5 ms·

Whilst FGM is absolutely abhorrent, I really can't stand how MGM (or circumcision without any medical need for it) is happily accepted in "Western values". I c

Whilst FGM is absolutely abhorrent, I really can't stand how MGM (or circumcision without any medical need for it) is happily accepted in "Western values". I can accept that circumcision is a medical need in some cases (my brother required it, something he elected to have done in his late teens), but I can't accept the double standard of "it's fine to chop parts off a baby boy without his consent because it's a part of our culture, but it's unacceptable that their culture allows them to chop parts off a baby girl". So the point is, why are "Western values" automatically better than other values? I think you're being hyperbolic that "migrants have come over in such numbers that they have little pressure to assimilate", that is plainly nonsense.

vladvasiliu 6y ago
I think GP may have worded it a bit strongly. What seems to often happen is that when there are many people from the same original culture living together whatever cultural pressures there may have been in the original country will tend to reproduce. This is probably related to those people being marginalised in the host country, so they don't have a lot of close contact with the new culture. Their day to day interactions are with people sharing the same views. This seems to happen less when people are living among different cultures, even if those are all "foreigners" in the country. I can see this phenomenon happen also with "expats", particularly Americans as its pretty easy for them to find each other. I've met many such expats around Paris who had lived here for several years and could hardly say a word of French. But I guess that the "culture shock" isn't as strong because US and French cultures aren't as different as say French and Indian.
- richrichardsson 6y ago
  > people being marginalised in the host country This is a very good point. Very difficult to "integrate" when you face hostile natives.
RHSeeger 6y ago
The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) says the benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks.
- arkades 6y ago
  Not exactly. The AAP has waffled for years, putting their thumb on the scales of every guideline to include a “cultural factor” to the cost- benefit analysis which is literally “but people really want this for religious reasons.” They generally aimed for neutral, until the 2012 task force statement. Accordingly, if you look up their most recent position statement (2012) they headline with “benefits outweigh risks.” But if you go -into- the actual statement they phrase it more delicately: “ Although health benefits are not great enough to recommend routine circumcision for all male newborns, the benefits of circumcision are sufficient to justify access to this procedure for families choosing it and to warrant third-party payment for circumcision of male newborns.” The benefits are sufficient to -still ask insurers to pay for it-. If health benefits -actually- outweighed risks, they’d recommend it for all infants routinely. Accordingly, they got raked over the coals by pediatric organizations outside the US, which aren’t accustomed to cosmetic circumcision: “ To these authors, only 1 of the arguments put forward by the American Academy of Pediatrics has some theoretical relevance in relation to infant male circumcision; namely, the possible protection against urinary tract infections in infant boys, which can easily be treated with antibiotics without tissue loss. The other claimed health benefits, including protection against HIV/AIDS, genital herpes, genital warts, and penile cancer, are questionable, weak, and likely to have little public health relevance in a Western context, and they do not represent compelling reasons for surgery before boys are old enough to decide for themselves.” (https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/131/4/796?utm_source=TrendMD&utm_medium=TrendMD&utm_campaign=Pediatrics_TrendMD_0 https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/131/4/796?utm...)
  - RHSeeger 6y ago
    I agree there's some room for argument as to whether it should be recommended or not, but - The headline includes "benefits outweigh risks" - The text notes that "the benefits of circumcision are sufficient to ... warrant third-party payment for circumcision of male newborns" I got downvoted to claiming they said "the benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks". I'm sorry, but... they do. Literally and unambiguously. Assuming you trust the AAP (which many Americans probably do), comparing it to FGM is patently absurd.
jl6 6y ago
My impression is that MGM is decreasingly part of “Western values” and more an American thing. There seems to be a massive blind spot in American culture on this issue.

vladvasiliu 6y ago

I think GP may have worded it a bit strongly. What seems to often happen is that when there are many people from the same original culture living together whatever cultural pressures there may have been in the original country will tend to reproduce. This is probably related to those people being marginalised in the host country, so they don't have a lot of close contact with the new culture. Their day to day interactions are with people sharing the same views. This seems to happen less when people are living among different cultures, even if those are all "foreigners" in the country. I can see this phenomenon happen also with "expats", particularly Americans as its pretty easy for them to find each other. I've met many such expats around Paris who had lived here for several years and could hardly say a word of French. But I guess that the "culture shock" isn't as strong because US and French cultures aren't as different as say French and Indian.

richrichardsson 6y ago
> people being marginalised in the host country This is a very good point. Very difficult to "integrate" when you face hostile natives.

RHSeeger 6y ago

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) says the benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks.

arkades 6y ago
Not exactly. The AAP has waffled for years, putting their thumb on the scales of every guideline to include a “cultural factor” to the cost- benefit analysis which is literally “but people really want this for religious reasons.” They generally aimed for neutral, until the 2012 task force statement. Accordingly, if you look up their most recent position statement (2012) they headline with “benefits outweigh risks.” But if you go -into- the actual statement they phrase it more delicately: “ Although health benefits are not great enough to recommend routine circumcision for all male newborns, the benefits of circumcision are sufficient to justify access to this procedure for families choosing it and to warrant third-party payment for circumcision of male newborns.” The benefits are sufficient to -still ask insurers to pay for it-. If health benefits -actually- outweighed risks, they’d recommend it for all infants routinely. Accordingly, they got raked over the coals by pediatric organizations outside the US, which aren’t accustomed to cosmetic circumcision: “ To these authors, only 1 of the arguments put forward by the American Academy of Pediatrics has some theoretical relevance in relation to infant male circumcision; namely, the possible protection against urinary tract infections in infant boys, which can easily be treated with antibiotics without tissue loss. The other claimed health benefits, including protection against HIV/AIDS, genital herpes, genital warts, and penile cancer, are questionable, weak, and likely to have little public health relevance in a Western context, and they do not represent compelling reasons for surgery before boys are old enough to decide for themselves.” (https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/131/4/796?utm_source=TrendMD&utm_medium=TrendMD&utm_campaign=Pediatrics_TrendMD_0 https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/131/4/796?utm...)
- RHSeeger 6y ago
  I agree there's some room for argument as to whether it should be recommended or not, but - The headline includes "benefits outweigh risks" - The text notes that "the benefits of circumcision are sufficient to ... warrant third-party payment for circumcision of male newborns" I got downvoted to claiming they said "the benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks". I'm sorry, but... they do. Literally and unambiguously. Assuming you trust the AAP (which many Americans probably do), comparing it to FGM is patently absurd.

jl6 6y ago

My impression is that MGM is decreasingly part of “Western values” and more an American thing. There seems to be a massive blind spot in American culture on this issue.