Jump to content

Talk:Genital modification and mutilation/Archive 3

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

Describing the controversy

As an attempt to draw light onto attitudes regarding the many different types of genital modification, the various controversies might well best be described in tabular form. Here is an attempt at that (update: as amended, see comments below):

Procedure Western liberal consensus Destructive of original function? Against For
Male circumcision of adults Acceptable if voluntary No
Male circumcision of children Controversial No Anti-circumcision campaigners Jews, Muslims, consensus in the USA until recently
Clitoridectomy, Infibulation, etc. Wrong Yes Worldwide consensus Traditional groups in a few countries
M to F genital sex reassignment surgery Acceptable if voluntary Yes (but sexual pleasure may be preserved) Anti-trans campaigners Trans rights campaigners
F to M genital sex reassignment surgery Acceptable if voluntary Yes (but sexual pleasure may be preserved) Anti-trans campaigners Trans rights campaigners
M to F sex reassignment of intersex children Was acceptable, now controversial Yes (not sure about sexual pleasure preserved) Intersex rights campaigners and numerous medical organizations
Castration, penectomy etc. other than in sex reassignment surgery Wrong, unless medically necessary Yes Extreme body modification enthusiasts and religious groups
Vulvectomy, removal of the vagina etc., other than in sex reassignment surgery Wrong, unless medically necessary Yes
Vasectomy Acceptable if voluntary Yes, of reproduction; sexual function not affected Anti-birth-control campaigners Birth control campaigners
Female sterilization Acceptable if voluntary Yes, of reproduction; sexual function not affected Anti-birth-control campaigners Birth control campaigners (but less so than with vasectomy)
Male genital piercings Acceptable if voluntary No, although you may in some cases have to take them out to have sex
Female genital piercings Acceptable if voluntary No, although you may in some cases have to take them out to have sex
Labiaplasty Acceptable if voluntary No Those viewing it as unncessary plastic surgery
Pearling Acceptable if voluntary No Traditional cultural groups
Penile subincision Acceptable if voluntary No
Penile splitting ??? ??? Extreme body modification enthusiasts

Does this describe the various controversial attitudes correctly? — The Anome (talk) 16:57, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Are we defining "liberal consensus" as "left-wing to centrist individuals" or "liberal democracies" here, @The Anome:? KlayCax (talk) 20:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)
@KlayCax: Liberal democracies. — The Anome (talk) 00:22, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
My quick thoughts here, @The Anome::
  • As a broad outline: it seems broadly right. Although we'd probably have to have a singular source about this. (Rather than a WP: SYNTH of multiple citations.)
  • I'd put labiaplasty, circumcision of children, female sterilization, and vasectomy as considered "generally acceptable" by most. (Outside of circumcision in Northern and Eastern Europe.)
  • Intersex genital alterations/cutting has always been at least somewhat controversial. Even back in the 1980s and 1990s. Maybe "generally acceptable to controversial"? We'd need non-original research for this, however.
  • Medical organizations are clear that circumcision doesn't increase or decrease sexual pleasure. (Per the World Health Organization, Canadian Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, and others.) It's a popular meme and misconception in several cultures. However, the evidence has repeatedly indicated that it doesn't, with dozens of high-quality studies in AMAB who were circumcised as adults and reported no substantial change in pleasure, sensation, and function.
  • Labia is sexually sensitive. So I wouldn't state that it isn't "destructive of original function" in some ways.
  • Gender-affirming care and gender-affirming surgery is controversial among many political conservatives in liberal democracies. (Just take the United States, Eastern Europe, and the rest of the Anglosphere for examples.)
  • Gender-affirming care and gender-affirming surgery's impact on sexual function is complicated. Libido however is generally regarded as decreasing in MTF, however, as testosterone levels (alongside others) are correlated with sexual drive.
Multiple medical organizations are starting to oppose intersex genital cutting as well. So I'd put "many human rights organizations" as well. KlayCax (talk) 00:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. I've amended the chart a bit per some of your suggestions. I'm glad you like my general approach, and I think if we work on describing the controversy, with suitable in-table cites to reliable sources, rather than picking sides or trying to right great wrongs, this is a possible way forward for the article. — The Anome (talk) 00:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Do you mind if I edit it, @The Anome:? I feel like it'll get taken down as WP: SYNTH or WP:NOR unless we have a singular source that states all of this. Does any exist? KlayCax (talk) 02:06, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
I don't mind at all. Please do. — The Anome (talk) 07:05, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Alright, @The Anome:. I'll try and do that in the next few days. Will tag you when done. KlayCax (talk) 20:53, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
For instance: I think you can find mention of "controversy" in almost all of those body modifications. So it's going to be a likely hot potato of edit wars depending on contributors' bias.
(I wouldn't be shocked if the gender-affirming healthcare/surgery, circumcision, vasectomy, and sterilization parts become conflict zones.)
It would be best imo to leave it out unless we have a similar table in a reliable source, then just cite it to Example Author, 2024. KlayCax (talk) 02:08, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

The table is intended as a discussion tool, not (yet?) a draft for the article. But it does show what a thorny issue distinguishing between what is acceptable and what is not is -- opinions differ wildly depending on the observer's cultural, religious and political perspective, and what one person views as an ethical (or in some cases even sacred) practice can easily be viewed by another, even within the same culture, as an atrocity. And this is true across a really wide range of modifications, in many different and often quite complex ways. So we are left with NPOV as the only practical way of addressing this, but it's a huge and rambling topic to address. — The Anome (talk) 07:05, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

To be neutral: wouldn't we have to include other cultural perspectives in as well, to, and not just the Western World? @The Anome:? I don't know.
I'm not opposed to it in possible, but it seems, again, like a breeding ground for edit wars. KlayCax (talk) 20:14, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
It is indeed likely to be fractious, but the NPOV policy requires us to try. The alternative of not trying to describe all those distinct views is even worse, as it will result in a never-ending edit war about which set of views is correct and moral.

Describing viewpoints we find repugnant is not the same as endorsing them. Nor are we required to give all viewpoints equal weight, see WP:UNDUE; for example, there is a clear global consensus on female genital mutilation aka "female circumcision", with only a few outlier views that we can describe as such. On transgender surgery, there is now a mainstream consensus in the West (and many places beyond) that this is OK for consenting adults to get done, but a big right wing movement to try to roll that back, using the controversy about transgender children as a wedge issue. And so on. I think we can find WP:RS to support all of these -- not the views themselves, but the characterization of those views and the people that hold them.

We've managed it on other contentious topics, and we can manage it here. — The Anome (talk) 20:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

There's also the problem of what "consensus" is supposed to mean here. Even within liberal democracies, views can differ greatly.
I'd classify "neonatal circumcision" as controversial in Denmark but "acceptable" or "generally accepted" in the United States.
Transgender surgeries might be "controversial" in the United States but viewed as "wrong" in Ghana. KlayCax (talk) 18:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Comment Firstly, I appreciate The Anome's initiative and intention to be helpful and clear things up. It is evident that their work in good faith. On the other hand, I also understand KlayCax's comment (concern?) here; I believe that a table like this functions, in a way, similar to an infobox (which, from what I've seen, is a bit disliked by some users here). This happens when we try to put complicated things in clear-cut boxes. The table can be potentially helpful here in the talkpage, but it can also be an easy target and cause more disagreements than we had before. I also hear KlayCax's concern about the potential originial research, since we do not base it on an already existing work.
I wouldn't be opposed in principle, @Piccco:. The problem is that using multiple sources in this instance (unlike most cases) would allow an endless barrage of cherrypicking.
(Oppose sex-reassignment/gender-affirming surgery? Well, here's a source labeling it "controversial". Vasectomy? Let's find a Catholic source that calls it controversial.) It's all very subjective. KlayCax (talk) 03:09, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Some oppose all genital modifications and even label all mutilation. (Sikhs, certain other cultures)
  • Some classify mutilation under religious/natural arguments (Predominantly among traditionalist and the conservative religious )
  • Some classify mutilation under sexual pleasure/function arguments. (Regardless of consent.)
  • Some classify mutilation based on consent (Predominantly in the Western world.)
I don't feel comfortable using any one definition for Wikivoice. KlayCax (talk) 03:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I've restored the text about the term "genital mutilation" in the lede, with the note that opinions differ. "Genital mutilation" is absolutely the WP:COMMONNAME of some of these modifications, see female genital mutilation. This doesn't change my view that this article should be at Genital modification as the more general term, but mention of the term "genital mutilation" absoutely needs to be in the lede, because it is common usage. — The Anome (talk) 10:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I see we are back to selecting one single option from the above. I have added the qualifer "generally used", while as this is the general definition used in the Western world and typical among Wikipedia contributors (including myself, as I believe the "mental bad health" qualifier includes distress from non-consensual modifications) it is not, as KlayCax says above, the only one. — The Anome (talk) 12:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Example of foreskin restoration

Under the section circumcision, there is a subsection: Foreskin Restoration. I have attempted to add this photo of a circumcised penis that from years of foreskin restoration now looks uncircumcised.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d6/Restored_Foreskin.png NuManDavid (talk) 12:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't find your image controversial, but can you tell my why you could not put it in the article? — The Anome (talk) 12:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
The page blocked me from editing and adding the image. NuManDavid (talk) 13:04, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
This is an edit filter issue. You are repeatedly hitting various automatic filters aimed at stopping various kinds of fairly crude vandalism edits, probably because your account is not autoconfirmed yet because you have not been here for very long and have made very few edits. These filters exist because we have a lot of fairly juvenile drive-by vandalism; they're a brute-force method but they work very effectively. Try contributing usefully on other topics for a week or two, and then come back here and try again; if you have done so effectively, you should pass the thresholds needed to be autoconfirmed, and your edit should be allowed through. (Specifically, the filters involved were Special:AbuseFilter/1295, Special:AbuseFilter/384 and Special:AbuseFilter/53) — The Anome (talk) 16:03, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Thank you NuManDavid (talk) 18:48, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 26 February 2024

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. In this discussion we have a small majority opposing moving, but consensus is not determined by counting !votes but by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy.

In support of the move, editors argue that the current title violates WP:NPOV, that it isn't consistent with Body modification, and that the proposed title is more WP:CONCISE.

They also argued that the definition of mutilation is ambiguous; that {{tq|you couldn't get agreement from a progressive American, a mohel, a tattoo artist in Kreuzberg, a transphobe, and a traditional midwife in Somalia about what constitutes mutilation}}.

In opposition to the move editors argue primarily that the article covers two topics - modification and mutilation - and that using modification for the latter is a euphemism. In support of this, they assert that reliable sources consistently refer to some practices, such as Female genital mutilation, as mutilation. They also cite WP:PRECISE and WP:AND, saying that the current title better reflects the scope of the article and better covers all practices.

Supporters did not dispute the assertion that some practices are consistently referred to as mutilation in reliable sources. They did argue that non-reliable sources, such as the {{tq|traditional midwife in Somalia}}, might disagree, but the disagreement of such sources is not relevant in a discussion on how to title an article.

As such, I find that the opposers have sufficiently rebutted the argument that all mutilations can also be considered modification.

Considering the arguments through this lens, I find that the opposing arguments are stronger; these are two separate but related topics covered by one article, and that while some of these practices should not be referred to as mutilation, some should also not be referred to as modification.

Given that both the quality and quantity of argument oppose moving, I find a consensus against moving.

I did not give any weight to the argument for moving the article to Genital mutilation, due to factual inaccuracies and a lack of policy basis. (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 06:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Genital modification and mutilation → Genital modification – Fails WP: CRITERIA. 1.) It lacks precision, as it encompasses related but dissimilar topics, often being misinterpreted by users to mean that all genital modifications listed on the page are mutilations. 2.) It fails the criteria of concision. As all genital mutilations are forms of genital modifications, genital modification would suffice. (e.g. It is like if a page was termed "List of dogs and bulldogs" instead of "List of dogs") 3.) It fails the criteria of neutrality, as it implies to readers (problematically) that gender-affirming surgery, labiaplasty, circumcision, and pearling are mutilation. It also associates "modification" with exclusively negative changes. To make it meet WP: NPOV, you'd have to add "enhancement" or another positive term, a proposal that would further fail the criteria of concision. 4.) The title goes against article precedents surrounding body modification articles. All of which leave out titles that give positive or negative personal judgements. KlayCax (talk) 03:30, 26 February 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. estar8806 (talk) ★ 13:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

WP:RM#Nom. Dekimasuよ! 04:43, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
  • What has changed since your previous request was closed with a consensus not to move the page last year? In that discussion, several editors argued that the use of two terms here actually serves to distinguish between "modification" (which can be affirming) and "mutilation" (which is not). Dekimasuよ! 04:43, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Note: WikiProject Sexology and sexuality has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:44, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Note: WikiProject LGBT studies has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:44, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Note: WikiProject Women's Health has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:44, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Support – The current title violates WP:NPOV and article title policy. WP:AND (policy) says:
    Titles containing "and" are often red flags that the article has neutrality problems or is engaging in original research: avoid the use of "and" in ways that appear biased.
I would say that the current title is definitely non-neutral, and therefore biased, as you couldn't get agreement from a progressive American, a mohel, a tattoo artist in Kreuzberg, a transphobe, and a traditional midwife in Somalia about what constitutes mutilation; reliable sources of divergent origin reflect this disagreement. The shorter title is WP:CONCISE, and per WP:NDESC, this article needs a neutral, non-judgmental title, either the one proposed, or some other neutral title, but not the current one. Mathglot (talk) 18:13, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
Support. From what I see, this clearly violates NPOV, as described above. I agree with just " genital modification"; however, if a better title (one that is more concise, or neutral, perhaps) I wouldn't be opposed to that either. TransButterflyQueen Ɛï3 19:47, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Support per nom. – GnocchiFan (talk) 20:25, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Support: Where were all of you last year when I was the only one expressing support for this? As I said then, "The proposed title is more WP:CONCISE, avoiding redundancy (as well as opinion). The current title is like 'Mammals and ugly dogs'." It's more POV than "dogs and bulldogs", because it feels the need to express Wiki-disapproval of bulldogs. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 04:13, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
    Last year I didn't have a wikipedia account, hahaha. I'm glad I can be of help now, however :) TransButterflyQueen Ɛï3 14:07, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose: The title needs to allow for the presence or absence of "consent". If we wanted article(s) pertaining to "consensual sexual coupling" and "non-consensual sexual coupling", we probably would make these two distinct articles. In this case, we should first consider whether to have two articles" (e.g. "consensual genital modification" and "nonconsensual genital modification") or if we are going to have these combined into a single article. This proposal presumes there will be a single article, and if that's the intent, the article title needs to reflect that. Fabrickator (talk) 17:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
    On the contrary, if we were to have such an article (and of a similar length to this one) it would likely be just titled "sexual coupling" with seperate sections on "consensual" and "non-consensual". With the analogy that you proposed, the article is currently similar to "sexual coupling and non consensual sexual coupling"; a neutral phrase and a negative phrase. TransButterflyQueen Ɛï3 17:46, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose: Genital Mutilation, especially Female Genital Mutilation is usually referred to as “mutilation” not “modification”. Lumping consensual modification with harmful and nonconsensual mutilation trivializes the harm done. This move request is disruptive given we recently already shut this proposal down. Prcc27 (talk) 19:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
    Self-mutilation also exists. Consent isn't the predominant criteria.
    One could similarly say that lumping together "mutilation" and "modification" together stigmatizes body diversity. KlayCax (talk) 12:44, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
    Mutilation has nothing to do with “body diversity”. Consent is one criterion, but obviously not the only one. Severity is also a factor. We should not be conflating modifications with mutilation. Prcc27 (talk) 19:29, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
    Mutilations are a form of modification, by definition. They modify an aspect of the human body. KlayCax (talk) 13:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
    Yes to 'Female Genital Mutilation', because that is what the reliable sources say, so I support that title at that topic. This is not that article. Mathglot (talk) 21:13, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose per WP:EUPHEMISM. Split the article if there's conflation of two different types. —  AjaxSmack  02:14, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
    That argument is backwards. Removing POV (policy) is not euphemism (guideline). If we have a title of, say, Combatants and terrorists in the first Iraq War, you're not violating EUPHEMISM by changing that to Combatants in the first Iraq War, you're complying with it. Same thing here, and anyway, POV and TITLE are policy and trump EUPHEMISM (MOS). Mathglot (talk) 03:02, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
    "Combatants and terrorists" is a good hypothetical example (ref. MOS:TERRORIST). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:44, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
Oppose as euphemistic. Killuminator (talk) 14:33, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Rename to genital mutilation per WP: EUPHEMISM. Circumcision, labiaplasty, and other forms of non-harmful practices should be excluded from the article, but the American Academy of Pedatrics identifies "gender-affirming surgery" as a form of mutilation so it should remain. FGM should be also identified as such. We're sugarcoating horrors otherwise. CoolidgeCalvin (talk) 17:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)

— CoolidgeCalvin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:14, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
I fail to see why that matters. CoolidgeCalvin (talk) 01:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
Your assertion about the AAP's position is demonstrably false and is the opposite of their true position. The AAP supports gender-affirming care.[40][41] Mathglot (talk) 17:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

While we're at it, I've edited the lede to a more common definition of the modification/mutilation distiction. We should not be using words like "horrendous" in articles in Wikipedia's voice. This distinction is clearly a matter of passionate controversy, as this talk page shows. If at all possible, we should look to WP:RS to get this right; this looks like good start to me regarding FGM at least. — The Anome (talk) 11:56, 16 March 2024 (UTC)

That is a euphemism. (As others here have pointed out.)
Even medical treatments can be mutilation as well. CoolidgeCalvin (talk) 01:01, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Support: A move to genital modification, is the least-worst choice here, and here's my rationale.

I think Mathglot's comment that "you couldn't get agreement from a progressive American, a mohel, a tattoo artist in Kreuzberg, a transphobe, and a traditional midwife in Somalia about what constitutes mutilation" cuts to the centre of this whole dispute, and the difference between describing something as modification or mutilation depends on whether you see it as morally acceptable or unacceptable. (I'd also add anti-male-circumcision and intersex rights campaigners to that list.) The consensus in Western countries currently seems to be that modifications are acceptable if either non-destructive and voluntary, or medically justified, and there seems to be a world-wide consensus that traditional FGM is unacceptable everwhere. I would imagine that's also the value system of the core Wikipedia editor demographic, and we seem to be writing on the other positions in terms of difference from that consensus.

You could easily write an entire article on this. And at the moment, it looks like we have.

Given all this, I suggest we move the article to genital modification, since I think we can agree that both acceptable modifications (if any) and unacceptable mutilations are both ultimately different forms of modification. But we cannot use this to gloss over the controversy, or to deny that certain modifications are widely or even almost universally viewed as being mutilations, and the existence of the controversy and different opinions about which modifications are which should be at the core of the article. — The Anome (talk) 15:45, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Relisting comment: Open for over a month with no consensus. Relisting to bring hopefully a bit more attention here in order to aid consensus building. estar8806 (talk) ★ 13:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the same reasons mentioned above. Many of the procedures included in the article are indisputably referred to as mutilation in almost all publications. Consent is an important factor here as well. Also, this article was initially called only "mutilation", but it was later expanded with more content and moved to the curret title (which, in my opinion, might be the best option). Piccco (talk) 00:42, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
    As mentioned above: the problem with the current title is that it primes readers to view all of the things listed as mutilation. It simply fails WP: NPOV.
    Of course the things that are frequently considered mutilation could be mentioned in their individual sections. KlayCax (talk) 02:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
    The problem I have with an argument like this Oppose is that you are talking about sources related to portions of content, which has to do with WP:Verifiability, and nobody (afaik) is saying the article cannot have non-neutral wording in the content, especially if supported with in-text attribution to reliable sources, as required for such opinions. But this discussion is *not about content*, it is about the article title, which is governed by article title policy, and in this case, the question is: Does this title comply with that? As this title is a descriptive title (i.e., not the name of somebody, or some place, or some thing) it is descriptive and must comply with WP:AT#Non-judgmental descriptive titles, to wit, the title:
    should reflect a neutral point of view, rather than suggesting any editor's opinions. Avoid judgmental and non-neutral words
    and mutilation is the very definition of a judgmental, non-neutral term, because nobody can agree on what it means, and furthermore, in many cases you can predict whether someone will consider a procedure mutilation or not, once you know their identity and sociocultural background. How judgmental can you get? The current title is a glaring violation of WP:NDESC. That said, you can still keep all the quotations you want about "mutilation" in the content, no problem, as long as it complies with WP:INTEXT and WP:DUE. But that's not what this discussion is about, and I wish people would stop raising the issue, as it is off-topic. Mathglot (talk) 02:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Note: WikiProject Sexology and sexuality has been once again notified of this discussion.KlayCax (talk) 02:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Note: WikiProject LGBT studies has been once again notified of this discussion. KlayCax (talk) 02:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Note: WikiProject Women's Health has been once again notified of this discussion. KlayCax (talk) 02:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Note: Wikiproject Human rights has been notified of this discussion. KlayCax (talk) 02:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Solution in search of a problem. Summarises the subject perfectly. Saying that somebody whose genitalia have been forcibly mutilated has suffered "genital modification" is like saying someone who's been beheaded has suffered "cranial modification"! Both words need to be in there to cover both forcible and voluntary situations. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
    See Mathglot's statement above. KlayCax (talk) 14:43, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
    As Mathglot notes: POV and TITLE are policy and trump EUPHEMISM (MOS). This is a misunderstanding of Wikirules. KlayCax (talk) 14:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
    All depends on whether you consider the current title contravenes WP:NPOV or WP:TITLE. I certainly do not believe it does and neither do other editors commenting here. You and Mathglot have one POV; other editors have another. Nobody is misunderstanding any rules (which Wikipedia does not have in any case). You state that Mutilation is a subset of modification as though that is an indisputable fact. I do not agree with you. I would argue that they are entirely different things. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:01, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
    What forms of mutilation don't modify the body? KlayCax (talk) 15:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
    And as Mathglot mentioned: mutilation is a a judgmental, non-neutral term whose meaning nobody can agree on. So I don't see how it isn't in violation of WP: NPOV or WP: TITLE. KlayCax (talk) 16:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
    There's also WP:NDESC. This is a textbook example of a violation. KlayCax (talk) 18:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
    Your flippant reductio ad absurdum about beheading as body modification deserves no response. But to follow your line of inquiry in a legitimate manner: in fact, cranial modification has been practiced in many cultures throughout history. I understand that you consider them barbaric mutilations, subject to comparison with beheading, so really the question comes down to this: should we just take your word for it that cranial modifications are mutilations, or should we go with these references and other reliable sources?[1] Mathglot (talk) 22:01, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
    Your flippant reductio ad absurdum about beheading as body modification deserves no response. Because a sense of humour is banned on Wikipedia! This is policy! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment: Several editors seem to be bypassing WP:NDESC and WP: TITLE entirely.

It's important to note that many of the common genital modifications listed on this page are almost universally regarded as not mutilation. (Labiaplasty, adult circumcision, piercings et al.) KlayCax (talk) 18:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

In fact many would regard any form of non-medically-necessary circumcision as mutilation! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
A small minority, perhaps. But I think it's hard to argue that consensual labiaplasty, adult circumcision, and piercings could be classified as such. This debate over phrasing is exactly why this page should simply have a "terminology" section detailing what is classified as enhancement or mutilation. There's no way to "neutrally" describe many of these body mods. Many Sikh consider shaving the face or pubic hair a form of mutilation. KlayCax (talk) 00:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
By that I mean: unless one takes the view that *all body modifications* are inherently mutilation (which only a small percentage of people do) then the things listed above are almost certainly not. KlayCax (talk) 03:03, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Comment - I don't know where I stand on this title, but I have a question. Where do we treat male genital self mutilation (GSM)?[1] To my mind, if the page is about modification, it is not about that. While Self mutilation redirects to Self-harm, I note that it doesn't redirect to Self modification. Are we saying such things are out of scope of this page? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:59, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
    Again, @Sirfurboy:. The vast range and criteria on what "enhancement" and "mutilation" are so vast and contradictory that both should be kept out of the article title.
    • Many Sikh's call even trimming the pubic hair a form of genital mutilation. (e.g. anti-modification under all circumstances outside of medical emergency)
    • Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox, conservative Evangelical Christians, and other religious beliefs are based on their religious tenets or perceived natural law. (e.g. Religious or teleological based definition.)
    • Many Westerners think that "mutilation" is entirely based on the impact it has on sexual pleasure, function, or sensation, regardless of questions of consent. (e.g. Harm-based definition.)
    • Many Westerners consider any medically necessary or consensual genital modification enhancement or modification; any non-consensual change mutilation, no matter how small. (e.g. Autonomy-based definition)
    If the article is going to have "mutilation" in the title — which strongly implies that everything listed within it is mutilation — then it's going to have permanent issues that are likely not fixable.
    How are we going to determine whether something is enhancement or mutilation? Which of the above four criteria are we going to use? Will these claims be stated in Wikivoice? KlayCax (talk) 00:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
    I wouldn't be against a "self-harm" section, however. KlayCax (talk) 03:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
    I'm sorry, but that appears to be answering the wrong question. I asked where we treat the subject of genital self-mutilation (GSM). This is a subject that is widely treated in the literature. See, for instance, this systematic review [2]. Or the article in the American journa lof psychiatry [3], or this BJU one [4], or many primary sourced case reports. GSM is genital self-mutilation. The sources call it that and we should call it that. My question is whether this page is about that at all. Not the article title, but the article itself? Does it belong here or should it be elsewhere? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:09, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
    We can still call certain types of genital modifications - in theory - mutilation. The RFC is about the article title itself. KlayCax (talk) 23:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
    My question was an attempt to ascertain whether this article should be about genital mutilation at all, and especially whether GSM belonged on the page. I came to the conclusion that it does belong here, and there is no better place to treat GSM. Thus I made my !vote below. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
  • Oppose Good arguments have been made in support of this change. I take particular note of Mathglot's citation of WP:AND which says, inter alia,

    Sometimes two or more closely related or complementary concepts are most sensibly covered by a single article. Where possible, use a title covering all cases.

    To that end, I have been considering supporting this, but I note that this does rehash an earlier RM and a dicussion in which Foxtrot620 made this point: If there was a page titled Squares and Rectangles, one wouldn't propose renaming it to merely Rectangle. Despite the fact that all squares are rectangles, not all rectangles are squares. That is right. The advice of WP:AND is to find a title covering all cases, but I simply do not agree that "modification" neutrally and sufficiently covers all the cases being described here. I asked above whether GSM should be on this page. It is on this page (somewhat), and as it stands, I think it is a closely related and complementary topic. However, and this is where this discussion is failing thus far IMHO, sources do not call this genital self-modification. We should be following the sources (and I list some above). If sources are speaking of genital mutilation, then so should we. Which is not to say that the term has to be in the title. What the title has to do, is it has to describe the article content. This proposed move removes one side of the coin (mutilation) and leaves the other (modification). A one sided coin would be unbalanced. I may support an RM, but I do not support this RM. I might also support a split if we decided that the subjects are not complementary... although I expect that would be problematic. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:01, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
    We can still call certain types of genital modifications - in theory - mutilation. The RFC is about the article title itself. Cases of unambiguous mutilation can be referred to as such.
    I'm assuming you support the article title itself changing to just "modification" with that in mind? Or no / KlayCax (talk) 23:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
    No. How did you read that into my words? I may support an RM, but I do not support this RM. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
    What alternative titles would you be okay with, @Sirfurboy:? It seems heavily problematic to have "genital mutilation" in the title if modifications are listed that are not it.
    Additionally, I think the separation between "modification" and "mutilation" is pretty artificial, many scholars do call things such as FGM female genital modification or female genital cutting as well. KlayCax (talk) 02:17, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
    If I could think of an alternative I would be okay with, I would have suggested it! It would need to be a title that sufficiently encapsulates both the concept of modification and the concept of mutilation. For now, I can think of nothing better than "modification and mutilation" but I am open to suggestions. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:54, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
I've requested closure for this at Wikipedia:Closure_requests. Natg 19 (talk) 22:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC: Circumcision viewpoints

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is a consensus to include the viewpoints of circumcision proponents and opponents in the article with the proposed wording. An editor also noted that reliable sources should be used to support the wording which is consistent with our policies and guidelines. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:37, 18 August 2024 (UTC)


Should the viewpoints of circumcision proponents and opponents be included in this article?

Wording in question: “Support for circumcision is often centered on its medical benefits, while opposition is often centered on human rights (particularly the bodily integrity of the infant when circumcision is performed in the neonatal period) and the potentially harmful side effects of the procedure”.

Prcc27 (talk) 17:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

Yes: per WP:DUE, “neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources.” Whether or not to circumcise (especially a child) is a significant debate; and ethics of circumcision specifically is a significant consideration given by major medical organizations (see previous RfC on the matter). Prcc27 (talk) 18:02, 21 July 2024 (UTC)
Yes per prcc27 Snokalok (talk) 16:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)
Unnecessary RfC per WP:RFCBEFORE. Was there any discussion on the proposed edit, and if so could you please link to it? RFCs aren't meant for merely "anticipated" disagreements. If you think this should be in the article, put it in; if someone reverts it, start a discussion on the talk page to try to reach consensus. Only if you reach an impasse is an RfC the right way to go. Tserton (talk) 11:44, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
This has been discussed before, so WP:RFCBEFORE has been met. [5] A user recently removed the sentence in question from the article; if I re-added it, that would be edit warring. Prcc27 (talk) 14:39, 27 July 2024 (UTC)
Yes assuming sources will be added as well. Senorangel (talk) 06:14, 2 August 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Referencing problems due to content dispute

This edit by Prcc27 introduced more than eight referencing errors to the article. While the edit summary says this material was being "re-introduced", I can't find these references or the prose in the history of the article, so it's not clear where it was reintroduced from. Looks like it was part of the recent edit disputes here, though. I've remved the definitions, but it's pretty clear that the material is much more weakly referenced than the original version probably was.

What is the best way to fix it? -- mikeblas (talk) 21:51, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

The sources were copied from Circumcision controversies. Prcc27 (talk) 22:43, 11 September 2024 (UTC)

Detailed cultural views shouldn't be mentioned

The context of the RFC is widely different from the present.

As you can see above, the RFC merely concluded that some mention of viewpoints should be included in the article(s). That has been provided by a newly created topic article and a specific one for it. Would be strange to focus just on circumcision when gender-affirming healthcare and FGM has far more notoriety in popular culture and academic scholarship. @Prcc27:. @Bon courage:.

Your edit turns the article into a coat stand of random, unconnected opinions. DerApfelZeit (talk) 20:29, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

This paragraph in the article also does the same thing without an undue emphasis on a particular subject:

Contrasting views have sometimes crossed into the realm of politics and law, where matters of sexual reassignment surgery, other forms of gender-affirming healthcare, circumcision, and intersex medical interventions have often become the subject of legal and social debate. Modern Western cultures often place a greater emphasis on individualist notions of consent and autonomy over ideas of communitarian obligations, natural law, or divine commandments, which tend to have more influence in non-Western societies.

What medical organizations state that circumcision has benefits? It's not in the citations. DerApfelZeit (talk) 20:48, 10 November 2024 (UTC)
I'm also wondering what group of mainstream doctors or medical organization states that circumcision improves sexual function.
Couldn't find a single word online. You'd be laughed at in Germany if you made that claim. DerApfelZeit (talk) 20:54, 10 November 2024 (UTC)

More neutral wording

Section was created by confirmed sockpuppet. Prcc27 (talk) 23:32, 18 November 2024 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

@Wikipedialuva:@Prcc27:@MrOllie:@Bon courage:@Sirfurboy:@Man-Man122:.

The article has significant flaws and is heavily biased. I propose that it should be rewritten and look something like this.

Here are some of the major issues I've noticed:

  • The article's title asserts that every genital modification is mutilation. This is deeply offensive.
  • The article is trying to actively persuade the reader to hold a left-wing, autonomy-based viewpoint of ethics.
  • Catholicism — which has 1.5 billion followers — holds that natural law and divine commandment takes precedence over "consent" or "autonomy". The perspective that the article wants you to affirm (that any consensual action by a sufficiently autonomous actor is permissible; any action that is not is wrong) is a minority global perspective. Yet it is at the moment the only one given.
  • Labiaplasty on girls/women, healthcare and related-surgeries for transgender individuals have received far more significant attention than circumcision, even in Germany, where I live, yet vast swathes of the article (almost 1/4th of the article) is focused on the opinions of an anti-circumcision group called the Brussels Collaboration on Bodily Integrity.
  • The article implies that circumcised men have sexually damaged sex lives. No mainstream source, to my recollection, states this.
  • The article also claims that circumcision may "confer sexual benefits". I know of no mainstream doctor that claims this.

I'm also not sure why this page pushes the idea that every modification is mutilation. Some things in the article might be mutilation. It's offense to label piercings and tattoos "mutilation". It's emotional language that I haven't seen anyone else on Wikipedia.

Willing to help improve the page if anyone is interested. DerApfelZeit (talk) 01:01, 11 November 2024 (UTC)

No. This article does not insinuate that all genital modifications are mutilation. We have already discussed this at least twice and the consensus was to keep the title as is. Does the article say circumcised men have damaged sex lives, or does it say that that is a viewpoint that some have? We do not say that in wikivoice AFAIK. I do not believe the article should claim circumcision has “sexual benefits”, sounds dubious. Prcc27 (talk) 02:18, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
This section (added a month ago by Chrono1984) in wikivoice gives disproportionate airspace to the idea that all genital modifications performed with the consent of a sufficiently autonomous individual are not mutilation. That's a minority viewpoint globally. Sikhs, most Muslims, the Catholic Church, Evangelicals, Orthodox Jews, and many secular individuals in Eastern Europe/Asia don't believe this.
  • Sikhs see consensual genital modifications (including trimming the pubes or cutting hair in general) as ethically questionable.
  • Catholics, conservative evangelical Protestants, most Muslims, and many secular individuals in East Asia/Europe see consensual transgender surgeries/healthcare as ethically wrong, regardless of whether it is performed on a consenting adult.
  • The large majority of Jews and Muslims see certain (arguably non-consensual) actions like routine circumcision as not mutilation. I would say that most in Canada, the United States, and East Asia, as well as many in Europe, hold this view either.
I didn't find the arguments in the RFC persuasive and other editors have made identical statements to what I'm writing now. A RFC that is closed 7-7-1 is by no means a consensus. As for the sentence I'm referring to, it makes the following claims:

Modern proponents say that circumcision reduces the risks of a range of infections and diseases and confers sexual benefits. Opponents, particularly of routine neonatal circumcision, question its preventive efficacy and object to subjecting non-consenting newborn males to a procedure that is potentially harmful, in their view, with little to no benefit, as well as violating their human rights and possibly negatively impacting their sex life

What doctor or medical organization states that it "negatively impacts" an individual's sex life? What medical organization claims it has "sexual benefits"? Both claims appear to be cherry-picked in regards to the science. The large majority say it doesn't make an impact at all.
Any mention of "sexual benefits" or "possibly negatively impacting their sex life" should be expunged. Mostly interested on adding my knowledge of Deus Ex lore on here... so this is probably going to have to be someone else's problem if there's going to be a huge debate on it. It's just one of the worst, and most biased, Wikipedia articles I've seen on here. I propose something like this instead:

Contrasting views have sometimes crossed into the realm of politics and law, where matters of sexual reassignment surgery, other forms of gender-affirming healthcare, circumcision, and intersex medical interventions have often become the subject of legal and social debate. Modern Western cultures often place a greater emphasis on individualist notions of consent and autonomy over ideas of communitarian obligations, natural law, or divine commandments common in non-Western societies.

The article also makes claims in perhaps the most subjective matter possible (ethics) and quotes long opinions about it:

therefore, that as a matter of justice, inclusivity, and gender equality in medical-ethical policy (we do not take a position as to criminal law), clinicians should not be permitted to perform any nonvoluntary genital cutting or surgery in prepubescent minors, irrespective of the latter’s sex traits or gender assignment, unless urgently necessary to protect their physical health

Despite the article mentioning this elsewhere. I've never heard of the "Brussels collaboration on Bodily integrity" (which appears to be a project that the editor is involved in) but it appears to be a group that is focused on prohibiting neonatal circumcision. It's definitely been the subject of some analysis in recent years but could be quickly summarized. The entire article comes across as an argumentative essay wanting people to take a left-wing, autonomy-based ethical view on genital modification. DerApfelZeit (talk) 03:16, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
And you think third time’s a charm? It is disruptive to rehash something that has already failed in a matter of a few months ago. Prcc27 (talk) 03:23, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
1.) Not at the moment. I may submit a move request in a few months.
2.) Do you agree with everything else? DerApfelZeit (talk) 03:28, 11 November 2024 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Genital_modification_and_mutilation/Archive_3&oldid=1258258846"