1. Can the category 'culture' (or religion) be used?	The categories of culture and religion can be used because the practice, to which specific meanings are attributed, takes place within certain religious and ethnic groups. ​
2. Description of the cultural (or religious) practice and group.	The practice of male circumcision, i.e. the partial or total removal of the foreskin of the penis, has been documented since around 3000 BC. There are two types of circumcision: so-called cultural circumcision and religious circumcision. This is a widespread practice in different ethnic/religious groups, with a very wide geographical spread, so much so that it is estimated that more than 30%, if not almost 40%, of the global male population is circumcised. The age of children undergoing circumcision can vary widely: neonatal circumcision is common in the Jewish religion (in which it is practised by the eighth day after birth), in the United States, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, and in many of the countries of the Middle East, Central Asia and West Africa, while in other countries the practice is performed in childhood to late adolescence. With regard to religious circumcision, the practice is usually aimed at preparing the child for life in its religious community and is practised in the Muslim religion, in the Jewish religion, among Coptic Christians and Ethiopian Orthodox Christians. In the Jewish religion, this ritual derives from a covenant made between Abraham and God, whereby circumcision becomes the physical sign of belonging to the chosen Jewish people. In the Muslim religion, there is no specific mention in the Koran: however, Muslims practice circumcision as a confirmation of their relationship with God (it is the largest religious group that practices circumcision for religious reasons). Finally, we find religious circumcision among Coptic Christians and Ethiopian Orthodox Christians, two of the oldest forms of Christianity, of which circumcision remains one of the characteristics. As far as so-called cultural circumcision is concerned, i.e. practised not for religious reasons, this is also an extremely widespread practice. The main reasons behind it are related to emphasising gender differences and thus emphasising the separation of the male and female worlds - thus with a gendering function, aimed at culturally and symbolically determining the child's gender identity - by affirming membership of a particular group. Male circumcision aims at the social effect it produces, rather than the physical modification per se. It is often a means to access certain gender-related social prerogatives and consecrates and establishes the difference between men and women. Other meanings are related to the 'improvement' of the child's body or status through the ritual. We find forms of cultural circumcision in most African countries, in Korea, in the Philippines, among Australian aborigines. It is also widespread in the United States (with about 80% of men being circumcised), Canada and New Zealand. In these countries, the practice initially spread in Puritan contexts, which introduced infant circumcision in the 19th century to prevent or compensate for 'immoral behaviour', such as masturbation. The practice then took root, partly due to the belief that it constituted a good hygienic and disease-preventing norm.
​3. Embedding the individual practice in the broader cultural (or religious) system.	Ritual male circumcision, understood in a cultural sense, is closely linked to a group cultural continuity, a high value associated with masculinity and a clear differentiation between the male and female genders, as well as a sense of belonging and group identity. It is also linked to a high value attached to the status of the individual and to adulthood, clearly distinguished from childhood. It assumes an important role within a context of negotiating social relations between and within different genders and generations. From a religious point of view, circumcision is part of a broader context that attaches great importance to religious rites, membership of the religion itself, and the relationship with God and the professed faith.
4. Is the practice essential (to the survival of the group), compulsory or optional?	It depends on the context in which it is practised. As far as cultural circumcision is concerned, in some groups it is considered obligatory from both a personal and communal point of view. Not being circumcised could lead to social exclusion and loss of a certain status. In other cases, the practice is optional and open to personal choice: the frequency with which one chooses to practice it shows that it is an automatism, a conforming to the majority. In the United States, it is optional, but there is a strong social habitus that leads to its practice. In the case of religious circumcision, the practice is considered obligatory as far as Judaism is concerned, as it is an essential part of belonging to the religion itself, and for Coptic Christians. For the Islamic religion, it is compulsory only among one of the six Islamic schools, the shafi'ita, while in the others it remains a strongly encouraged traditional practice, as it is essential to be able to make the pilgrimage to Mecca, one of the pillars of the Muslim religion.
​5.     Is the practice shared by the group, or is it contested?	It can be said that the practice of circumcision is generally shared by the group to which it belongs although among Jews, Muslims, and secular Americans alike, activist movements for ending of the practice are increasing on the argument that it is a violation of children’s rights. Particularly in the United States, where about 80% of men are circumcised, the practice of circumcision has been and is the subject of controversy and debate and is sometimes challenged on ethical or medical grounds. On medical grounds, it is disputed on the harm/benefit ratio (benefits attainable through regular hygiene and prophylaxis), the potential effects on sexuality (since the foreskin is part of the highly innervated skin system of the penis, its removal would reduce sexual pleasure), and the possible occurrence of complications, mainly due to the manner in which circumcision is performed (place where it is done, instruments used, age of the child, and professionalism of the circumciser). From an ethical point of view, the practice is sometimes challenged on the grounds that it leads to an anatomical alteration that is possibly harmful to a minor, whose consent is given by the parents, and to the permanent and irreversible modification of the genital organ.
​6.     How would the average person belonging to that culture (or religion) behave?	Parents belonging to the groups in which the practice is performed would have the child circumcised.
​7.     Is the subject sincere?	In this case, the sincerity of the subject is to be ascertained on two levels: the existence of certain cultural and/or religious convictions and the non-existence of a detrimental intention towards minors or unjustified forms of violence. An investigation on both aspects would be useful to ascertain: the value of circumcision in the subject's cultural or religious system; the manner in which the operation was carried out and, if applicable, the reasons that led to the operation being carried out in unsafe conditions: the social and economic conditions of the persons involved; whether or not, in the place where the event takes place, there is a cost-sharing system, including regional cost-sharing, for carrying out the operation in suitable facilities; the good faith of the parent and his or her belief that he or she has relied on a person with expertise in the matter, even if not a doctor, because he or she may be recognised as such within the community.
8.     The search for the cultural equivalent: the translation of the minority practice into a corresponding (Italian) majority practice. ​	The practice of male circumcision is not particularly widespread in Italy, outside the religious communities where it is prescribed. It is true, however, that parallels can be found, exclusively on the symbolic level of body gendering, with the custom of piercing girls' ears shortly after birth. This practice, as male circumcision is often understood, is a process aimed at preparing the girl to fully assume her female gender. While comparable on a symbolic level, it is true that the implications on a physical and ethical (and potentially also psychological) level are extremely different, since in the case of circumcision it is an operation on a genital organ. A further counterpart can be found in cosmetic surgery on minors (e.g. breast augmentation surgery). While it is true that in the case of cosmetic surgery there is an expression of consent on the part of the minor in question, it is possible that, given their minor age, they may not be fully aware of the physical/psychological implications possibly arising from the surgery they undergo.
9.      Does the practice cause harm? ​	Male circumcision constitutes an alteration to the minor's physical integrity and is considered by most of the scientific community to be a 'medical act', which determines an anatomically functional modification of the male genital organ and which must therefore be performed according to certain surgical practices, under optimal conditions of asepsis and hygiene and by persons with professional competence. According to the prevailing opinion, it does not lead to an appreciable and permanent diminution of the functions of the organ concerned and is not harmful in terms of its effects on the physical and mental state of the child or the individual who suffers it. In Italy (National Bioethics Committee, 1998), it is considered compatible with the civil law regulation of acts of disposition of one's own body precisely because of its inability to cause a permanent diminution of the physical integrity of the penis. The main argument of the Italian Bioethics Committee is that circumcision does not lead to an appreciable and permanent diminution of the functions of the organ concerned (performing the sexual act) and is therefore not harmful in terms of its effects on the physical and mental state of the child or the individual who suffers it. To sum up, in the Italian legal system, it is not the practice itself that causes harm, but its performance by persons of dubious competence and/or in unsuitable contexts, such as in the home. It is in these cases that consequences such as permanent injury and in the most serious, though particularly rare, cases, death can result from the practice. Some medical studies have claimed an effectiveness of the practice as an additional measure to prevent the development of certain infections of a bacterial or viral nature, the transmission of HIV or other sexually transmitted diseases. However, according to the scientific community, neither the prophylactic efficacy of circumcision nor its permanent impairment of the functions of the male genital organ can be stated with certainty to date. The World Health Organisation, in fact, although not indicating it as a recommended practice, defines it as almost totally harmless and low risk, especially when practised in infancy. Against those arguments, some medical studies observed that the forseskin removal reduces sexual pleasure, and that “the foreskin is a sexual organ in its own right, which is ablated forever by the act of circumcision” (Ball 2006: 177). As the function of the penis is not only to perform a sexual act but also to obtain pleasure from it, the practice should be considered harmful, as diminishing sexual pleasure.
​10.  What impact does the minority practice have on the culture, constitutional values, and rights of the (Italian) majority?	The practice of male circumcision is perceived by the host group with a general diffidence. Unlike, for example, in the United States or the United Kingdom, it is not particularly widespread in the European population except among certain minorities. This mistrust is slightly smoothed out when the practice is embedded in minority religious contexts which find a more or less established recognition in society, such as the Jewish or Muslim ones: in this case, there is a tendency to accept the fact that the practice determines membership of that religious group, and therefore is carried out for strictly religious reasons. Such distrust is instead accentuated when the practice is embedded in cultural and religious contexts different from those referred to, as for example among migrant populations from Africa, sometimes even belonging to Christian cults. In this case, circumcision appears as a treatment imposed on minors, in deference to traditions that are retrograde and scarcely respectful of the well-being of the youngest of the population, and even as potentially dangerous. The practice not only relates to values inherent in the sphere of the child's physical integrity and health, but also intersects religious freedom and cultural identity, of the child as well as the parent, going so far as to touch upon the issue of the transmission between parents and children of a system of cultural and religious values and its possible limits. From a legal point of view, male circumcision falls under the discipline of acts of disposition of one's own body under Article 5 of the Civil Code and is considered compatible with the limits set therein (permanent impairment of physical integrity, morality and public order) if performed lege artis by competent medical personnel (with the exception of Jewish circumcision, which is performed by the 'mohel', a specially trained and authorised minister of religion for whom registration in a register has recently been introduced) and in appropriate facilities. Circumcision carried out for religious reasons (Islam, Judaism) is considered to be an expression of the right to religious freedom, as set out in Article 19 of the Italian Constitution, and, when practised on one's own children by the express will of the parents, an implementation of the latter's right and duty to educate their offspring also from a moral and religious point of view, protected by Article 30 of the Constitution and 147 of the Civil Code. Circumcision carried out for 'ethnic-cultural' reasons is not considered to be an expression of religious freedom, but it could be brought under the parental rights referred to above and in any case, given the jurisprudential development on the subject of cultural rights as an expression of the latter, which are also considered constitutionally protected (Article 2 of the Constitution and others). In terms of criminal law, the objectively harmful conduct engaged in by the circumciser and the child's parents for religious reasons is held to be excused by the exercise of the right to freedom of religion and the discipline of consent. Ethnic-cultural circumcision is not deemed to be exempted: the performance of the operation by non-medical personnel and outside health facilities entails the offence of abusive exercise of a profession, pursuant to Article 348 of the criminal code, which can also be extended to the parent who authorised the act, in addition to other possible offences concerning physical integrity in the event of damage resulting from the operation (injuries, death). The act is always punishable in cases of negligence, inexperience and imprudence and where serious and permanent consequences for the child result.
​11.   Does the practice perpetuate patriarchy?	On the basis of the meanings described above, the practice would not seem to perpetuate patriarchy mainly because it is a practice intended for the male gender and in this sense does not act on the sphere of women's rights. However, there is no shortage of positions that sees patriarchal elements in it. A first position is internal to Jewish feminism and argues that the practice would result in a privileged position of male individuals over women, precisely by virtue of the particular ceremony of covenanting and entry into the religious community, intended for the former and not the latter. According to this view, the practice, perhaps more than any other, would highlight the intensely gendered quality of traditional rabbinic Judaism by focusing on the penis. A second position argues that circumcision perpetuates a form of patriarchy that takes the form of fathers' control over their sons, who cannot decide for themselves and find their bodies perpetually scarred because of the parental decision. Within this position, it was revealed that tolerance of male circumcision gives rise to reverse discrimination in that it results in a lower level of protection of physical integrity for male individuals than for female individuals protected by the prohibition of female genital mutilation. According to this position, both practices are patriarchal and should be prohibited. Within Jewish feminism, for example, a proposal has been made to equalise the position of boys and girls by stipulating that the current naming ceremony (a minor, female-only celebration by which girls receive their names and are welcomed into the Jewish community) be extended to male infants as well, thus equalising the positions. This would eliminate the patriarchal double implication of circumcision: the exaltation of the male child alone as the protagonist of the covenant with God and the permanent mark on the body decided by the parents without the son's consent.
12.  What good reasons does the minority present for continuing the practice? The criterion of an equally valid life choice.	The good reasons the minority presents for continuing the practice can be summarised as follows. Firstly, in adherence to what has been defined above, performing the practice becomes for minorities a necessity of belonging to that cultural and/or religious group: it marks the entry into a religious community, sometimes sealing a form of alliance with one's god (think of the Jewish and Islamic cases); it determines the entry into a cultural community (as in the case of some minorities of African origin), access to an entire system of values; it defines and orients the individual towards the role he or she assumes within his or her community (gendering function). Secondly, when carried out on minors through parental consent, it constitutes the fulfilment of that right and duty of parents to educate their offspring according to a given cultural, religious and value system, without which the transmission of a sense of belonging to a given community, and potentially the community itself, would fail. In a legal system where the exercise of such rights is made stronger by the Supreme Court's recognition of cultural rights as inviolable (Criminal sect. III, 29 January 2018, no. 29613), the choice to perform the practice arises as an equally valid alternative: since circumcision is internationally recognised as a practice that, although invasive, does not result in permanent diminution of the minor's physical integrity, it falls within the limit sanctioned for the exercise of cultural rights.