Reading Notes: Fox and Thompson, "Sexing the Cherry"
They will be discussing intersex surgeries performed on infants as well as infant circumcision. They feel the justifications for both are similar, and that both should be challenged. "Genital cutting practices ... [play] an important symbolic role in the somatechnical formation and fixing of 'proper' male and female bodies." (108)
They recognize that these are complicated questions and that there are "communities where cutting is an integral expression of cultural belonging." (109)
P110 has a list of reasons male circumcision is different from FGM or intersex surgery, and the authors want to destabilize some of those. In particular they feel it is a somatechnology that enforces male gender norms. They also challenge the idea that circumcision and FGM are inherently different, pointing out that declaring that male circumcision is fundamentally less damaging makes assumptions about what sorts of sex acts a man should want to engage in.
In 1870 a doctor named Sayre started touting circumcision as the best thing since sliced bread. It was particularly claimed to cure masturbation --- for example, Kellogg (you may have eaten his company's cereal) recommended that boys be circumcized without anesthesia as a way to prevent them from masturbating. (115)
"the foreskin is feminized; characterized as a dangerous and permeable interior space." (117)
They talk about the issue of anti-Semitism and they provide an argument (119) but I don't find it terribly cogent. Not even bad, just, it doesn't seem like it's really a direct engagement.
They say that while the discourse has changed, circumcision is now a choice rather than a given because it's potentially risky and not because it's potentially harmful, and they don't think there's compelling arguments that parents should be able to consent to this procedure on their childrens' behalf, much like intersex "corrective" surgery.
I'm going to leave my opinion out of this for now.
This entry was originally posted at http://rax.dreamwidth.org/60648.html.
They recognize that these are complicated questions and that there are "communities where cutting is an integral expression of cultural belonging." (109)
P110 has a list of reasons male circumcision is different from FGM or intersex surgery, and the authors want to destabilize some of those. In particular they feel it is a somatechnology that enforces male gender norms. They also challenge the idea that circumcision and FGM are inherently different, pointing out that declaring that male circumcision is fundamentally less damaging makes assumptions about what sorts of sex acts a man should want to engage in.
In 1870 a doctor named Sayre started touting circumcision as the best thing since sliced bread. It was particularly claimed to cure masturbation --- for example, Kellogg (you may have eaten his company's cereal) recommended that boys be circumcized without anesthesia as a way to prevent them from masturbating. (115)
"the foreskin is feminized; characterized as a dangerous and permeable interior space." (117)
They talk about the issue of anti-Semitism and they provide an argument (119) but I don't find it terribly cogent. Not even bad, just, it doesn't seem like it's really a direct engagement.
They say that while the discourse has changed, circumcision is now a choice rather than a given because it's potentially risky and not because it's potentially harmful, and they don't think there's compelling arguments that parents should be able to consent to this procedure on their childrens' behalf, much like intersex "corrective" surgery.
I'm going to leave my opinion out of this for now.
This entry was originally posted at http://rax.dreamwidth.org/60648.html.