For the record, I'm not really arguing that this topic is worth legislating about. I understand that would do more harm than good in the current context. You know as well as I do that legislation can't always achieve what we would like it to.
However, I find it frankly strange that you seem to argue that opposition to circumcision to be immoral. If anything, I would argue that removing a part of a newborn's body without a medical reason (yes, I know there are sometimes medical grounds for circumcision, and I obviously have no problem with them, as I have no problem is it's an adult who makes the choice) is the immoral thing. Which again, doesn't mean it should be banned.
That's why I amended 'immoral' to 'morally irresponsible' after a certain point. Advocating for legally banning circumcision is morally irresponsible because it I don't think it adequately takes into account the histories of the groups that traditionally consider circumcision important and of legislation that targets them and their customs. Just personally opposing and advocating against circumcision is fine as far as I'm concerned.
Something like 100-150 million women have their genitals mutilated. That is also done for ‘cultural’ reasons. It is of course far far worse than the practice of male circumcision. It is of course, rightly improper to make appeals to culture and defence in tradition of such practices. Part of the main cultural reasons for doing so is of course misogynistic; it is the traditional inference that women’s sexual parts are ‘dirty’ and its removal promotes both virginity and fidelity. So why are males circumcised for religious and cultural reasons? There is evidence that as a procedure it was a form of emasculation. We tend to forget the ritualistic forms of castration that took place across cultures the majority of which have of course been made culturally redundant. Circumcision provided two ‘benefits’; it lowered sexual arousal in young males (as someone who has not been circumcised I am able, without the need for any other lubrication to masturbate ‘dry’) and it reduced the ability of men to inseminate other women (by ‘other’, I mean not his wife). The biological reason as to why men have a foreskin is in part, to a siphon off other men’s semen if the male penetrates a women immediately after other man. For whatever ancient reason the domino effect of the practice of circumcision took off amongst Semitic peoples, it was not for health reasons. If it was for reasons of cleanliness then it was at most a subjective cleanliness.
Both male and female circumcision are first recorded in Egypt. In the case of male circumcision that practice spread to neighbouring Semitic peoples and was subsequently layered with religious significance. Female circumcision remained fairly self-contained within that area until it was utilised much, much later on by Arab and Coptic cultures. Both were originally practiced for the same reason and for the same ends regardless of what difference people now place on them.
It would be improper of me to oppose FGM without giving pause to reflect on the shared cultural history of male circumcision.
