25 February 2024 (UTC)
    Started one. KlayCax (talk) 06:59, 27 February 2024 (UTC)

Archive and search box parameter settings problem

Does anyone know why Archive 2 doesn't show up in the archives box at the top of this page? It lists only Archive 1. The problem seems to be somewhere in {{archive box |index=/Archive index |auto=yes |search=yes | bot=MiszaBot I |age=1 |units=month }}. The problem seems to have something to do with the space between the word "Archive" and the number in the pathname. The one index link that is being displayed is going through a redirect at /Archive1 (no space). Of course, I could create a redirect at /Archive2, but that is not a proper solution.

Also, it doesn't look like either archive is included in the index at Talk:Genital modification and mutilation/Archive index. I also see another template being called with |mask=Talk:Genital alterations/Archive <#>, in which "Genital alterations" does not match the name of this page. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 04:06, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

Dropped stand-alone archive box, moved functionality to Talk header, where it exists by default, if you don't specifically opt out, which somebody did. Mathglot (talk) 17:49, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for sorting it out. I was left confused as well. KlayCax (talk) 12:44, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
The index does not seem to include the archives. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 00:27, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
Made a couple of changes. It supposedly runs at 11:23 and 23:23 UTC, so let's see wait a bit and see if it kicks in. Mathglot (talk) 06:59, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
It seems to be working now. Thanks very much. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 02:02, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Sex reassignment surgery

The vast majority of people (outside of parts of the Western World) classify this as a form of genital mutilation. Should it be referred to in the article as this? CoolidgeCalvin (talk) 01:00, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

This is why Wikipedia's NPOV policy exists. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia with the mission of describing the world as it is. It is not some sort of world court that issues decisions on what is good or evil. Where significant controversy exists, it is up to Wikipedia to report the controversy, not pick a side. See the lengthy discussions above. — The Anome (talk) 15:28, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
To briefly vent, @The Anome: it's honestly deeply frustrating how many are overlooking WP: NPOV, WP:NDESC, and WP: TITLE issues here. The objections are pretty ludicrous. This could all be fixed by changing it to "genital modification" and then having a terminology section. Instead, some are their WP: POV on what "enhancement" and "mutilation" is into the article. (Often implicitly and probably not realizing it.) KlayCax (talk) 03:08, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Genital_modification_and_mutilation/Archive_3&oldid=1224949522"