this post was submitted on 01 Jan 2026
167 points (99.4% liked)
World News
1087 readers
846 users here now
Rules:
Be a decent person, don't post hate.
Other Great Communities:
Rules
Be excellent to each other
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Using the term "mutilation" to describe someone's perfectly healthy penis, is a form of bigotry.
As someone who is perfectly comfortable with his circumcized penis: it's absolutely mutilation.
Agreed. My parents had me snipped. When I asked why it was basically "well everyone was doing it."
My son is intact and can make his own decision about it when he's older.
Plural mutilations
Synonyms of mutilation
1
: an act or instance of destroying, removing, or severely damaging a limb or other body part of a person or animal
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/mutilation
Circumcision is literally a textbook example of the word multilation
So, would you then describe all forms of surgery as "mutilation"? Or tattoos? Pierced ears? Hair cuts? They all fit the definition, as long as you see them as "harmful" or "destructive".
What makes the term derogatory is its inherently negative context. Applying it to hundreds of millions of people, is equally harmful and negative. That's what makes it a form of bigotry. You are making a broadly generalized, inherently negative assertion about an entire demographic.
Tattoos? Yes
Pierced ears? Yes
Hair cuts? No
HTH
There is zero biological reason to remove foreskin. It's objectively mutilation.
I'm circumsized. I did not give anyone permission to remove a part of my penis that was perfectly healthy when I was an infant and could not consent. I want you to quantify to me how I was not done wrong, and how my bodily autonomy was not violated. I understand that isn't the case in the article, but it's the perfect example for you to argue.
Also, just because a culture or religion does something doesn't mean I have to support it, and it definitely doesn't make me a bigot to oppose it. Iran will stone women to death under Sharia Law. Am I a bigot for saying stoning women is bad?
It almost completely prevents balanitis in young boys, and has long term benefits in preventing other types of infections later in life. And that's on top of the fact that it's simply easier to keep clean, in general.
Equating that to stoning a woman under Sharia Law, is absurd and intellectually dishonest. Which is why making those types of comparisons is a form of bigotry. You are making ridiculous generalizations in order to denigrate other people.
According to your first paragraph, we should just remove the pinky finger from all children because it just gets in the way, traps bacteria under the fingernail, and might get caught in a car door someday.
The WHO doean't support this, and I've lived and worked in medicine all over Africa. You teach them and support them with better self-care, not encouraging genital mutilation. No matter how much shit you sling at the wind, you can literally accomplish this by educating people to wash their dicks.
Refute my challenge you ignored. I never consented to being circumsized and I was circumsized for the same reason. Justify to me how my bodily autonomly wasn't violated as a baby when someone cut off a piece of my penis.
I want to hear your armchair quarterback mental gymnastic bullshit since we're actively trying to teach people all over Weat Africa to just wash your dick.
Infant genital mutilation is disgusting and I think it's about time it's made illegal around the world. I'm sorry about your penis.