Making the Cut: Our Hypocritical Stance on Non-Consensual Genital Modification

You know, a lot of people are going on about how the recent ban on circumcision by a German court violates religious freedom, and to be sure, some courts in the US have been unable to uphold such a ruling on those grounds.

Let me be clear... I support religious practices that don't overtly harm people.  Okay, you might say, where do you draw that line?

Here in the U.S., we obviously don't draw it at the mutilation of a child's genitals.  But we do have express bans on other forms of violence sanctioned by religious texts, such as the stoning of women who have sex out of wedlock [Deuteronomy 22].  In fact, we in the U.S. rail against such literal interpretations of religious texts as practiced in countries under a fundamentalist version of sharia (and we use this as justification for the occupation and destruction of those countries... just sayin'). And we have no problem speaking out against the mutilation of female genitalia in Africa, even though that practice is congruent with religious tradition as well.  Are we so hypocritical in our disdain for religion-induced violence that we only accept the kind practiced by people who live in our neighborhoods and look like us?

Unfortunately the religious freedom card continues to dominate the conversation about circumcision in particular.  But what about the discussion of sexual freedom?  We need to be talking about how the mutilation of child's genitals is a huge sexual rights issue.  When it comes to female genital mutilation, the implications are obvious: no clitoris, no sexual pleasure.  What we don't always realize is that the removal of the male foreskin removes a wealth of nerve endings as well, scarring the penis and removing a lot of sensation.  Obviously the organ can still function enough to perform its "biological task," but what about the quality of that child's future sexual life?

The other socially accepted form of genital mutilation not discussed nearly enough is the mutilation (sometimes called "modification") of organs that are considered "ambiguous" at birth.  Seeing how we all have differently-sized-and-shaped genitalia, I find it ethically repugnant that a parent might opt to have their baby's organs cut to look "more normal" without the child's consent.  Still, I'm sure any parent who's had their child's genitals "modified" for this reason would tell you they thought it was for the best.  After all, we live in a world where only two variations of sex organs are considered acceptable, and parents don't want their kids growing up in a world that might persecute them on the basis of something that can be cut away.  It's amazing, really, that our society is so homophobic and transphobic that parents would rather have their children endure major reconstructive surgery than just leave it be.

By now I've probably offended dozens, and really that's okay.  The non-consensual modification of a person's genitalia is a topic many are passionate about, and many of us have strong opinions one way or another.  But the conversation, so often about either "religious freedom" or "normalizing the child for her/his own sake", misses too many points to not be taken to task.  We can't discuss the above without also taking into account the child's future as a sexual being in charge of her/his own body, and we need to start thinking about the inherent problems with putting things like religious tradition before sexual autonomy.