Jump to content

Talk:Genital modification and mutilation

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Requested move 26 February 2024

[edit]
The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. In this discussion we have a small majority opposing moving, but consensus is not determined by counting !votes but by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy.

In support of the move, editors argue that the current title violates WP:NPOV, that it isn't consistent with Body modification, and that the proposed title is more WP:CONCISE.

They also argued that the definition of mutilation is ambiguous; that {{tq|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}}.

In opposition to the move editors argue primarily that the article covers two topics - modification and mutilation - and that using modification for the latter is a euphemism. In support of this, they assert that reliable sources consistently refer to some practices, such as Female genital mutilation, as mutilation. They also cite WP:PRECISE and WP:AND, saying that the current title better reflects the scope of the article and better covers all practices.

Supporters did not dispute the assertion that some practices are consistently referred to as mutilation in reliable sources. They did argue that non-reliable sources, such as the {{tq|traditional midwife in Somalia}}, might disagree, but the disagreement of such sources is not relevant in a discussion on how to title an article.

As such, I find that the opposers have sufficiently rebutted the argument that all mutilations can also be considered modification.

Considering the arguments through this lens, I find that the opposing arguments are stronger; these are two separate but related topics covered by one article, and that while some of these practices should not be referred to as mutilation, some should also not be referred to as modification.

Given that both the quality and quantity of argument oppose moving, I find a consensus against moving.

I did not give any weight to the argument for moving the article to Genital mutilation, due to factual inaccuracies and a lack of policy basis. (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 06:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

WP:RM#Nom. Dekimasuよ! 04:43, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • What has changed since your previous request was closed with a consensus not to move the page last year? In that discussion, several editors argued that the use of two terms here actually serves to distinguish between "modification" (which can be affirming) and "mutilation" (which is not). Dekimasuよ! 04:43, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Sexology and sexuality has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:44, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject LGBT studies has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:44, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Women's Health has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:44, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – The current title violates WP:NPOV and article title policy. WP:AND (policy) says:
    Titles containing "and" are often red flags that the article has neutrality problems or is engaging in original research: avoid the use of "and" in ways that appear biased.
I would say that the current title is definitely non-neutral, and therefore biased, as 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; reliable sources of divergent origin reflect this disagreement. The shorter title is WP:CONCISE, and per WP:NDESC, this article needs a neutral, non-judgmental title, either the one proposed, or some other neutral title, but not the current one. Mathglot (talk) 18:13, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Support. From what I see, this clearly violates NPOV, as described above. I agree with just " genital modification"; however, if a better title (one that is more concise, or neutral, perhaps) I wouldn't be opposed to that either. TransButterflyQueen Ɛï3 19:47, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as euphemistic. Killuminator (talk) 14:33, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

— CoolidgeCalvin (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:14, 11 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see why that matters. CoolidgeCalvin (talk) 01:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Your assertion about the AAP's position is demonstrably false and is the opposite of their true position. The AAP supports gender-affirming care.[40][41] Mathglot (talk) 17:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

That is a euphemism. (As others here have pointed out.)
Even medical treatments can be mutilation as well. CoolidgeCalvin (talk) 01:01, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • Oppose Per WP:EUPHEMISM/WP:SPADE. It's possible it could be split into separate articles, however. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As Mathglot notes: POV and TITLE are policy and trump EUPHEMISM (Means of style). MOS:EUPHEMISM doesn't apply here. Mutilation is a subset of modification.
    There's also many things within the article that the large majority of people would not classify as mutilation. (Tattoos, for instance.) The current title falsely smears all modifications as mutilation. KlayCax (talk) 14:49, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting comment: Open for over a month with no consensus. Relisting to bring hopefully a bit more attention here in order to aid consensus building. estar8806 (talk) ★ 13:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per the same reasons mentioned above. Many of the procedures included in the article are indisputably referred to as mutilation in almost all publications. Consent is an important factor here as well. Also, this article was initially called only "mutilation", but it was later expanded with more content and moved to the curret title (which, in my opinion, might be the best option). Piccco (talk) 00:42, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    As mentioned above: the problem with the current title is that it primes readers to view all of the things listed as mutilation. It simply fails WP: NPOV.
    Of course the things that are frequently considered mutilation could be mentioned in their individual sections. KlayCax (talk) 02:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem I have with an argument like this Oppose is that you are talking about sources related to portions of content, which has to do with WP:Verifiability, and nobody (afaik) is saying the article cannot have non-neutral wording in the content, especially if supported with in-text attribution to reliable sources, as required for such opinions. But this discussion is *not about content*, it is about the article title, which is governed by article title policy, and in this case, the question is: Does this title comply with that? As this title is a descriptive title (i.e., not the name of somebody, or some place, or some thing) it is descriptive and must comply with WP:AT#Non-judgmental descriptive titles, to wit, the title:
    should reflect a neutral point of view, rather than suggesting any editor's opinions. Avoid judgmental and non-neutral words
    and mutilation is the very definition of a judgmental, non-neutral term, because nobody can agree on what it means, and furthermore, in many cases you can predict whether someone will consider a procedure mutilation or not, once you know their identity and sociocultural background. How judgmental can you get? The current title is a glaring violation of WP:NDESC. That said, you can still keep all the quotations you want about "mutilation" in the content, no problem, as long as it complies with WP:INTEXT and WP:DUE. But that's not what this discussion is about, and I wish people would stop raising the issue, as it is off-topic. Mathglot (talk) 02:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Sexology and sexuality has been once again notified of this discussion.KlayCax (talk) 02:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject LGBT studies has been once again notified of this discussion. KlayCax (talk) 02:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Women's Health has been once again notified of this discussion. KlayCax (talk) 02:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Wikiproject Human rights has been notified of this discussion. KlayCax (talk) 02:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

In fact many would regard any form of non-medically-necessary circumcision as mutilation! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
A small minority, perhaps. But I think it's hard to argue that consensual labiaplasty, adult circumcision, and piercings could be classified as such. This debate over phrasing is exactly why this page should simply have a "terminology" section detailing what is classified as enhancement or mutilation. There's no way to "neutrally" describe many of these body mods. Many Sikh consider shaving the face or pubic hair a form of mutilation. KlayCax (talk) 00:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
By that I mean: unless one takes the view that *all body modifications* are inherently mutilation (which only a small percentage of people do) then the things listed above are almost certainly not. KlayCax (talk) 03:03, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I don't know where I stand on this title, but I have a question. Where do we treat male genital self mutilation (GSM)?[1] To my mind, if the page is about modification, it is not about that. While Self mutilation redirects to Self-harm, I note that it doesn't redirect to Self modification. Are we saying such things are out of scope of this page? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:59, 5 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, @Sirfurboy:. The vast range and criteria on what "enhancement" and "mutilation" are so vast and contradictory that both should be kept out of the article title.
    • Many Sikh's call even trimming the pubic hair a form of genital mutilation. (e.g. anti-modification under all circumstances outside of medical emergency)
    • Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox, conservative Evangelical Christians, and other religious beliefs are based on their religious tenets or perceived natural law. (e.g. Religious or teleological based definition.)
    • Many Westerners think that "mutilation" is entirely based on the impact it has on sexual pleasure, function, or sensation, regardless of questions of consent. (e.g. Harm-based definition.)
    • Many Westerners consider any medically necessary or consensual genital modification enhancement or modification; any non-consensual change mutilation, no matter how small. (e.g. Autonomy-based definition)
    If the article is going to have "mutilation" in the title — which strongly implies that everything listed within it is mutilation — then it's going to have permanent issues that are likely not fixable.
    How are we going to determine whether something is enhancement or mutilation? Which of the above four criteria are we going to use? Will these claims be stated in Wikivoice? KlayCax (talk) 00:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I wouldn't be against a "self-harm" section, however. KlayCax (talk) 03:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, but that appears to be answering the wrong question. I asked where we treat the subject of genital self-mutilation (GSM). This is a subject that is widely treated in the literature. See, for instance, this systematic review [2]. Or the article in the American journa lof psychiatry [3], or this BJU one [4], or many primary sourced case reports. GSM is genital self-mutilation. The sources call it that and we should call it that. My question is whether this page is about that at all. Not the article title, but the article itself? Does it belong here or should it be elsewhere? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:09, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    We can still call certain types of genital modifications - in theory - mutilation. The RFC is about the article title itself. KlayCax (talk) 23:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My question was an attempt to ascertain whether this article should be about genital mutilation at all, and especially whether GSM belonged on the page. I came to the conclusion that it does belong here, and there is no better place to treat GSM. Thus I made my !vote below. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Good arguments have been made in support of this change. I take particular note of Mathglot's citation of WP:AND which says, inter alia,

    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.

    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: 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)[reply]
    We can still call certain types of genital modifications - in theory - mutilation. The RFC is about the article title itself. Cases of unambiguous mutilation can be referred to as such.
    I'm assuming you support the article title itself changing to just "modification" with that in mind? Or no / KlayCax (talk) 23:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    No. How did you read that into my words? I may support an RM, but I do not support this RM. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What alternative titles would you be okay with, @Sirfurboy:? It seems heavily problematic to have "genital mutilation" in the title if modifications are listed that are not it.
    Additionally, I think the separation between "modification" and "mutilation" is pretty artificial, many scholars do call things such as FGM female genital modification or female genital cutting as well. KlayCax (talk) 02:17, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    If I could think of an alternative I would be okay with, I would have suggested it! It would need to be a title that sufficiently encapsulates both the concept of modification and the concept of mutilation. For now, I can think of nothing better than "modification and mutilation" but I am open to suggestions. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:54, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've requested closure for this at Wikipedia:Closure_requests. Natg 19 (talk) 22:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

RfC: Circumcision viewpoints

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
There is a consensus to include the viewpoints of circumcision proponents and opponents in the article with the proposed wording. An editor also noted that reliable sources should be used to support the wording which is consistent with our policies and guidelines. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:37, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]


Should the viewpoints of circumcision proponents and opponents be included in this article?

Wording in question: “Support for circumcision is often centered on its medical benefits, while opposition is often centered on human rights (particularly the bodily integrity of the infant when circumcision is performed in the neonatal period) and the potentially harmful side effects of the procedure”.

Prcc27 (talk) 17:53, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes: per WP:DUE, “neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in those sources.” Whether or not to circumcise (especially a child) is a significant debate; and ethics of circumcision specifically is a significant consideration given by major medical organizations (see previous RfC on the matter). Prcc27 (talk) 18:02, 21 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes per prcc27 Snokalok (talk) 16:52, 24 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary RfC per WP:RFCBEFORE. Was there any discussion on the proposed edit, and if so could you please link to it? RFCs aren't meant for merely "anticipated" disagreements. If you think this should be in the article, put it in; if someone reverts it, start a discussion on the talk page to try to reach consensus. Only if you reach an impasse is an RfC the right way to go. Tserton (talk) 11:44, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This has been discussed before, so WP:RFCBEFORE has been met. [5] A user recently removed the sentence in question from the article; if I re-added it, that would be edit warring. Prcc27 (talk) 14:39, 27 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yes assuming sources will be added as well. Senorangel (talk) 06:14, 2 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Dubious wording viewpoints.

[edit]

It seems WP:POV to say “opposition is often centered on the mistaken proposition that the procedure violates human rights.” How is a viewpoint (which is largely subjective) “mistaken”? This weasel wording seems to go against the RfC. Prcc27 (talk) 19:29, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You picked the source and WP:V is policy. That's it's analysis. Is there a counter-analysis from an equally weighted source? The (poor) RfC was not (and cannot be) a license to ignore policy, right? By trying to suppress/downplay this well-sourced content you are directly violating the RfC outcome in any case. Bon courage (talk) 19:49, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
We should not be stating opinions as fact per WP:ASSERT. A viewpoint being “mistaken” is an opinion. “Concomitant with a need to respect human rights” is an opinion. You should not be using weasel words in wikivoice. If you disagree with the outcome of the RfC, I am open to re-opening it, and pinging everyone that participated so far to see whaat they think. But no, you do not get to unilaterally overturn an RfC. Prcc27 (talk) 20:00, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
That's an essay, WP:ASSERT. The policy is in WP:YESPOV. Unless there's some serious doubt about this (in quality RS) we are required to state as fact the knowledge in the sources without fuss. Bon courage (talk) 20:11, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree that we have to state opinions of a source as fact. If the source in question is POV, I am sure we could find a more neutral source. In any case, I asked the person that closed the RfC if they are willing to reopen the RfC. Prcc27 (talk) 20:28, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Follow WP:YESPOV. To quote:

Uncontested and uncontroversial factual assertions made by reliable sources should normally be directly stated in Wikipedia's voice, for example the sky is blue not [name of source] believes the sky is blue. Unless a topic specifically deals with a disagreement over otherwise uncontested information, there is no need for specific attribution for the assertion, although it is helpful to add a reference link to the source in support of verifiability.

I see no sourcing making this "controversial". This material does not "overturn the RfC" – that's just a canard. In fact it was you who added the source with unverified text which it did not support, and we are now trying to adjust to text which actually is supported by the source. Prcc27 (talk) 20:28, 18 August 2024 (UTC) Bon courage (talk) 20:36, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
There are plenty of articles on the ethics of circumcision.[6] Whether or not circumcision is a human rights violation is a contested viewpoint. Since when is “circumcision is not a human right’s violation” an “uncontested assertion?” The source itself even concedes there is a disagreement on the issue. Prcc27 (talk) 20:54, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It would need to be contested in RS. Many points are "contested" (the age of the earth, aliens are here, prayer cures cancer) in misconceived ways. Wikipedia doesn't indulge that. We have the sourcing we have. The point of this source is to correct a misconception. (By this way I notice this recent review (pmid:38405642) states that the anti-human rights arguments rely on distorting medical evidence. This may be useful added knowledge.) Bon courage (talk) 20:59, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is contested in RS, including in viewpoints of major medical organizations. The Royal Dutch Medical Association views circumcision as a violation of children’s rights. Prcc27 (talk) 21:07, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't suppose they have any jurisdiction outside Holland, but in any case this would be an example of the mistaken views embodied in "local norms". If we're going to cite material about "human rights" at large, we need sources that do that. Bon courage (talk) 21:15, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
As far as medical ethics go, I would say Brian Earp is reliable enough. Otherwise, I’d say remove the entire paragraph altogether. It is wording you came up with unilaterally, and better to have nothing at all than weasel garbage. Prcc27 (talk) 21:23, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't he an activist? You picked the source here. On further consideration this RfC close is bad in any case; this is an overview article and not the place to cram in new material. Bon courage (talk) 21:25, 18 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sync

[edit]

Okay, I've attempted to solve the issue by excerpting from the 3 detail articles to bring us into WP:SYNC. If people want to alter the wording they can do so at the pointed-to detail articles, so long as the relevant WP:PAGs are observed, of course. Bon courage (talk) 07:58, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Bon courage: I have reverted it. Your synced version removed the explanation of the foreskin, the percentages of why the procedure is done, that complications from circumcision are rare, and most importantly deleted that circumcision is done in areas with a high-risk of HIV as part of prevention. None of those were objected to as far as I can tell, but especially not the HIV prevention part. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:46, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Wouldn't the thing to do to be to edit the main articles (or the excerpt parameters) so that the content was summarized here and WP:SYNC respected? Do you think pulling an extra paragraph from Circumcision could cover it, for example? Bon courage (talk) 03:49, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
You are more familiar with this article and related ones along with SYNC, so I believe you have reasonable answers to those questions. My objections are listed above: The removal of content that was not objected to and that there seems to be no issue with along with the removal of content that is from a global prospective. If you can find a way to SYNC it without removing what existed here, then that would resolve my objections above. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:35, 20 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Genital_modification_and_mutilation&oldid=1241274074"