Please click here to view the article in the Mail Online or click on the image above.
Men are coerced by society to keep silent if they feel damaged by circumcision. A man complaining about what is essentially a sexual assault will be greeted with statements like “Oh you’ve just got a problem” or “You’ve got a bee in your bonnet”. Almost never will they be greeted with sympathy or any understanding. Watson’s book does an enormous amount to break the silence and to encourage a compassionate view of men who have had an unnecessary procedure forced on them.
Watson’s introduction to the book is a neat summary of the well documented harms caused by male circumcision. The papers published by various academics and scientists working in the fields covered by human biology have all concluded that the foreskin which is removed by the act of circumcision is a functional and specialised component of the male anatomy. Academic papers can be a challenge to digest, Watson’s introduction is easy to comprehend and gives excellent references if the reader wants to study the subject of physical harm further.
The heart of the book is the light it shines onto the psychological damage caused by non-therapeutic male circumcision. Watson examines what little evidence there is in the the academic sphere and goes on to provide the stories of 50 men, from a wide range of cultures and ages, who tell us about their journeys from the discovery of what has been done to them, to the harm it has caused, and their reaction to that harm. Often men who have taken this path arrive at a positive or at least optimistic place.
What can no longer be in doubt, thanks to Watson’s book and the brave men who tell their stories, is that some men do suffer a significant amount of damage as a result of an anachronistic and inappropriate medical practice. Some men may claim to be unharmed and even be happy with their circumcision but the question lingers about how comfortable you are knowing that a large number of men do suffer in silence from the misguided parenting and the unnecessary medical treatment they have received. Surely the prudent course of action is to let the child mature and then make his own decision.
Reclaiming My Birth Rights by Adrienne Carmack MD
This is a book that is part autobiography and part thought provoking tour through medicine as it is practiced in America today. Doctor Carmack looks at pregnancy, childbirth, circumcision, unnecessary genital surgery and the early years of parenting with a knowledge of medicine and a compassionate, open mind. I would recommend this book to anyone considering having children. After three different birth experiences Doctor Carmack has a lot of valuable experience to pass on to prospective parents.
That medicine is a practice with it’s own culture should come as no surprise. What is surprising is Carmack’s exposition of the extent to which that medical culture as opposed to medical science influences the practice of medicine. Drug companies and the influence they exert on medicine are insightfully analysed and criticised. The overuse of antibiotics and the misuse of vaccinations is clearly explained. The companies that market baby formula obviously don’t market breast feeding but the importance of breast feeding and co-sleeping with your children is quite rightly stressed, by Carmack, as being both natural and safe.
The encouraging aspect of this book is that there are people questioning cultural norms such as our over reliance on the medical profession, when a visit to an osteopath, physiotherapist or other alternative practitioner may be all that is necessary. The core of this book is how to achieve the balance between living and growing in society rather than just existing in society and letting life take it’s toll on our health. Carmack views health as not just the absence of illness but the total wellbeing that is achievable with a balanced life.
My own journey towards a balanced life has been very different to the author’s but it is progressing. As a person who has made the change from victim of male genital cutting to activist opposing non-therapeutic genital surgery I applaud Doctor Carmack’s realisation that non-therapeutic genital surgery on males and intersex children is inherently harmful and her robust rejection of the practice is most welcome.
MDC wishes this young lady well in her career. She has followed her instincts to protect vulnerable children and come to an ethical position that makes her speak for those that cannot defend themselves. Thank you to all concerned with the production of this video.
The disadvantage of targeting specific offences with specific legislation such as the Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003 is that the targeting appears to select particular groups for punitive action. This has resulted in no prosecutions under the Act in the 10 years of the Act’s existence.
The cultures that traditionally practice female genital mutilation (FGM) usually cut males as well and so they perceive the legislation as being discriminatory towards their specific practice and discriminatory towards their culture. It is not surprising that prosecutors have been reluctant to proceed when they realise that the prosecutor’s action will be seen as discriminatory by the culture concerned.
A law that has a useful application in a great variety of situations is a law that can be generally seen to be fair and just. A law that is wide reaching in it’s scope maintains the impartiality of the judicial process rather than being seen as aimed at a specific community or culture. FGM is without doubt an assault so the French, sensibly, use their Code Civil an equivalent of the English Offences Against The Person Act to bring perpetrators of FGM to trial without any implication of discrimination.
Looking at the U.K’s Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003 reveals an offence the definition of which is quite specifically and deliberately drafted as an anatomical list designed to apply only to females, labia minora, labia majora and clitoris (no mention is made of the clitoral prepuce); it is an offence to excise or cut any of the parts mentioned. This definition prevents the possible inclusion of male or intersex anatomy in the definition.
The definition of who is and who is not female is not certain and as recent change to the law in Germany has made clear gender is a choice that can be left for the individual concerned to make when they are competent to decide for themselves. Approximately two in a hundred children are born with some form of ambiguity regarding their gender. An ethical line in the sand could and should be drawn by sticking to fundamental medical ethics; unnecessary procedures without informed consent can and should wait until proper consent can be obtained.
The argument will of course be made that FGM is especially nasty, has outcomes and consequences unique to females. This is not the only situation in which that argument could be made but is dismissed by society. Take the law on rape as an example. The outcomes and consequences of rape can be very different for men and women; women can become pregnant, yet there is no perceived need for a different law for males and females because it is recognised that the crime is the lack of consent not the sex act itself or it’s consequences.
So it should be with genital cutting; children born with atypical genitals, women wishing for “designer vaginas” and those men who want to sacrifice part of their penis should be free to consent to such procedures when they are competent to do so. Children who cannot give informed consent should all be protected equally, irrespective of gender.