This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Genital modification and mutilation article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 45 days |
Wikipedia is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options to not see an image. |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
On 27 April 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to Genital modification. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
|
It has been proposed in this section that
Genital modification and mutilation be
renamed and moved to
Genital modification. A bot will list this discussion on requested moves' current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{
subst:requested move}} . Do not use {{
requested move/dated}} directly. |
Genital modification and mutilation → Genital modification – Fails WP: CRITERIA. 1.) It lacks precision, as it encompasses related but dissimilar topics, often being misinterpreted by users to mean that all genital modifications listed on the page are mutilations. 2.) It fails the criteria of concision. As all genital mutilations are forms of genital modifications, genital modification would suffice. (e.g. It is like if a page was termed "List of dogs and bulldogs" instead of "List of dogs") 3.) It fails the criteria of neutrality, as it implies to readers (problematically) that gender-affirming surgery, labiaplasty, circumcision, and pearling are mutilation. It also associates "modification" with exclusively negative changes. To make it meet WP: NPOV, you'd have to add "enhancement" or another positive term, a proposal that would further fail the criteria of concision. 4.) The title goes against article precedents surrounding body modification articles. All of which leave out titles that give positive or negative personal judgements. KlayCax ( talk) 03:30, 26 February 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. estar8806 ( talk) ★ 13:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Rename to genital mutilation per WP: EUPHEMISM. Circumcision, labiaplasty, and other forms of non-harmful practices should be excluded from the article, but the American Academy of Pedatrics identifies "gender-affirming surgery" as a form of mutilation so it should remain. FGM should be also identified as such. We're sugarcoating horrors otherwise. CoolidgeCalvin ( talk) 17:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
While we're at it, I've edited the lede to a more common definition of the modification/mutilation distiction. We should not be using words like "horrendous" in articles in Wikipedia's voice. This distinction is clearly a matter of passionate controversy, as this talk page shows. If at all possible, we should look to WP:RS to get this right; this looks like good start to me regarding FGM at least. — The Anome ( talk) 11:56, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Support: A move to genital modification, is the least-worst choice here, and here's my rationale.
I think Mathglot's comment that "you couldn't get agreement from a progressive American, a mohel, a tattoo artist in Kreuzberg, a transphobe, and a traditional midwife in Somalia about what constitutes mutilation" cuts to the centre of this whole dispute, and the difference between describing something as modification or mutilation depends on whether you see it as morally acceptable or unacceptable. (I'd also add anti-male-circumcision and intersex rights campaigners to that list.) The consensus in Western countries currently seems to be that modifications are acceptable if either non-destructive and voluntary, or medically justified, and there seems to be a world-wide consensus that traditional FGM is unacceptable everwhere. I would imagine that's also the value system of the core Wikipedia editor demographic, and we seem to be writing on the other positions in terms of difference from that consensus.
You could easily write an entire article on this. And at the moment, it looks like we have.
Given all this, I suggest we move the article to genital modification, since I think we can agree that both acceptable modifications (if any) and unacceptable mutilations are both ultimately different forms of modification. But we cannot use this to gloss over the controversy, or to deny that certain modifications are widely or even almost universally viewed as being mutilations, and the existence of the controversy and different opinions about which modifications are which should be at the core of the article. — The Anome ( talk) 15:45, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
POV and TITLE are policy and trump EUPHEMISM (Means of style). MOS:EUPHEMISM doesn't apply here. Mutilation is a subset of modification.
POV and TITLE are policy and trump EUPHEMISM (MOS). This is a misunderstanding of Wikirules. KlayCax ( talk) 14:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Mutilation is a subset of modificationas though that is an indisputable fact. I do not agree with you. I would argue that they are entirely different things. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 15:01, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Your flippant reductio ad absurdum about beheading as body modification deserves no response.Because a sense of humour is banned on Wikipedia! This is policy! -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
It's important to note that many of the common genital modifications listed on this page are almost universally regarded as not mutilation. ( Labiaplasty, adult circumcision, piercings et al.) KlayCax ( talk) 18:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
To that end, I have been considering supporting this, but I note that this does rehash an earlier RM and a dicussion in which Foxtrot620 made this point:Sometimes two or more closely related or complementary concepts are most sensibly covered by a single article. Where possible, use a title covering all cases.
If there was a page titled Squares and Rectangles, one wouldn't propose renaming it to merely Rectangle. Despite the fact that all squares are rectangles, not all rectangles are squares.That is right. The advice of WP:AND is to find a title covering all cases, but I simply do not agree that "modification" neutrally and sufficiently covers all the cases being described here. I asked above whether GSM should be on this page. It is on this page (somewhat), and as it stands, I think it is a closely related and complementary topic. However, and this is where this discussion is failing thus far IMHO, sources do not call this genital self-modification. We should be following the sources (and I list some above). If sources are speaking of genital mutilation, then so should we. Which is not to say that the term has to be in the title. What the title has to do, is it has to describe the article content. This proposed move removes one side of the coin (mutilation) and leaves the other (modification). A one sided coin would be unbalanced. I may support an RM, but I do not support this RM. I might also support a split if we decided that the subjects are not complementary... although I expect that would be problematic. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 09:01, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
I may support an RM, but I do not support this RM.Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 06:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Does anyone know why Archive 2 doesn't show up in the archives box at the top of this page? It lists only Archive 1. The problem seems to be somewhere in {{archive box |index=/Archive index |auto=yes |search=yes | bot=MiszaBot I |age=1 |units=month }}. The problem seems to have something to do with the space between the word "Archive" and the number in the pathname. The one index link that is being displayed is going through a redirect at /Archive1 (no space). Of course, I could create a redirect at /Archive2, but that is not a proper solution.
Also, it doesn't look like either archive is included in the index at
Talk:Genital modification and mutilation/Archive index. I also see another template being called with |mask=Talk:Genital alterations/Archive <#>
, in which "Genital alterations" does not match the name of this page.
—
BarrelProof (
talk) 04:06, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
The vast majority of people (outside of parts of the Western World) classify this as a form of genital mutilation. Should it be referred to in the article as this? CoolidgeCalvin ( talk) 01:00, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
As an attempt to draw light onto attitudes regarding the many different types of genital modification, the various controversies might well best be described in tabular form. Here is an attempt at that (update: as amended, see comments below):
Procedure | Western liberal consensus | Destructive of original function? | Against | For |
---|---|---|---|---|
Male circumcision of adults | Acceptable if voluntary | No | ||
Male circumcision of children | Controversial | No | Anti-circumcision campaigners | Jews, Muslims, consensus in the USA until recently |
Clitoridectomy, Infibulation, etc. | Wrong | Yes | Worldwide consensus | Traditional groups in a few countries |
M to F genital sex reassignment surgery | Acceptable if voluntary | Yes (but sexual pleasure may be preserved) | Anti-trans campaigners | Trans rights campaigners |
F to M genital sex reassignment surgery | Acceptable if voluntary | Yes (but sexual pleasure may be preserved) | Anti-trans campaigners | Trans rights campaigners |
M to F sex reassignment of intersex children | Was acceptable, now controversial | Yes (not sure about sexual pleasure preserved) | Intersex rights campaigners and numerous medical organizations | |
Castration, penectomy etc. other than in sex reassignment surgery | Wrong, unless medically necessary | Yes | Extreme body modification enthusiasts and religious groups | |
Vulvectomy, removal of the vagina etc., other than in sex reassignment surgery | Wrong, unless medically necessary | Yes | ||
Vasectomy | Acceptable if voluntary | Yes, of reproduction; sexual function not affected | Anti-birth-control campaigners | Birth control campaigners |
Female sterilization | Acceptable if voluntary | Yes, of reproduction; sexual function not affected | Anti-birth-control campaigners | Birth control campaigners (but less so than with vasectomy) |
Male genital piercings | Acceptable if voluntary | No, although you may in some cases have to take them out to have sex | ||
Female genital piercings | Acceptable if voluntary | No, although you may in some cases have to take them out to have sex | ||
Labiaplasty | Acceptable if voluntary | No | Those viewing it as unncessary plastic surgery | |
Pearling | Acceptable if voluntary | No | Traditional cultural groups | |
Penile subincision | Acceptable if voluntary | No | ||
Penile splitting | ??? | ??? | Extreme body modification enthusiasts |
Does this describe the various controversial attitudes correctly? — The Anome ( talk) 16:57, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
The table is intended as a discussion tool, not (yet?) a draft for the article. But it does show what a thorny issue distinguishing between what is acceptable and what is not is -- opinions differ wildly depending on the observer's cultural, religious and political perspective, and what one person views as an ethical (or in some cases even sacred) practice can easily be viewed by another, even within the same culture, as an atrocity. And this is true across a really wide range of modifications, in many different and often quite complex ways. So we are left with NPOV as the only practical way of addressing this, but it's a huge and rambling topic to address. — The Anome ( talk) 07:05, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Describing viewpoints we find repugnant is not the same as endorsing them. Nor are we required to give all viewpoints equal weight, see WP:UNDUE; for example, there is a clear global consensus on female genital mutilation aka "female circumcision", with only a few outlier views that we can describe as such. On transgender surgery, there is now a mainstream consensus in the West (and many places beyond) that this is OK for consenting adults to get done, but a big right wing movement to try to roll that back, using the controversy about transgender children as a wedge issue. And so on. I think we can find WP:RS to support all of these -- not the views themselves, but the characterization of those views and the people that hold them.
We've managed it on other contentious topics, and we can manage it here. — The Anome ( talk) 20:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
I've restored the text about the term "genital mutilation" in the lede, with the note that opinions differ. "Genital mutilation" is absolutely the WP:COMMONNAME of some of these modifications, see female genital mutilation. This doesn't change my view that this article should be at Genital modification as the more general term, but mention of the term "genital mutilation" absoutely needs to be in the lede, because it is common usage. — The Anome ( talk) 10:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
I see we are back to selecting one single option from the above. I have added the qualifer "generally used", while as this is the general definition used in the Western world and typical among Wikipedia contributors (including myself, as I believe the "mental bad health" qualifier includes distress from non-consensual modifications) it is not, as KlayCax says above, the only one. — The Anome ( talk) 12:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Under the section circumcision, there is a subsection: Foreskin Restoration. I have attempted to add this photo of a circumcised penis that from years of foreskin restoration now looks uncircumcised.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d6/Restored_Foreskin.png NuManDavid ( talk) 12:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Genital modification and mutilation article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 45 days |
Wikipedia is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Wikipedia's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options to not see an image. |
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
On 27 April 2023, it was proposed that this article be moved to Genital modification. The result of the discussion was not moved. |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
|
It has been proposed in this section that
Genital modification and mutilation be
renamed and moved to
Genital modification. A bot will list this discussion on requested moves' current discussions subpage within an hour of this tag being placed. The discussion may be closed 7 days after being opened, if consensus has been reached (see the closing instructions). Please base arguments on article title policy, and keep discussion succinct and civil. Please use {{
subst:requested move}} . Do not use {{
requested move/dated}} directly. |
Genital modification and mutilation → Genital modification – Fails WP: CRITERIA. 1.) It lacks precision, as it encompasses related but dissimilar topics, often being misinterpreted by users to mean that all genital modifications listed on the page are mutilations. 2.) It fails the criteria of concision. As all genital mutilations are forms of genital modifications, genital modification would suffice. (e.g. It is like if a page was termed "List of dogs and bulldogs" instead of "List of dogs") 3.) It fails the criteria of neutrality, as it implies to readers (problematically) that gender-affirming surgery, labiaplasty, circumcision, and pearling are mutilation. It also associates "modification" with exclusively negative changes. To make it meet WP: NPOV, you'd have to add "enhancement" or another positive term, a proposal that would further fail the criteria of concision. 4.) The title goes against article precedents surrounding body modification articles. All of which leave out titles that give positive or negative personal judgements. KlayCax ( talk) 03:30, 26 February 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. estar8806 ( talk) ★ 13:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
Rename to genital mutilation per WP: EUPHEMISM. Circumcision, labiaplasty, and other forms of non-harmful practices should be excluded from the article, but the American Academy of Pedatrics identifies "gender-affirming surgery" as a form of mutilation so it should remain. FGM should be also identified as such. We're sugarcoating horrors otherwise. CoolidgeCalvin ( talk) 17:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
While we're at it, I've edited the lede to a more common definition of the modification/mutilation distiction. We should not be using words like "horrendous" in articles in Wikipedia's voice. This distinction is clearly a matter of passionate controversy, as this talk page shows. If at all possible, we should look to WP:RS to get this right; this looks like good start to me regarding FGM at least. — The Anome ( talk) 11:56, 16 March 2024 (UTC)
Support: A move to genital modification, is the least-worst choice here, and here's my rationale.
I think Mathglot's comment that "you couldn't get agreement from a progressive American, a mohel, a tattoo artist in Kreuzberg, a transphobe, and a traditional midwife in Somalia about what constitutes mutilation" cuts to the centre of this whole dispute, and the difference between describing something as modification or mutilation depends on whether you see it as morally acceptable or unacceptable. (I'd also add anti-male-circumcision and intersex rights campaigners to that list.) The consensus in Western countries currently seems to be that modifications are acceptable if either non-destructive and voluntary, or medically justified, and there seems to be a world-wide consensus that traditional FGM is unacceptable everwhere. I would imagine that's also the value system of the core Wikipedia editor demographic, and we seem to be writing on the other positions in terms of difference from that consensus.
You could easily write an entire article on this. And at the moment, it looks like we have.
Given all this, I suggest we move the article to genital modification, since I think we can agree that both acceptable modifications (if any) and unacceptable mutilations are both ultimately different forms of modification. But we cannot use this to gloss over the controversy, or to deny that certain modifications are widely or even almost universally viewed as being mutilations, and the existence of the controversy and different opinions about which modifications are which should be at the core of the article. — The Anome ( talk) 15:45, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
POV and TITLE are policy and trump EUPHEMISM (Means of style). MOS:EUPHEMISM doesn't apply here. Mutilation is a subset of modification.
POV and TITLE are policy and trump EUPHEMISM (MOS). This is a misunderstanding of Wikirules. KlayCax ( talk) 14:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Mutilation is a subset of modificationas though that is an indisputable fact. I do not agree with you. I would argue that they are entirely different things. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 15:01, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
Your flippant reductio ad absurdum about beheading as body modification deserves no response.Because a sense of humour is banned on Wikipedia! This is policy! -- Necrothesp ( talk) 13:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
It's important to note that many of the common genital modifications listed on this page are almost universally regarded as not mutilation. ( Labiaplasty, adult circumcision, piercings et al.) KlayCax ( talk) 18:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
To that end, I have been considering supporting this, but I note that this does rehash an earlier RM and a dicussion in which Foxtrot620 made this point:Sometimes two or more closely related or complementary concepts are most sensibly covered by a single article. Where possible, use a title covering all cases.
If there was a page titled Squares and Rectangles, one wouldn't propose renaming it to merely Rectangle. Despite the fact that all squares are rectangles, not all rectangles are squares.That is right. The advice of WP:AND is to find a title covering all cases, but I simply do not agree that "modification" neutrally and sufficiently covers all the cases being described here. I asked above whether GSM should be on this page. It is on this page (somewhat), and as it stands, I think it is a closely related and complementary topic. However, and this is where this discussion is failing thus far IMHO, sources do not call this genital self-modification. We should be following the sources (and I list some above). If sources are speaking of genital mutilation, then so should we. Which is not to say that the term has to be in the title. What the title has to do, is it has to describe the article content. This proposed move removes one side of the coin (mutilation) and leaves the other (modification). A one sided coin would be unbalanced. I may support an RM, but I do not support this RM. I might also support a split if we decided that the subjects are not complementary... although I expect that would be problematic. Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 09:01, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
I may support an RM, but I do not support this RM.Sirfurboy🏄 ( talk) 06:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
Does anyone know why Archive 2 doesn't show up in the archives box at the top of this page? It lists only Archive 1. The problem seems to be somewhere in {{archive box |index=/Archive index |auto=yes |search=yes | bot=MiszaBot I |age=1 |units=month }}. The problem seems to have something to do with the space between the word "Archive" and the number in the pathname. The one index link that is being displayed is going through a redirect at /Archive1 (no space). Of course, I could create a redirect at /Archive2, but that is not a proper solution.
Also, it doesn't look like either archive is included in the index at
Talk:Genital modification and mutilation/Archive index. I also see another template being called with |mask=Talk:Genital alterations/Archive <#>
, in which "Genital alterations" does not match the name of this page.
—
BarrelProof (
talk) 04:06, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
The vast majority of people (outside of parts of the Western World) classify this as a form of genital mutilation. Should it be referred to in the article as this? CoolidgeCalvin ( talk) 01:00, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
As an attempt to draw light onto attitudes regarding the many different types of genital modification, the various controversies might well best be described in tabular form. Here is an attempt at that (update: as amended, see comments below):
Procedure | Western liberal consensus | Destructive of original function? | Against | For |
---|---|---|---|---|
Male circumcision of adults | Acceptable if voluntary | No | ||
Male circumcision of children | Controversial | No | Anti-circumcision campaigners | Jews, Muslims, consensus in the USA until recently |
Clitoridectomy, Infibulation, etc. | Wrong | Yes | Worldwide consensus | Traditional groups in a few countries |
M to F genital sex reassignment surgery | Acceptable if voluntary | Yes (but sexual pleasure may be preserved) | Anti-trans campaigners | Trans rights campaigners |
F to M genital sex reassignment surgery | Acceptable if voluntary | Yes (but sexual pleasure may be preserved) | Anti-trans campaigners | Trans rights campaigners |
M to F sex reassignment of intersex children | Was acceptable, now controversial | Yes (not sure about sexual pleasure preserved) | Intersex rights campaigners and numerous medical organizations | |
Castration, penectomy etc. other than in sex reassignment surgery | Wrong, unless medically necessary | Yes | Extreme body modification enthusiasts and religious groups | |
Vulvectomy, removal of the vagina etc., other than in sex reassignment surgery | Wrong, unless medically necessary | Yes | ||
Vasectomy | Acceptable if voluntary | Yes, of reproduction; sexual function not affected | Anti-birth-control campaigners | Birth control campaigners |
Female sterilization | Acceptable if voluntary | Yes, of reproduction; sexual function not affected | Anti-birth-control campaigners | Birth control campaigners (but less so than with vasectomy) |
Male genital piercings | Acceptable if voluntary | No, although you may in some cases have to take them out to have sex | ||
Female genital piercings | Acceptable if voluntary | No, although you may in some cases have to take them out to have sex | ||
Labiaplasty | Acceptable if voluntary | No | Those viewing it as unncessary plastic surgery | |
Pearling | Acceptable if voluntary | No | Traditional cultural groups | |
Penile subincision | Acceptable if voluntary | No | ||
Penile splitting | ??? | ??? | Extreme body modification enthusiasts |
Does this describe the various controversial attitudes correctly? — The Anome ( talk) 16:57, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
The table is intended as a discussion tool, not (yet?) a draft for the article. But it does show what a thorny issue distinguishing between what is acceptable and what is not is -- opinions differ wildly depending on the observer's cultural, religious and political perspective, and what one person views as an ethical (or in some cases even sacred) practice can easily be viewed by another, even within the same culture, as an atrocity. And this is true across a really wide range of modifications, in many different and often quite complex ways. So we are left with NPOV as the only practical way of addressing this, but it's a huge and rambling topic to address. — The Anome ( talk) 07:05, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Describing viewpoints we find repugnant is not the same as endorsing them. Nor are we required to give all viewpoints equal weight, see WP:UNDUE; for example, there is a clear global consensus on female genital mutilation aka "female circumcision", with only a few outlier views that we can describe as such. On transgender surgery, there is now a mainstream consensus in the West (and many places beyond) that this is OK for consenting adults to get done, but a big right wing movement to try to roll that back, using the controversy about transgender children as a wedge issue. And so on. I think we can find WP:RS to support all of these -- not the views themselves, but the characterization of those views and the people that hold them.
We've managed it on other contentious topics, and we can manage it here. — The Anome ( talk) 20:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
I've restored the text about the term "genital mutilation" in the lede, with the note that opinions differ. "Genital mutilation" is absolutely the WP:COMMONNAME of some of these modifications, see female genital mutilation. This doesn't change my view that this article should be at Genital modification as the more general term, but mention of the term "genital mutilation" absoutely needs to be in the lede, because it is common usage. — The Anome ( talk) 10:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
I see we are back to selecting one single option from the above. I have added the qualifer "generally used", while as this is the general definition used in the Western world and typical among Wikipedia contributors (including myself, as I believe the "mental bad health" qualifier includes distress from non-consensual modifications) it is not, as KlayCax says above, the only one. — The Anome ( talk) 12:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
Under the section circumcision, there is a subsection: Foreskin Restoration. I have attempted to add this photo of a circumcised penis that from years of foreskin restoration now looks uncircumcised.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d6/Restored_Foreskin.png NuManDavid ( talk) 12:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)