Currently two tag wikis are at odds because they want to transport a political opinion.
The tag for circumcision reads:
Use this for male circumcision. For female genital mutation, use "female-genital-mutilation". Circumcision is the surgical removal of the foreskin from the penis for any of a number of medical or cultural reasons.
And, as is already obvious, the tag Female genital mutilation
Female genital mutilation, also called "female circumcision", or "female genital cutting".
Discussing the procedures for males I found that "surgical removal" gives it a medical connotation of cleanliness and ethically approved usage. This excludes a part of religious procedures done by medically unqualified personnel with religiously motivated traditions. Further, it is incorrect due to incompleteness, since there are methods that are surely non surgical in technique:
Minimally invasive circumcision technique utilizing plastic clamp
To reduce the incompleteness and the bias present with "surgical removal" I suggested to change that into "amputation".
That got rejected with the reason: "'Amputation' is prejudicial". Using "Mutilation" in the other tag-wiki excerpt is clearly more prejudicial in its connotations for the average reader if compared?
I specifically suggested "amputation" to approach a more neutral ground, since in the vast majority of cases male circumcision is also nothing more than genital mutilation.
To quote again from the wikipedia page:
Some ethnic groups practice ritual mutilation, e.g. scarification, circumcision, burning, flagellation, tattooing, or wheeling, as part of a rite of passage.
Although this was not the goal of this question, it seems necessary to point out that there is a need to address the most common objections that might deflect from the core issues:
- Both procedures are most often forced on the unconsenting (minors)
- FGM is not the only procedure with varying degrees of damage done
- FGM as a term is a combat term invented in the 70s. A good term because it applies universal, non-culture-relativistic standards to describe the phenomenon and at the same time trying to end it.
- This whole comparison in search for balance is not grounded on a view of a one or two or few fringe persons with disreputable character.
There is a huge load of bias around this theme, but being blind to ones own perspective is a human condition. There is a conflict between human rights, gender equality and cultural relativism. One tag goes one way, the second in another.
To give a few reputable sources in support of this reasoning:
In this article, we offer a critical examination of the tendency to segregate discussion of surgical alterations to the male and female genitals into separate compartments – the first known as circumcision, the second as genital mutilation. We argue that this fundamental problem of definition underlies the considerable controversy surrounding these procedures when carried out on minors, and that it hinders objective discussion of the alleged benefits, harms, and risks. We explore the variable effects of male and female genital surgeries, and we propose a scale of damage for male circumcision to complement the World Health Organization's categorization of female genital mutilation. The origins of the double standard identified are placed in historical perspective, and in a brief conclusion we make a plea for greater gender neutrality in the approach to this contentious issue.
Shouldn't both tag wiki excerpts aim at the same level of prejudice or lack thereof?