[Reading this in-depth study presupposes knowledge of the content presented in the cultural test relating to this practice]​

Main groups where the practice is widespread

Male circumcision, or the partial or total removal of the foreskin of the penis, is one of the oldest and most widespread surgical procedures in the world and is practised for many reasons: religious, cultural, social and medical.
Although the procedure is sometimes medically indicated (as in the case of phimosis or foreskin shrinkage), the practice is usually performed for non-therapeutic reasons, which include cultural and religious reasons. In addition to religious or ethnically-based motivations, these include the perception that circumcision improves hygiene and reduces the risk of infection, conforming to common imagination, a supposed improvement in sexual performance, and aesthetic preferences (Coene, 2018).
While traditionally circumcision was understood as a sign of cultural identity or religious importance, with the progress of surgery in the 19th century and the increase in migration in the 20th century, the procedure was introduced in some cultures that previously did not practice circumcision for both health and social reasons (e.g. the United States).

---

Library of Congress, Public domain"Illus. in: Turkestanskīi al'bom, chast' ėtnograficheskaia..., 1871-1872, part 2, vol. 1, pl. 71."  Via Wikimedia Commons

---

Jewish Religion

​The rationale behind the circumcision prescribed by the Jewish religion is found in the Jewish holy book, the Torah, which records the stipulation of a covenant between Abraham and God, the outward sign of which is circumcision for all Jewish males: "This is my covenant that you must observe, a covenant between me and you and your descendants after you: let every male among you be circumcised. You shall let the flesh of your foreskin be circumcised, and this shall be the sign of the covenant between me and you" (Genesis 17:10).



Male circumcision continues to this day to be practised almost universally among Jews as a physical sign of belonging to the chosen Jewish people. In fact, almost all Jewish male infants in Israel, about 99% of Jews in Great Britain and 98% of Jewish men in the United States of America are circumcised (WHO, 2007).


Traditionally, Jewish babies are circumcised by a Mohel, i.e. a specially trained traditional circumciser, during a ceremony called Bris Milah. The surgical training of a Mohel may include anatomy, surgical technique, minimising complications and everything related to pre- and post-operative care (WHO, 2007).

Muslim religion

Muslims are the largest religious group practising male circumcision. As part of their faith, Muslims practice circumcision (khitan) as a confirmation of their relationship with God; the practice is also known as tahera, meaning 'purification'.
With the global spread of Islam from the 7th century A.D. onwards, male circumcision was widely adopted by peoples who previously did not have circumcision. In some areas, male circumcision was already a cultural tradition before the arrival of Islam (e.g. some areas of West Africa and South-East Asia). In other regions, however, Islam became a determining factor for circumcision.
Unlike Jewish traditions, for which circumcision is clearly recommended on the eighth day after birth, Islamic traditions do not provide specific recommendations on the timing of the ritual; consequently, the age of circumcision among Muslims varies widely. This may depend on family traditions, region, or country of origin.
In the Muslim religion, the methods used for ritual circumcision vary widely and we can find the practice performed in infancy, as well as at a later age, resulting in greater risks.
In Pakistan, for example, babies are generally circumcised in hospital a few days before discharge after birth, while those born outside the hospital are circumcised between the ages of 3 and 7. Similarly, in Turkey, Muslim boys are circumcised between the eighth day after birth and puberty, while in Indonesia, they are generally circumcised between the ages of 5 and 18 (WHO, 2007).

---

United States, Canada, United Kingdom, Australia

Some English-speaking countries - the United States, Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia - introduced childhood circumcision in the 19th century, often recommended to prevent or compensate for 'immoral behaviour' such as masturbation, nocturnal incontinence, and venereal diseases, particularly syphilis (Carpenter, 2010; Darby, 2003; Friedman, 2001). While incidence declined in the UK, Canada and Australia around the turn of the 20th century, the prevalence of circumcision has remained incredibly high in the United States, where to this day approximately 80 per cent of men and boys are circumcised (Morris et al., 2016), for reasons of medical prophylaxis and social desirability, thus conforming to the majority.

philippines

Although it is unclear how it evolved into a generalised custom, circumcision is still an integral part of childhood for Filipino men, so much so that over 90% of men are circumcised. Compared to previous generations, for whom circumcision was limited to the traditional procedure, the current generation is routinely circumcised by traditional or medical means and the age of the child/boy may vary between infancy and adolescence. In the case of traditionally performed circumcision, it is often performed without anaesthesia by laymen, using common tools such as a knife or household razor. The medical procedure, on the other hand, is performed by medical professionals in specialised medical facilities and clinics, with equipment and anaesthesia, in the backyards of homes, or in premises such as municipal halls and town halls. It is not known how many Filipino males have been traditionally or medically circumcised; in any case, circumcision in the country is essentially understood as a ritual, symbolising a rite of passage from childhood to adulthood, linked to an imagery of masculinity (Lee, 2006).

korea

South Korea has a high circumcision rate, with about 60% of men circumcised. Interestingly, however, the practice of circumcision was introduced fairly recently, starting in 1945, despite the fact that circumcision is directly contrary to the long and strong Korean tradition of preserving the body as it was given by the parents. Most circumcisions are performed in local clinics by practising physicians, usually on boys as young as 12 years of age (in any case between the ages of 9 and 14), based on alleged hygienic reasons and prevention of disease transmission (Pang, Kim, 2008).

---

Male and female circumcision: two different approaches
​
It has been suggested that in many societies female circumcision has been introduced as an imitation of the male circumcision ritual (Cohen, 1997), assuming the same symbolic character, i.e. preparing the child for the religious life of one's community, accentuating gender differences, or perfecting gendered bodies. In some cases, even the terminology used is the same. In Egypt, for example, the Arabic word khitan is used for both male and female circumcision, and the same applies to the Swahili word kutairi in Kenya (Johnsdotter, 2018).
Although there are valid reasons to differentiate between the discourses (primarily because of the wide variety of procedures in the female context, ranging from the least to the most invasive, as opposed to the practice of male circumcision, which can be identified as a single type of procedure), there is, however, a common factor to consider: both male and female circumcision are procedures that intentionally alter the genital organs, for non-medical reasons, of children who do not give consent. In both cases, tissue (in the female case, other types of modifications are also included) is removed from the vulva or healthy penis and, when performed on infants or children, raises ethical challenges regarding consent, autonomy and notions of bodily integrity.
For global health organisations such as the WHO, male circumcision is fundamentally different from female genital practices and similar positions on the incomparability of the two practices have been expressed in the past by feminist and women's rights activists. In these discourses, female genital practices have predominantly been framed as harmful cultural practices that negatively impact the health of women and girls and support gender inequality, discrimination and violence against women in society. In contrast, male genital practices have been interpreted as beneficial to health and not harmful in any other way.
Until recently, in fact, research on male circumcision assumed and focused primarily on the health benefits of circumcision (Bell, 2015), in stark contrast to FGM/C, for which instead studies have focused exclusively on the possible harms and risks.
It is evident, however, that while female genital modification has become the subject of extensive public and political debate leading to its criminalisation, the same has not been the case with male circumcision, which is now accepted in Western legal systems.

Criticism of the practice
Although there is widespread legal tolerance of religious/cultural male circumcision, it is nevertheless true that in recent decades the practice has been challenged to some extent, within several groups and disciplines, on ethical, medical or personal grounds, especially in Western countries.
The arguments used to support a position against the circumcision of boys are very similar to those used for decades to raise awareness about the circumcision of girls in anti-FGM campaigns: the focus on harm, medical risks and long-term medical consequences, and the claim that circumcision violates children's rights.
Today, we find one of the strongest movements opposing the circumcision of boys and children in the United States, a country where approximately 80% of men are circumcised. From the first isolated voices in the 1970s opposing the circumcision of boys in hospitals, it grew into a more entrenched movement that formed and consolidated in the 1980s and 1990s. While some groups called for a ban on the practice, others questioned its routine application, leaving room to continue performing it on religious and cultural grounds (Johnsdotter, 2018). There are also some tensions between the European context, where the incidence of male circumcision remains rather low, and that of the United States. The American Academy of Pediatrics - the largest professional association of paediatricians in the USA - issued a statement in favour of male circumcision in 2012, claiming that the health benefits (such as prevention of urinary tract infections, HIV contraction, transmission of certain sexually transmitted diseases and penile cancer) outweigh the possible risks of the procedure. In response, 38 physicians from 16 European countries wrote an article entitled 'Cultural bias in the AAP's 2012 Technical Report and Policy Statement on male circumcision', published in the journal Pediatrics, of the Academic Pediatric Association (APA), highlighting the cultural bias (prejudice) behind the justification and normalisation of non-therapeutic circumcision in the United States (Johnsdotter, 2018). Indeed, it is argued that there is a clear cultural bias in the evaluation of the available evidence on possible benefits and harms (Coene, 2018). Even if one were to agree that the health benefits outweigh the possible risks in this case, these benefits would only occur at a later stage in the individual's life and thus not legitimise the practice being performed on non-consenting children. Furthermore, it is argued that many of the health benefits can also be achieved by other less invasive means, such as better hygiene and the use of condoms (Bronselaer et al., 2013). With the increasing contestation of the benefits of circumcision for non-medical purposes on newborns, at least in the Western context, the human rights discourse, in particular the children's rights perspective, thus emerges as the main ideological resource employed.
 
"There is a growing consensus among physicians, including those in the United States, that doctors should discourage parents from circumcising their healthy children, because non-therapeutic circumcision of minor children in Western societies has no health benefits, causes post-operative pain, can have serious long-term consequences, is a violation of the United Nations Declaration of the Rights of the Child, and conflicts with the Hippocratic oath: primum non nocere: First, do no harm" (Frisch et al, 2013, p. 799).
 
It is in fact a procedure that intentionally alters the male genital organ of children who do not give their consent, without a specific medical indication. The removal of tissue from a healthy organ of infants or children therefore raises important ethical questions regarding consent, autonomy and bodily integrity, as does female circumcision.
In several Western countries, including in Europe (Sweden, the Netherlands, Denmark, etc.), the public discourse is in fact increasingly characterised by a conceptual juxtaposition between male and female circumcision. While once both practices were not considered problematic, with a subsequent development of currents strongly critical of female circumcision, today we find many actors arguing that both practices are highly questionable and should be abolished, based on similar ethical grounds (Johnsdotter, 2018).