Nicely balanced start
I wonder if there should be either a disambiguation, or text here, about what I hesitate to call female genital mutilation, which is the usual term in medicine. Without prejudice to issues of male circumcision, even the "mild" forms of FGM are much more radical.
As far as health benefits, other than HIV, there is data for reducing human papilloma virus transmission, causing cervical cancer. I do not know of any work, however, that considers the risk-benefit there in populations where, variously, the non-universal HPV vaccine is used widely, and, for that matter, in populations that have regular cervical cancer screening.
Howard C. Berkowitz 17:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- The other wiki calls it 'female genital cutting', which is an obvious attempt to placate those who say it's just another part of culture. I suggest an article/disambiguation called genital mutilation that covers both female and male, with links to female genital mutilation and circumcision. John Stephenson 18:07, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- When possible, I prefer to stay with formal indexing. Medical Subject Headings of the National Library of Medicine does have circumcision as the primary term, with all the others as synonyms (well, genital mutilation, female). Howard C. Berkowitz 19:51, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- I think we should probably talk about female genital mutiliation rather than 'cutting'. To require non-emotive language for all topics doesn't seem like a particularly good idea - we don't talk about 'unwanted sexual action', we talk about rape. "Female genital cutting", as a phrase, has the same feel as "enhanced interrogation", "collateral damage" and various other bits of newspeak. --Tom Morris 20:43, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- Agree, although I must grant that "mutilation" is a subjective rather than neutral term. "Modification", "removal", something else...? But "cutting" is banal. Aleta Curry 20:50, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- I'm toying with the relative neutrality of using more specific terms, and thoroughly cr:oss-linking. Where there is essentially one form of male circumcision, there are at least three recognized female types: Sunna, clitoridectomy, and infibulation, the last being the most extreme. Male circumcision is roughly comparable to Sunna; the others are far more extensive. Being more specific might get around some of the collective phrase problems.
- This may be something that runs against the family-friendliness policy, but not in the usual "seven bad words" sense. When Masters and Johnson wrote their books, starting with Human Sexual Response, they very deliberately wrote them in fairly dense medical prose. That's not necessarily a bad idea. I'd be extremely hesitant to have any images, even as line drawings (actually preferred in many surgical textbooks; they are more understandable). Still, I can remember nightmares as a child from seeing some pathology texts perhaps just a little too young. Howard C. Berkowitz 21:00, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
- I recall reading in several credible sources (a long time ago so I don't have the sources now but will try to find some) that many of the health benefits cited for circumcision can be obtained from simple hygiene (i.e. daily washing under the foreskin). It would be good, if a relevant source is found, to include this. These health benefits are often touted by the pro-circumcision lobby in favour of circumcision and for neutrality's sake the point should be balanced with the alternative view. If anyone can find sourced material please add. Thanks. Mark Jones 14:25, 21 November 2010 (UTC)