3 ms·

I keep thinking this might keep stoking the fire of some of the antisemitism in America. I think it was Norway planned to outlaw all mutilations of minors and

by rob_c 5y ago

I keep thinking this might keep stoking the fire of some of the antisemitism in America. I think it was Norway planned to outlaw all mutilations of minors and ended up with all middle eastern religions crying foul in unison which was scary. (All they seemed to disagree on was which child to harm) needles to say the law that was eventually passed was so watered down as to be (again imo) ineffective... The view that this practice is the norm and that it's somehow so untouchable is imo scary.

anewthrowaway 5y ago
However, the precedent that FGM is outlawed _despite_ religious protest, means that MGM might eventually fall too. This means that anyone wishing to preserve MGM is trying to find support for it on other grounds. Hence the litany of "health studies" supporting the practice, so it's not just a religious issue, it's a health issue! Muddy the waters with just enough doubt to keep the debate alive instead of letting it be an obviously-settled issue like FGM. The result is that, if you look at all the papers published on the topic, and sort them into two piles depending on who funded the research, and then look again and sort them into two piles depending on their conclusion, you'll find that you've performed the same sort twice.
- Freak_NL 5y ago
  The health arguments simply don't fly here in Europe though. There was a practitioner of circumcision in the Netherlands who went to court this year to argue that their income was tax deductible because it served a therapeutic purpose. The judge did not agree and wiped away the argument that it prevented future complications as well. It's still legal, but it's not health care (except presumably in rare special cases like phimosis where it may be warranted if other solutions are not effective). It's only by making this a matter of religious autonomy that MGM isn't banned outright yet, because politicians are always really careful around matters that might anger religious groups. Especially right-leaning politicians or those who belong to a Christianity-based political party.

by rob_c 5y ago

anewthrowaway 5y ago

However, the precedent that FGM is outlawed _despite_ religious protest, means that MGM might eventually fall too. This means that anyone wishing to preserve MGM is trying to find support for it on other grounds. Hence the litany of "health studies" supporting the practice, so it's not just a religious issue, it's a health issue! Muddy the waters with just enough doubt to keep the debate alive instead of letting it be an obviously-settled issue like FGM. The result is that, if you look at all the papers published on the topic, and sort them into two piles depending on who funded the research, and then look again and sort them into two piles depending on their conclusion, you'll find that you've performed the same sort twice.

Freak_NL 5y ago
The health arguments simply don't fly here in Europe though. There was a practitioner of circumcision in the Netherlands who went to court this year to argue that their income was tax deductible because it served a therapeutic purpose. The judge did not agree and wiped away the argument that it prevented future complications as well. It's still legal, but it's not health care (except presumably in rare special cases like phimosis where it may be warranted if other solutions are not effective). It's only by making this a matter of religious autonomy that MGM isn't banned outright yet, because politicians are always really careful around matters that might anger religious groups. Especially right-leaning politicians or those who belong to a Christianity-based political party.