MEDICAL FRAUD and the criminal assault of boys
Male Circumcision is Mutilation
The procedure done to millions of babies, girls and women around the world that is euphemistically called “circumcision” is horrible and Ms. Goodman should be commended for speaking out against it. I do, however, take exception to one line: “Our reaction (in this country) ...has been tamped down by a bizarre analogy made between female ‘circumcision’ and male.” Why does she consider this analogy to be so “bizarre”? There is really no difference, it is only a question of degree. It is just wrong to change another person’s healthy genitals without their permission. Every baby born has the most basic human right to a whole body, and that includes intact genitals.
The U.S. is the last developed country to practice circumcision on the majority of newborn males for non-religious reasons. According to 1994 statistics, male circumcision in this country has dropped to a low of 59 percent and is on the decline. The same reasons used to promote this practice here (hygiene, appearance, conformity) are used in other countries to continue female “circumcision.”
The removal of healthy, erogenous, sexual tissue from another human being, male or female, without their express consent may someday be considered to be a crime. Until then, it remains a national and worldwide shame.
Susan Peer
East Stroudsburg
Letters to the Editor
(Re: Ellen Goodman’s column on female genital mutilations - October 20). Pocono Record, Stroudsburg, PA. October 29, 1995.
This Business of Equality Cuts Both Ways
In his article, It’s not racist to discuss our differences (Nov.4), Douglas Todd writes: “Most Canadians also adhere to broader principles such as equality of the sexes, individual freedom, and protecting the environment,” and gives the example of Canadians’ general condemnation of clitorectomy on young girls.
But is this example appropriate? It clearly doesn’t illustrate equality, since genital mutilation of young boys is seen as routine and acceptable here.
Perhaps it illustrates individual freedom for one sex, but why pick an example which only serves to call to mind a glaring violation of the principle (i.e., the fact that the other sex is denied this freedom)?
As a Canadian-born human being who had part of the most sensitive and personal area of my body amputated when I was too young to give consent, I remain very skeptical of this alleged Canadian moral high ground.
GREG DICKEY
Vancouver (The Weekend Sun, Nov. 10, 1995)