body.skin-vector-2022 .mw-parser-output .skiptotalk,body.mw-mf .mw-parser-output .skiptotalk{display:none}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a{display:block;text-align:center;font-style:italic;line-height:1.9}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::before,.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::after{content:"↓";font-size:larger;line-height:1.6;font-style:normal}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::before{float:left}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::after{float:right}Skip to table of contents

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]
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]
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]

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]
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]
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.

Describing the controversy[edit]

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)[reply]

Are we defining "liberal consensus" as "left-wing to centrist individuals" or "liberal democracies" here, @The Anome:? KlayCax (talk) 20:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@KlayCax: Liberal democracies. — The Anome (talk) 00:22, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
My quick thoughts here, @The Anome::
  • As a broad outline: it seems broadly right. Although we'd probably have to have a singular source about this. (Rather than a WP: SYNTH of multiple citations.)
  • I'd put labiaplasty, circumcision of children, female sterilization, and vasectomy as considered "generally acceptable" by most. (Outside of circumcision in Northern and Eastern Europe.)
  • Intersex genital alterations/cutting has always been at least somewhat controversial. Even back in the 1980s and 1990s. Maybe "generally acceptable to controversial"? We'd need non-original research for this, however.
  • Medical organizations are clear that circumcision doesn't increase or decrease sexual pleasure. (Per the World Health Organization, Canadian Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, and others.) It's a popular meme and misconception in several cultures. However, the evidence has repeatedly indicated that it doesn't, with dozens of high-quality studies in AMAB who were circumcised as adults and reported no substantial change in pleasure, sensation, and function.
  • Labia is sexually sensitive. So I wouldn't state that it isn't "destructive of original function" in some ways.
  • Gender-affirming care and gender-affirming surgery is controversial among many political conservatives in liberal democracies. (Just take the United States, Eastern Europe, and the rest of the Anglosphere for examples.)
  • Gender-affirming care and gender-affirming surgery's impact on sexual function is complicated. Libido however is generally regarded as decreasing in MTF, however, as testosterone levels (alongside others) are correlated with sexual drive.
Multiple medical organizations are starting to oppose intersex genital cutting as well. So I'd put "many human rights organizations" as well. KlayCax (talk) 00:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. I've amended the chart a bit per some of your suggestions. I'm glad you like my general approach, and I think if we work on describing the controversy, with suitable in-table cites to reliable sources, rather than picking sides or trying to right great wrongs, this is a possible way forward for the article. — The Anome (talk) 00:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mind if I edit it, @The Anome:? I feel like it'll get taken down as WP: SYNTH or WP:NOR unless we have a singular source that states all of this. Does any exist? KlayCax (talk) 02:06, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I don't mind at all. Please do. — The Anome (talk) 07:05, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, @The Anome:. I'll try and do that in the next few days. Will tag you when done. KlayCax (talk) 20:53, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For instance: I think you can find mention of "controversy" in almost all of those body modifications. So it's going to be a likely hot potato of edit wars depending on contributors' bias.
(I wouldn't be shocked if the gender-affirming healthcare/surgery, circumcision, vasectomy, and sterilization parts become conflict zones.)
It would be best imo to leave it out unless we have a similar table in a reliable source, then just cite it to Example Author, 2024. KlayCax (talk) 02:08, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

To be neutral: wouldn't we have to include other cultural perspectives in as well, to, and not just the Western World? @The Anome:? I don't know.
I'm not opposed to it in possible, but it seems, again, like a breeding ground for edit wars. KlayCax (talk) 20:14, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It is indeed likely to be fractious, but the NPOV policy requires us to try. The alternative of not trying to describe all those distinct views is even worse, as it will result in a never-ending edit war about which set of views is correct and moral.

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)[reply]

There's also the problem of what "consensus" is supposed to mean here. Even within liberal democracies, views can differ greatly.
I'd classify "neonatal circumcision" as controversial in Denmark but "acceptable" or "generally accepted" in the United States.
Transgender surgeries might be "controversial" in the United States but viewed as "wrong" in Ghana. KlayCax (talk) 18:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Firstly, I appreciate The Anome's initiative and intention to be helpful and clear things up. It is evident that their work in good faith. On the other hand, I also understand KlayCax's comment (concern?) here; I believe that a table like this functions, in a way, similar to an infobox (which, from what I've seen, is a bit disliked by some users here). This happens when we try to put complicated things in clear-cut boxes. The table can be potentially helpful here in the talkpage, but it can also be an easy target and cause more disagreements than we had before. I also hear KlayCax's concern about the potential originial research, since we do not base it on an already existing work.
  • PS, this comment is not criticism towards The Anome's work; it is more a comment about the use of tables like this in general. Piccco (talk) 03:06, 31 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't be opposed in principle, @Piccco:. The problem is that using multiple sources in this instance (unlike most cases) would allow an endless barrage of cherrypicking.
(Oppose sex-reassignment/gender-affirming surgery? Well, here's a source labeling it "controversial". Vasectomy? Let's find a Catholic source that calls it controversial.) It's all very subjective. KlayCax (talk) 03:09, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some oppose all genital modifications and even label all mutilation. (Sikhs, certain other cultures)
  • Some classify mutilation under religious/natural arguments (Predominantly among traditionalist and the conservative religious )
  • Some classify mutilation under sexual pleasure/function arguments. (Regardless of consent.)
  • Some classify mutilation based on consent (Predominantly in the Western world.)
I don't feel comfortable using any one definition for Wikivoice. KlayCax (talk) 03:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Example of foreskin restoration[edit]

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)[reply]

I don't find your image controversial, but can you tell my why you could not put it in the article? — The Anome (talk) 12:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The page blocked me from editing and adding the image. NuManDavid (talk) 13:04, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This is an edit filter issue. You are repeatedly hitting various automatic filters aimed at stopping various kinds of fairly crude vandalism edits, probably because your account is not autoconfirmed yet because you have not been here for very long and have made very few edits. These filters exist because we have a lot of fairly juvenile drive-by vandalism; they're a brute-force method but they work very effectively. Try contributing usefully on other topics for a week or two, and then come back here and try again; if you have done so effectively, you should pass the thresholds needed to be autoconfirmed, and your edit should be allowed through. (Specifically, the filters involved were Special:AbuseFilter/1295, Special:AbuseFilter/384 and Special:AbuseFilter/53) — The Anome (talk) 16:03, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you NuManDavid (talk) 18:48, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Categories