It is without a doubt that human beings en-masse aren’t actually capable of critical thinking. There are many cultures in the world, and many countries with differing levels of economic power, and standards of living. There are countries that have been a democracy¹ longer than others.

Some cultures practice certain beliefs. When discussing morality, I find it often that people’s morality is defined by the society they come from and not the values they have proved and developed themselves. This sort of thinking is very — simple minded and shows a lack of self-reflection and nuance that we humans believe we have. Humans pride themselves on the belief that they are intelligent but when met with a culture that has normalized something they find immoral, their first instinct is to - condemn, Condemn, CONDEMN - the other culture, rather than looking within to correct instances of self wrong-doing.

The specific problem I am talking about is Male Genital Mutilation, also known as foreskin removal or male baby circumcision. This practice is tolerated by every country in the world. Iceland stopped short of a full ban, by allowing a religious exemption, but that is part of the problem. If we can tolerate male circumcision because of religious tolerance, then why can we not tolerate female genital mutation that is part of a culture in a country in Africa? When googling² “Why is FGM wrong,” the first argument is that FGM interferes with the natural function of women’s bodies. This is the worst argument as lust, envy, greed, vengeance (some say wrath, but I disagree with wrath’s definition), gluttony (obesity), and sloth are all naturally occurring in humans but we know that they are wrong (long-term self-harm without dopamine is wrong which is the argument I would use to argue that gluttony and obesity are also wrong).

It is quite preposterous for the WHO to advocate against FGM since 2008, but 16 years later, inform people nothing of Involuntary male circumcision.

FGM and MGM are wrong because there is no relief in health issues and neither does the baby consent to it. These are very strong reasons and the only ones we need to argue against FGM and MGM. Many proponents of MGM come from a religious background and use the following argument. “It reduces risk of STI.” This is a very poor argument because abstaining from sex also reduces STI. Should we regulate when people can have sex (rhetorical question although sex between adults is already regulated)? Or maybe we should remove their penises entirely, because if they are incapable of having sex, then they can’t get STIs. But now you will say that penis is for reproduction. To that I will say that some men have no possibility of reproduction nor are they free of hereditary diseases.

The purpose of the penis’ existence is to engage in sex for pleasure, and reproduction is a side effect of said activity. Therefore, the act of removing foreskin, and thus reducing pleasure, is synonymous with the act of removing the flesh of the penis head as well.

Let’s take it a step further. In Quebec, a person had their fingers removed due to psychological issues. Should we all follow suit because we can all develop the same psychological issues? No. Maybe Ubisoft knew something before all of us when they came up with that finger chopping lore in their Assassin’s Creed franchise.