The question of whether circumcision is "mutiltation" is contentious. It very much depends on one's attitude towards circumcision, especially whether one considers it beneficial or not. The (5000-page) Shorter Oxford Dictionary says
|
Mutilate (miü·tilëit), v. 1534. [f. L. mutilat-, ppl. stem of mutilare to lop off; f. mutilus maimed (cf. Gr. mutiloV [mutilos] hornless); see -ATE3.] 1. trans. To deprive (a person or animal) of a limb or organ of the body; to cut off or otherwise destroy the use of (a limb or organ) 1562. 2. To render (a thing, e.g. a record, etc) imperfect by cutting off or destroying a part 1534. |
Circumcision fits all of the second part of 1.
| to cut off or otherwise destroy the use of (a limb or organ) |
The derivation from the Greek for "hornless" is also suggestive. The farmer may think dehorning cattle improves them, the cattle may not. Likewise castration.
If the word "mutilation" still seems excessive, the M of MGM (and FGM) can always stand for the neutral "Modification".
A table on this site compares Female Genital Mutilation with Male Genital Mutilation. A page contrasts the American Academy of Pediatrics' approaches to the two. A page of maps shows their world distribution: what is striking is that FGM is never performed where MGM is not.
Back to the Intactivism index page.