MGM Archives - Intact America

Gender Bias in Circumcision: Addressing FGM and MGM through Intactivism

Apr 14, 2024

Circumcision, the surgical removal of the foreskin from the male penis or the external genitalia of females, often sparks heated debate. Discussions typically focus on the supposed medical, religious, and cultural justifications behind the practices. However, gender bias, inherent in the perception and legalization of circumcision practices—specifically, the differences between Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) and Male Genital Mutilation (MGM) is practically neglected in the larger conversation.

In this article, we advocate for intactivism, the movement opposing all forms of non-consensual genital surgeries.

Explore the double standards in the legal and cultural treatment of FGM and MGM
Examine the medical myths versus the realities of genital surgeries
Highlight the intactivism perspective and its reasons for opposing non-consensual circumcision

In this discussion, we will take a closer look into the biases that differentiate the treatment of FGM and MGM and advocate for a unified approach to protecting all children from genital cutting, regardless of gender.

“As Americans self-righteously decry FGM, the American government and funders such as the Gates and Clinton foundations are pushing male circumcision on misinformed and disadvantaged adult men and, increasingly, on male infants who cannot consent. Removing normal genitalia is not a legitimate public health intervention, yet they continue to relentlessly promote it. Whole ranks of international health specialists are building their academic and foundation careers on this worthless, unethical surgery carried out on third-world men, and American doctors continue to rake in the cash for inflicting it on American baby boys. And all of them are willfully, conveniently ignoring any discussion of the ethical disconnects and cultural biases that prevent honest comparison of FGM and MGM.”

— Georganne Chapin, Founder Executive Director, Intact America

Gender Bias in Circumcision: FGM and MGM

Legal and Cultural Double Standards

Defining FGM and MGM

Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) refers to any procedure that intentionally alters or injures the female genital organs for non-medical reasons and is categorized into four major types, ranging from clitoridectomy and excision to more severe forms such as infibulation. The World Health Organization (WHO) classifies FGM as a severe violation of human rights and a form of gender-based violence that can lead to long-term physical, psychological, and sexual harm.

In contrast, Male Genital Mutilation (MGM), commonly known as male circumcision, involves the surgical removal of the male foreskin. This practice is also often conducted without the individual’s consent and can result in severe, lifelong psychological, physical, and emotional complications.

Legal Protections Against FGM

Globally, FGM is banned in numerous countries and strongly condemned by various international organizations, including the United Nations and the World Health Organization. These entities advocate for eradicating the practice, recognizing it as a grave human rights violation with no health benefits, only harm. In over 30 countries, including the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom, FGM is illegal and considered a criminal offense, with legislation in place that protects girls from this form of mutilation.

The global consensus against FGM highlights a commitment to protecting female minors from bodily harm that is recognized internationally as neither medically necessary nor ethically justifiable.

The Legal Grey Area Surrounding MGM

Conversely, the practice of MGM, or male circumcision, is treated entirely differently by many of the same jurisdictions where FGM is rigorously prosecuted. In countries like the United States, male circumcision is legal and widely practiced; it is perpetuated even by medical professionals who have sworn to uphold the Hippocratic oath.

This legal inconsistency arises from historical, cultural, and religious biases that contribute to male circumcision being perceived differently from female genital mutilation. The culturally ingrained nature of MGM in many societies contributes to its acceptance, whereas FGM is viewed with condemnation and disgust.

Intactivists—advocates for the ending of all non-consensual genital surgeries—argue that just like FGM, MGM also constitutes non-consensual bodily alteration and should similarly be viewed through the lens of human rights and child protection. The movement pushes for legal and societal recognition that all children, regardless of gender, have the right to bodily integrity and protection from unnecessary harm.

Examining the Double Standards of FGM and MGM

The stark legal and cultural distinctions between how FGM and MGM are treated highlight a blatant gender bias. FGM’s legal prohibition internationally, backed by substantial human rights advocacy, contrasts sharply with the widespread legality and acceptance of MGM, underscoring a societal double standard rooted in tradition and gender discrimination.

As intactivists, we advocate for a universal standard that protects all children from genital alterations without their consent, aiming to align the legal treatment of MGM with that of FGM. We are committed to equality, non-discrimination, and the fundamental rights of children. The intactivist movement seeks to protect children from non-consensual genital cutting, educate societies about the harms associated with these practices, and to shift cultural perceptions towards respect for bodily autonomy and integrity.

Medical Myths vs. Realities of MGM and FGM

Health Benefits Deliberately Exaggerated

Revisiting the Claimed Health Benefits of MGM

Proponents of Male Genital Mutilation (MGM), commonly referred to as male circumcision, often tout several potential health benefits as justifications for the procedure. These benefits are said to include a lower risk of urinary tract infections in infancy, a reduced risk of penile cancer, and a decreased risk of transmission of certain sexually transmitted infections, including HIV.

However, the vast majority of these purported benefits are either not statistically significant enough to be worth the risks and dangers of MGM, or the pros of circumcision amount to little more than propaganda.

Urinary Tract Infections: Some studies suggest that circumcision reduces the risk of urinary tract infections; however, the actual risk reduction is minimal. For instance, to prevent one UTI, up to 100 circumcisions would need to be performed, which is a high intervention rate for a relatively uncommon condition.
Penile Cancer: The American Cancer Society notes that penile cancer is rare in both circumcised and uncircumcised men, with other factors, such as HPV infection, playing a more significant role than circumcision status. The minimal risk reduction does not justify the routine removal of the foreskin.
HIV Transmission: While there are studies that suggest circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexual transmission of HIV among men in high-risk populations (primarily studies conducted in sub-Saharan Africa), these findings are highly questionable due to other factors, such as hygiene practices and cultural elements that were not properly accounted for as variables.

Underestimated Complications of MGM

The risks and complications associated with MGM are frequently underestimated and can vary from minor to severe, including both immediate and long-term consequences:

Immediate Complications: These can include bleeding, infection, and the removal of too much or too little foreskin (our stance is that any foreskin removal constitutes “too much”), which may require further surgical interventions.
Meatal Stenosis: This is a narrowing of the urethra that can occur due to irritation and infection of the exposed urethral meatus following circumcision. It often requires surgical correction and can be painful and problematic.
Long-term Effects: These include potential issues with sexual function and sensitivity, as well as psychological effects due to the traumatic nature of the pain experienced during the procedure without consent. Studies have shown that the foreskin is rich in sensory nerves, and its removal can fundamentally alter the sexual experience.

Furthermore, the psychological impact of undergoing a non-consensual, painful procedure can have long-lasting effects on an individual’s perception of bodily autonomy and psychological well-being. These aspects are seldom considered in the public health discourse around the practice.

FGM Misconceptions Cleared

Like MGM, Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) has been defended by some cultures under the guise of tradition and supposed benefits, which include claims of enhanced hygiene and societal acceptance. However, these justifications fall apart under scrutiny:

Hygiene and Health: There is no health benefit to FGM; instead, the practice can cause severe harm, including chronic pain, infections, increased risk of childbirth complications, and even death.
Societal Acceptance: While FGM might be culturally significant in some communities, this does not outweigh the ethical imperatives to end a practice that causes significant harm and violates individual rights to bodily integrity.

Both MGM and FGM are upheld by various societal, cultural, and even medical justifications. Still, a critical evaluation reveals that these practices are medically unnecessary and ethically indefensible when performed non-consensually.

Intactivism and the Case against Non-consensual Circumcision

Intactivism: Advocating for Genital Autonomy

Intactivist groups like Intact America advocate for the bodily autonomy of all individuals, arguing that children of any gender should be protected from non-consensual genital alterations. Our movement emphasizes the right to intact genitals, free from modifications until the individual can make an informed decision about their own body.

Ethical and Human Rights Perspective: Intactivism aligns with principles of medical ethics, including autonomy and informed consent, which cannot be obtained from infants or children. The movement seeks to protect children from irreversible bodily changes that they may not have chosen for themselves.
Promoting Equality and Non-discrimination: By opposing all non-consensual genital cutting, intactivists promote a stance of non-discrimination based on sex. They argue that the protections afforded to girls concerning genital alterations should be equally afforded to boys.
Legislative and Cultural Change: Intactivists call for legislative reforms to align the legal treatment of MGM with that of FGM, advocating for a consistent approach that respects the rights of all children to bodily integrity. They also work to shift cultural perceptions, promoting understanding of the harms associated with genital cutting and the benefits of remaining intact.

Ethical Considerations and Human Rights

From an ethical and human rights perspective, both Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) and Male Genital Mutilation (MGM) involve significant ethical violations, primarily the non-consensual alteration of a child’s body. This practice breaches fundamental human rights, notably the right to bodily integrity and the right to be free from torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment as outlined in several international human rights treaties.

Violation of Bodily Integrity: The right to bodily integrity is a core principle of human rights, emphasizing an individual’s autonomy over their own body. Both FGM and MGM fundamentally violate this right, as they involve altering a child’s genitalia without consent. This alteration can have permanent physical and psychological effects, which the child must live with for life.
Children’s Rights: The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) advocates that in all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities, or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration. Non-consensual genital cutting clearly contradicts this principle, as it prioritizes cultural, religious, or parental preferences over the child’s own rights and best interests.
Ethical Dilemmas: Ethically, both practices raise serious questions about the moral responsibilities of medical professionals and the limits of parental rights. Medical ethics, underpinned by principles such as do no harm (non-maleficence) and maximizing benefits (beneficence), are compromised when doctors perform surgeries that are not medically necessary and potentially harmful.

Push for Legislative Change around MGM

We at Intact America, along with other intactivist groups, are vigorously campaigning for legislative reforms to eradicate gender bias in the legal treatment of genital mutilation. The objective is to harmonize the laws governing MGM with those established for FGM, providing equitable protections across all genders. This campaign includes several strategic and legal shifts:

Reevaluating Medical Guidelines: Medical associations globally are urged to update their guidelines to reflect contemporary understandings of human rights and medical ethics. This includes acknowledging the lack of sufficient medical benefits to justify routine neonatal circumcision and recognizing the procedure’s potential harms.
Increasing Public Awareness: Intactivists seek to raise awareness about the harms associated with non-consensual genital cutting through educational campaigns, seminars, and partnerships with global health organizations. This effort aims to shift public opinion and generate broad-based support for legislative and cultural change.
Promoting Cultural Shifts: Beyond legal reforms, there is a strong push to shift cultural practices that favor genital mutilation. Through community engagement and advocacy, intactivists work to replace invasive rites of passage with non-invasive cultural celebrations that honor children’s rights and bodily integrity.
Legislative Reforms: The call for legal change is perhaps the most critical. Intactivists urge national legislatures to extend the protections that currently apply to females under the FGM laws to males, which would involve criminalizing non-consensual MGM. These laws would protect children from non-consensual genital alterations and uphold gender equity in child protection laws.

Throughout this discussion, the clear biases and inconsistencies in the treatment of male and female genital mutilation have been highlighted, illustrating a complex interplay of medical, cultural, and legal factors. By advocating for intactivism, we challenge these norms, proposing that the rights of all children to bodily integrity be universally recognized and legally protected.

This call to action is about opposing unnecessary medical procedures and affirming the human rights of every child to have a say over their own bodies. As we move forward, it is crucial to foster dialogue, reshape legal frameworks, and transform cultural attitudes towards a more ethical and equitable treatment of all children, regardless of gender.

Petition to American Academy of Pediatrics: Please Sign to END THE PAIN!

Feb 21, 2016

Last week, Intact America launched a petition to the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). The petition demands that the AAP follow the recommendations from its own research about infant pain, and tell its doctors to END THE PAIN and stop circumcising baby boys. Our goal is 29,000 signatures by February 29. We need your help! Please sign this petition, and share it with your friends. Ask them to sign and share it, too!

AAP told to cut their hypocrisy, not baby boy penises.

Intact America insists that the American Academy of Pediatrics issue a new circumcision policy—one that honors and protects baby boys from harm.

The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) recently said that babies shouldn’t be subjected to unnecessary pain. But the AAP continues to promote “routine” infant circumcision, a painful, medically unnecessary surgery that removes a normal part of a baby’s penis.

Last month, the AAP published research showing that common medical procedures carried out on newborn babies are very painful, and that the effects of the pain can last many years. The procedures mentioned included heel sticks, insertion of IV needles, and circumcision. The AAP report also found that commonly used pain relievers are neither effective nor safe.

Infant circumcision differs from the other procedures discussed in the report in that it is an invasive surgery that neither tests for nor treats any illness, and permanently removes a natural and valuable part of a boy’s sexual anatomy – the foreskin. The pain from circumcision is intense and continues for days or weeks after the surgery.

Circumcision, originally promoted in the 19th century as a way to prevent masturbation, has become part of American medical culture. Every year, a million baby boys in the United States are subjected to this surgery, although no medical association in the world recommends it.

Some of the falsehoods currently used to support circumcision include hygiene, disease prevention, and aesthetics.

The truth is:

The intact penis is easily cleaned throughout a boy’s and man’s lifetime.
Circumcision does NOT prevent sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV. European countries where fewer than ten percent of all men are circumcised have about the same STD rates as the United States, where circumcision is common.
Any preference expressed by men or women for the circumcised penis is a result of cultural conditioning. Besides, as the U.S. circumcision rate declines, and the number of intact boys and men grow, the intact penis will no longer seem strange or unattractive.

Many Americans also believe that circumcision is “just a snip” – a minor, brief, and painless procedure that babies will not remember. This is FALSE, and the new AAP article on pain proves it.

Because circumcision is NOT medically necessary, and because the pain it causes is unmanageable and harmful over the long term, Intact America demands that the American Academy of Pediatrics tell its doctors to end the pain and stop circumcising baby boys.

Help us reach 29,000 signatures by February 29, 2016.

Please sign our petition TODAY.

American Academy of Pediatrics: End the Pain

Feb 13, 2016

The media overlooked an important story late last month that should dramatically change how doctors and hospitals treat newborn babies. On January 25, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) announced a study updating its recommendations on avoiding, minimizing, or treating pain in infants. The AAP statement cites research showing that many “routine” interventions are extremely painful and that there are both short- and long-term consequences of babies’ exposure to painful stimuli.

Now that the AAP is asking health facilities to implement “a pain-prevention program … minimizing the number of painful procedures performed” on newborns, we need to ask again why doctors continue to circumcise nearly a million baby boys a year in the United States. Unlike other painful stimuli the AAP cites, including heel punctures or IV insertion, circumcision is a protracted surgery that does not diagnose or treat any illness, but rather subjects tiny boys to extreme pain for a medically unnecessary procedure.

Until recently, circumcisions have been carried out with no pain relief at all. Instead, practitioners used only physical restraints. Even today, it’s estimated that as many as half of circumcising doctors do not employ analgesia, and that the methods used the rest of the time are only partially effective, if not outright dangerous. (“EMLA,” a topical anesthetic cream widely used in U.S. hospitals, is specifically contraindicated for use “on the genitals of children” in the United Kingdom.

Unfortunately, as the AAP statement acknowledges, it’s nearly impossible to manage pain in infants, given their small size and vulnerability to chemical interventions – even the questionably effective and widely used sugar pacifiers. Implicit throughout the AAP statement is the fact that the safer the analgesic, the less effective it is in eliminating pain.

The next step

Now that the AAP has gone on record to affirm that babies feel and suffer the consequences of pain, and should not be subjected to painful procedures if they can be avoided, the logical next step is for the AAP to call unequivocally for doctors to stop circumcising babies. In its 86-year history, the AAP has never recommended circumcision and has always held that it’s not medically necessary. But, recently, as more and more parents opt out of the procedure for their boys, the trade association’s enthusiasm for circumcision has only increased. In 2012, while admitting that the complications and risks of infant circumcision have never been studied systematically, the AAP took the regrettable position that the operation’s benefits outweigh the risks.

Medical experts from around the world disagree. In response to the AAP’s 2012 statement, a large group of European physicians and ethicists wrote, “Cultural bias reflecting the normality of nontherapeutic male circumcision in the United States seems obvious, and the report’s conclusions are different from those reached by physicians in other parts of the Western world… [Their claims of] health benefits… are questionable, weak, and likely to have little public health relevance in a Western context.”

Notably, far fewer than 10% of adult men in Europe are circumcised, compared to 75% of the adult male population in the United States.

Now we have a systematic study about the short- and long-term risks of pain inflicted upon infants. This is all we need to know in order for the AAP to stand up and say to its members: “Removing a boy’s foreskin is not medically necessary, it is painful, and the pain may compromise his neurological development for years hence. The AAP recommends that the circumcision of male infants cease.”

In my experience, the more you know about circumcision, the more you oppose it. One important fact is that the foreskin is not “extra skin,” but a natural, necessary part of the male anatomy that protects the head of the penis, provides natural lubrication, and enhances sexual pleasure for men and their partners. In 2011, a study published in the International Journal of Men’s Health found that circumcised men have a 4.5 times greater chance of suffering from erectile dysfunction than intact men.

As an activist, bioethicist, attorney and, most importantly, a mother, I feel a glimmer of hope when I read the AAP’s new policy statement. I see a medical organization increasingly boxed into a corner as it tries to escape the inevitable: infant circumcision is not medically necessary, it is unethical, and it has no place in legitimate medical practice. The organization, which pledges its commitment to “the optimal physical, mental, and social health and well-being for all infants, children, adolescents, and young adults,” thus has no legitimate path other than to tell its physician members to stop circumcising baby boys.

Georganne Chapin
February 13, 2016

IOTM – Ernesto Echeverria

Dec 16, 2014

DECEMBER 2014: December’s Intactivist of the Month, Ernesto Echeverria, is a little different from our other honorees. Other than sporting a “10 Out of 10 Babies Say NO” bumper sticker on his minivan, he really isn’t on the frontline. Rather, he came to the issue—let’s say—naturally, and in doing so, helped to inspire the creation of Intact America. You see, Ernesto, who makes his living as a glassblower in Corning, New York, is the son of Georganne Chapin, Intact America’s founding executive director.

“When Ernesto was born in 1980, his father and I would no more have agreed to having him circumcised than we would have agreed to having one of his eyes removed,” says Georganne. “I thought about two things – one was the pain and brutality of the surgery, and the second was how utterly senseless it seemed to remove a body part that nature had given to every single child. And that was that, or so I believed.”

Eighteen years went by. Then, one day during a family road trip, Ernesto brought up the subject.

Georganne recollects: “I remember him saying, ‘Mom, I never thanked you and Dad for not having me circumcised. I just want to thank you so much.’”

It wasn’t until that moment, Georganne says, that she realized the lifelong magnitude of the circumcision decision. “I had thought only about the pain and trauma to the baby. Until my son spoke to me as a young man, I truly had not thought about what circumcision – or, conversely, being intact – meant for the man that baby would become. And not one day goes by since that revelation 16 years ago that I don’t revisit with fervent thanks my decision to let my son keep all of his body parts.”

“As I was growing up,” Ernesto recounts, “I noticed something different about myself compared to most of my friends. What was different was that they had been circumcised and, like my father, I was intact. It took a while for me to understand how relevant this would be to my identity, my sex life, and me being a man. I never thought, though, that this issue would become a movement with legal, ethical and moral implications. I am happy that Intact America is doing this work, so that more boys and men can be proud about their natural bodies and have the awareness of what nature intended for them.”

[sc name=”IOTM”]

Cultural Blindness and Circumcision

Aug 15, 2013

I can’t count the times I’ve heard people say that female genital mutilation (FGM) is “much worse” than routine infant male circumcision. And frankly, I’m tired of it. Cutting the genitals of children – female or male – is a gross violation of their basic human rights. Period.

Which is why a recent New York Times article, “Genital Cutting Found in Decline in Many Nations,” really galled me. While it’s indeed encouraging that the incidence of FGM is declining in some African countries, the article failed to note that in the United States, more than a million newborn boys are subjected to circumcision each year.

As Americans self-righteously decry FGM, the American government and funders such as the Gates and Clinton foundations are pushing male circumcision on misinformed and disadvantaged adult men and, increasingly, on male infants who cannot consent. Removing normal genitalia is not a legitimate public health intervention, yet they continue to relentlessly promote it. Whole ranks of international health specialists are building their academic and foundation careers on this worthless, unethical surgery carried out on third-world men, and American doctors continue to rake in the cash for inflicting it on American baby boys. And all of them are willfully, conveniently ignoring any discussion of the ethical disconnects and cultural biases that prevent honest comparison of FGM and MGM.

Complete excision of penile skin as a complication to newborn male circumcision. (DMJ)

A recent study published in the Danish Medical Journal documents significant complications from circumcision in more than 5% of boys. The photo at right – which accompanies the report – generated disgust even among intactivists when we posted it on our Facebook page. Many asked us to remove it. We didn’t, because this photo of an infant’s mutilated, forcibly stimulated penis speaks volumes about our culture’s refusal to see circumcision for what it is: the unnecessary and unethical damaging of a perfectly healthy part of the body resulting in a spectrum of outcomes that no one has the right to dismiss. Why can’t we call that male genital mutilation? Will the DMJ report be picked up by American mainstream media? Of course not.

The hypocrisy and cultural blindness are mind-boggling.

Georganne Chapin