But that doesn't mean they aren't in the same general category when defined as surgical alterations of people's genitalia performed for religious or cultural reasons without any medical necessity.
A medically required circumcision when reasoned and self-chosen is an altogether different story.
For example, circumcision is extremely common in the US, despite the fact that it is relatively very rare for it to be done for religious reasons (only about 2-3% of the US population is Muslim or Jewish). It is done because the medical community broadly recommends it due to its health benefits: https://www.healthline.com/health-news/cdc-encourages-circum...
The most probable case is that traditions, such as male circumcision were done for a particular purpose and ritualised into a traditional to share and continue that process.
It's only in more modern ages where we said that rituals aren't enough and we need to think of medical reasons for it as well.
Considering how much of the mind is an enigma it's arms race to find out positive reasons of why we do certain traditions before we get rid of them completely from not understanding them.
ML's entire thing is statistical correlations that aren't obvious.
Tradition is probably operating like that as well. Is all tradition like this and useful? Of course not. But I bet a lot of it is very subtle and nuanced.
It's also worth considering that there are other pressures. For example, women typically find circumstanced penises more appealing. It's very possible that pressure, coupled with the benefits, helped society land on it more than not.
Only recommended in the US. Which indicates that it’s still cultural.
There is no medical support for it; all the "medical" support that was published in the past was never replicable and was only a thin veneer over superstition.
IOW, you've already made you mind up that male circumcision is a positive. You'll look for evidence to support your conclusions after establishing your conclusions, just like all the other "traditions" do.
You cannot compare this. There is no equivalence here. IMO, female genital mutilation is comparable to male gelding --- removal of the entire penis. Both are designed to ruin sexual pleasure
Always weirds me out when a dude compares a circumcision to FGM, like someone is intentionally conflating a much lesser evil with a far greater one.
The function of the inner labia is to help keep in moisture and lubricant, very much the exact same function and role of the foreskin.
You could use chemical or thermal burns to remove all the skin, preserving a numb nub of mechanical structure.
You can compare this, fundamentally and in principle. Both involve the irreversible mutilation of an infant's sexual organs. One might not be quite impactful as another later in life, but on principle they're equally abhorrent in a society that believes in bodily autonomy and values its children.
A significant portion of ED is traced back to male genital mutilation.
> Always weirds me out when a dude compares a circumcision to FGM, like someone is intentionally conflating a much lesser evil with a far greater one.
You keep avoid using the term "male genital mutilation". Always weirds me out when people don't want to call an amputation, an amputation.
(See how that works?)