Talk:Genital modification and mutilation

Requested move 26 February 2024

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. In this discussion we have a small majority opposing moving, but consensus is not determined by counting !votes but by the quality of the arguments given on the various sides of an issue, as viewed through the lens of Wikipedia policy.

In support of the move, editors argue that the current title violates WP:NPOV, that it isn't consistent with Body modification, and that the proposed title is more WP:CONCISE.

They also argued that the definition of mutilation is ambiguous; that.

In opposition to the move editors argue primarily that the article covers two topics - modification and mutilation - and that using modification for the latter is a euphemism. In support of this, they assert that reliable sources consistently refer to some practices, such as Female genital mutilation, as mutilation. They also cite WP:PRECISE and WP:AND, saying that the current title better reflects the scope of the article and better covers all practices.

Supporters did not dispute the assertion that some practices are consistently referred to as mutilation in reliable sources. They did argue that non-reliable sources, such as the, might disagree, but the disagreement of such sources is not relevant in a discussion on how to title an article.

As such, I find that the opposers have sufficiently rebutted the argument that all mutilations can also be considered modification.

Considering the arguments through this lens, I find that the opposing arguments are stronger; these are two separate but related topics covered by one article, and that while some of these practices should not be referred to as mutilation, some should also not be referred to as modification.

Given that both the quality and quantity of argument oppose moving, I find a consensus against moving.

I did not give any weight to the argument for moving the article to Genital mutilation, due to factual inaccuracies and a lack of policy basis. (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 06:03, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Genital modification and mutilation → Genital modification – Fails WP: CRITERIA. 1.) It lacks precision, as it encompasses related but dissimilar topics, often being misinterpreted by users to mean that all genital modifications listed on the page are mutilations. 2.) It fails the criteria of concision. As all genital mutilations are forms of genital modifications, genital modification would suffice. (e.g. It is like if a page was termed "List of dogs and bulldogs" instead of "List of dogs") 3.) It fails the criteria of neutrality, as it implies to readers (problematically) that gender-affirming surgery, labiaplasty, circumcision, and pearling are mutilation. It also associates "modification" with exclusively negative changes. To make it meet WP: NPOV, you'd have to add "enhancement" or another positive term, a proposal that would further fail the criteria of concision. 4.) The title goes against article precedents surrounding body modification articles. All of which leave out titles that give positive or negative personal judgements. KlayCax (talk) 03:30, 26 February 2024 (UTC) — Relisting. estar8806 (talk) ★ 13:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Support [Note: Individual who made move request]: For reasons stated above. KlayCax (talk) 03:31, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * WP:RM. Dekimasu よ! 04:43, 26 February 2024 (UTC)


 * What has changed since your previous request was closed with a consensus not to move the page last year? In that discussion, several editors argued that the use of two terms here actually serves to distinguish between "modification" (which can be affirming) and "mutilation" (which is not). Dekimasu よ! 04:43, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Sexology and sexuality has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:44, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject LGBT studies has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:44, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Women's Health has been notified of this discussion. Vanderwaalforces (talk) 11:44, 26 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Support – The current title violates WP:NPOV and article title policy. WP:AND (policy) says:
 * Titles containing "and" are often red flags that the article has neutrality problems or is engaging in original research: avoid the use of "and" in ways that appear biased.
 * I would say that the current title is definitely non-neutral, and therefore biased, as you couldn't get agreement from a progressive American, a mohel, a tattoo artist in Kreuzberg, a transphobe, and a traditional midwife in Somalia about what constitutes mutilation; reliable sources of divergent origin reflect this disagreement. The shorter title is WP:CONCISE, and per WP:NDESC, this article needs a neutral, non-judgmental title, either the one proposed, or some other neutral title, but not the current one. Mathglot (talk) 18:13, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support. From what I see, this clearly violates NPOV, as described above. I agree with just " genital modification"; however, if a better title (one that is more concise, or neutral, perhaps) I wouldn't be opposed to that either. TransButterflyQueen Ɛï3 19:47, 26 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. – GnocchiFan (talk) 20:25, 26 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Support: Where were all of you last year when I was the only one expressing support for this? As I said then, "The proposed title is more WP:CONCISE, avoiding redundancy (as well as opinion). The current title is like 'Mammals and ugly dogs'." It's more POV than "dogs and bulldogs", because it feels the need to express Wiki-disapproval of bulldogs. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 04:13, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Last year I didn't have a wikipedia account, hahaha. I'm glad I can be of help now, however :) TransButterflyQueen Ɛï3 14:07, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose: The title needs to allow for the presence or absence of "consent". If we wanted article(s) pertaining to "consensual sexual coupling" and "non-consensual sexual coupling", we probably would make these two distinct articles. In this case, we should first consider whether to have two articles" (e.g. "consensual genital modification" and "nonconsensual genital modification") or if we are going to have these combined into a single article.  This proposal presumes there will be a single article, and if that's the intent, the article title needs to reflect that. Fabrickator (talk) 17:35, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, if we were to have such an article (and of a similar length to this one) it would likely be just titled "sexual coupling" with seperate sections on "consensual" and "non-consensual". With the analogy that you proposed, the article is currently similar to "sexual coupling and non consensual sexual coupling"; a neutral phrase and a negative phrase. TransButterflyQueen Ɛï3 17:46, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Genital Mutilation, especially Female Genital Mutilation is usually referred to as “mutilation” not “modification”. Lumping consensual modification with harmful and nonconsensual mutilation trivializes the harm done. This move request is disruptive given we recently already shut this proposal down. Prcc27 (talk) 19:14, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Self-mutilation also exists. Consent isn't the predominant criteria.
 * One could similarly say that lumping together "mutilation" and "modification" together stigmatizes body diversity. KlayCax (talk) 12:44, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Mutilation has nothing to do with “body diversity”. Consent is one criterion, but obviously not the only one. Severity is also a factor. We should not be conflating modifications with mutilation. Prcc27 (talk) 19:29, 1 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Mutilations are a form of modification, by definition. They modify an aspect of the human body. KlayCax (talk) 13:24, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes to 'Female Genital Mutilation', because that is what the reliable sources say, so I support that title at that topic. This is not that article. Mathglot (talk) 21:13, 7 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:EUPHEMISM. Split the article if there's conflation of two different types.  —  AjaxSmack  02:14, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That argument is backwards. Removing POV (policy) is not euphemism (guideline). If we have a title of, say, Combatants and terrorists in the first Iraq War, you're not violating EUPHEMISM by changing that to Combatants in the first Iraq War, you're complying with it. Same thing here, and anyway, POV and TITLE are policy and trump EUPHEMISM (MOS). Mathglot (talk) 03:02, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
 * "Combatants and terrorists" is a good hypothetical example (ref. MOS:TERRORIST). —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 19:44, 7 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose as euphemistic. Killuminator (talk) 14:33, 9 April 2024 (UTC)

Rename to genital mutilation per WP: EUPHEMISM. Circumcision, labiaplasty, and other forms of non-harmful practices should be excluded from the article, but the American Academy of Pedatrics identifies "gender-affirming surgery" as a form of mutilation so it should remain. FGM should be also identified as such. We're sugarcoating horrors otherwise. CoolidgeCalvin (talk) 17:53, 11 March 2024 (UTC)


 * — CoolidgeCalvin (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 18:14, 11 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I fail to see why that matters. CoolidgeCalvin (talk) 01:03, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Your assertion about the AAP's position is demonstrably false and is the opposite of their true position. The AAP supports gender-affirming care. Mathglot (talk) 17:55, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

While we're at it, I've edited the lede to a more common definition of the modification/mutilation distiction. We should not be using words like "horrendous" in articles in Wikipedia's voice. This distinction is clearly a matter of passionate controversy, as this talk page shows. If at all possible, we should look to WP:RS to get this right; this looks like good start to me regarding FGM at least. &mdash; The Anome (talk) 11:56, 16 March 2024 (UTC)


 * That is a euphemism. (As others here have pointed out.)
 * Even medical treatments can be mutilation as well. CoolidgeCalvin (talk) 01:01, 17 March 2024 (UTC)

Support: A move to genital modification, is the least-worst choice here, and here's my rationale.

I think 's comment that "you couldn't get agreement from a progressive American, a mohel, a tattoo artist in Kreuzberg, a transphobe, and a traditional midwife in Somalia about what constitutes mutilation" cuts to the centre of this whole dispute, and the difference between describing something as modification or mutilation depends on whether you see it as morally acceptable or unacceptable. (I'd also add anti-male-circumcision and intersex rights campaigners to that list.) The consensus in Western countries currently seems to be that modifications are acceptable if either non-destructive and voluntary, or medically justified, and there seems to be a world-wide consensus that traditional FGM is unacceptable everwhere. I would imagine that's also the value system of the core Wikipedia editor demographic, and we seem to be writing on the other positions in terms of difference from that consensus.

You could easily write an entire article on this. And at the moment, it looks like we have.

Given all this, I suggest we move the article to genital modification, since I think we can agree that both acceptable modifications (if any) and unacceptable mutilations are both ultimately different forms of modification. But we cannot use this to gloss over the controversy, or to deny that certain modifications are widely or even almost universally viewed as being mutilations, and the existence of the controversy and different opinions about which modifications are which should be at the core of the article. &mdash; The Anome (talk) 15:45, 17 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Per WP:EUPHEMISM/WP:SPADE. It's possible it could be split into separate articles, however. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 03:43, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * As Mathglot notes: . MOS:EUPHEMISM doesn't apply here. Mutilation is a subset of modification.
 * There's also many things within the article that the large majority of people would not classify as mutilation. (Tattoos, for instance.) The current title falsely smears all modifications as mutilation. KlayCax (talk) 14:49, 3 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Relisting comment: Open for over a month with no consensus. Relisting to bring hopefully a bit more attention here in order to aid consensus building. estar8806 (talk) ★ 13:09, 28 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose per the same reasons mentioned above. Many of the procedures included in the article are indisputably referred to as mutilation in almost all publications. Consent is an important factor here as well. Also, this article was initially called only "mutilation", but it was later expanded with more content and moved to the curret title (which, in my opinion, might be the best option). Piccco (talk) 00:42, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * As mentioned above: the problem with the current title is that it primes readers to view all of the things listed as mutilation. It simply fails WP: NPOV.
 * Of course the things that are frequently considered mutilation could be mentioned in their individual sections. KlayCax (talk) 02:10, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The problem I have with an argument like this Oppose is that you are talking about sources related to portions of content, which has to do with WP:Verifiability, and nobody (afaik) is saying the article cannot have non-neutral wording in the content, especially if supported with in-text attribution to reliable sources, as required for such opinions. But this discussion is *not about content*, it is about the article title, which is governed by article title policy, and in this case, the question is: Does this title comply with that? As this title is a descriptive title (i.e., not the name of somebody, or some place, or some thing) it is descriptive and must comply with WP:AT, to wit, the title:
 * should reflect a neutral point of view, rather than suggesting any editor's opinions. Avoid judgmental and non-neutral words
 * and mutilation is the very definition of a judgmental, non-neutral term, because nobody can agree on what it means, and furthermore, in many cases you can predict whether someone will consider a procedure mutilation or not, once you know their identity and sociocultural background. How judgmental can you get? The current title is a glaring violation of WP:NDESC. That said, you can still keep all the quotations you want about "mutilation" in the content, no problem, as long as it complies with WP:INTEXT and WP:DUE. But that's not what this discussion is about, and I wish people would stop raising the issue, as it is off-topic. Mathglot (talk) 02:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Note: WikiProject Sexology and sexuality has been once again notified of this discussion. KlayCax (talk) 02:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject LGBT studies has been once again notified of this discussion. KlayCax (talk) 02:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: WikiProject Women's Health has been once again notified of this discussion. KlayCax (talk) 02:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Note: Wikiproject Human rights has been notified of this discussion. KlayCax (talk) 02:23, 30 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Oppose. Solution in search of a problem. Summarises the subject perfectly. Saying that somebody whose genitalia have been forcibly mutilated has suffered "genital modification" is like saying someone who's been beheaded has suffered "cranial modification"! Both words need to be in there to cover both forcible and voluntary situations. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:57, 2 April 2024 (UTC)
 * See Mathglot's statement above. KlayCax (talk) 14:43, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * As Mathglot notes: . This is a misunderstanding of Wikirules. KlayCax (talk) 14:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * All depends on whether you consider the current title contravenes WP:NPOV or WP:TITLE. I certainly do not believe it does and neither do other editors commenting here. You and Mathglot have one POV; other editors have another. Nobody is misunderstanding any rules (which Wikipedia does not have in any case). You state that Mutilation is a subset of modification as though that is an indisputable fact. I do not agree with you. I would argue that they are entirely different things. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:01, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * What forms of mutilation don't modify the body? KlayCax (talk) 15:17, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * And as Mathglot mentioned: mutilation is a whose meaning . So I don't see how it isn't in violation of WP: NPOV or WP: TITLE. KlayCax (talk) 16:50, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * There's also WP:NDESC. This is a textbook example of a violation. KlayCax (talk) 18:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Your flippant reductio ad absurdum about beheading as body modification deserves no response. But to follow your line of inquiry in a legitimate manner: in fact, cranial modification has been practiced in many cultures throughout history. I understand that you consider them barbaric mutilations, subject to comparison with beheading, so really the question comes down to this: should we just take your word for it that cranial modifications are mutilations, or should we go with these references and other reliable sources?&#91;1&#93; Mathglot (talk) 22:01, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Your flippant reductio ad absurdum about beheading as body modification deserves no response. Because a sense of humour is banned on Wikipedia! This is policy! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment: Several editors seem to be bypassing WP:NDESC and WP: TITLE entirely.

It's important to note that many of the common genital modifications listed on this page are almost universally regarded as not mutilation. (Labiaplasty, adult circumcision, piercings et al.) KlayCax (talk) 18:27, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * In fact many would regard any form of non-medically-necessary circumcision as mutilation! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:40, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * A small minority, perhaps. But I think it's hard to argue that consensual labiaplasty, adult circumcision, and piercings could be classified as such. This debate over phrasing is exactly why this page should simply have a "terminology" section detailing what is classified as enhancement or mutilation. There's no way to "neutrally" describe many of these body mods. Many Sikh consider shaving the face or pubic hair a form of mutilation. KlayCax (talk) 00:02, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * By that I mean: unless one takes the view that *all body modifications* are inherently mutilation (which only a small percentage of people do) then the things listed above are almost certainly not. KlayCax (talk) 03:03, 6 April 2024 (UTC)


 * Comment - I don't know where I stand on this title, but I have a question. Where do we treat male genital self mutilation (GSM)? To my mind, if the page is about modification, it is not about that. While Self mutilation redirects to Self-harm, I note that it doesn't redirect to Self modification. Are we saying such things are out of scope of this page? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 14:59, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Again, . The vast range and criteria on what "enhancement" and "mutilation" are so vast and contradictory that both should be kept out of the article title.
 * Many Sikh's call even trimming the pubic hair a form of genital mutilation. (e.g. anti-modification under all circumstances outside of medical emergency)
 * Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox, conservative Evangelical Christians, and other religious beliefs are based on their religious tenets or perceived natural law. (e.g. Religious or teleological based definition.)
 * Many Westerners think that "mutilation" is entirely based on the impact it has on sexual pleasure, function, or sensation, regardless of questions of consent. (e.g. Harm-based definition.)
 * Many Westerners consider any medically necessary or consensual genital modification enhancement or modification; any non-consensual change mutilation, no matter how small. (e.g. Autonomy-based definition)
 * If the article is going to have "mutilation" in the title — which strongly implies that everything listed within it is mutilation — then it's going to have permanent issues that are likely not fixable.
 * How are we going to determine whether something is enhancement or mutilation? Which of the above four criteria are we going to use? Will these claims be stated in Wikivoice? KlayCax (talk) 00:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be against a "self-harm" section, however. KlayCax (talk) 03:05, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but that appears to be answering the wrong question. I asked where we treat the subject of genital self-mutilation (GSM). This is a subject that is widely treated in the literature. See, for instance, this systematic review . Or the article in the American journa lof psychiatry, or this BJU one , or many primary sourced case reports. GSM is genital self-mutilation. The sources call it that and we should call it that. My question is whether this page is about that at all. Not the article title, but the article itself? Does it belong here or should it be elsewhere? Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:09, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * We can still call certain types of genital modifications - in theory - mutilation. The RFC is about the article title itself. KlayCax (talk) 23:03, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * My question was an attempt to ascertain whether this article should be about genital mutilation at all, and especially whether GSM belonged on the page. I came to the conclusion that it does belong here, and there is no better place to treat GSM. Thus I made my !vote below. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 10:07, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Oppose Good arguments have been made in support of this change. I take particular note of 's citation of WP:AND which says, inter alia, To that end, I have been considering supporting this, but I note that this does rehash an earlier RM and a dicussion in which  made this point: If there was a page titled Squares and Rectangles, one wouldn't propose renaming it to merely Rectangle. Despite the fact that all squares are rectangles, not all rectangles are squares. That is right. The advice of WP:AND is to find a title covering all cases, but I simply do not agree that "modification" neutrally and sufficiently covers all the cases being described here. I asked above whether GSM should be on this page. It is on this page (somewhat), and as it stands, I think it is a closely related and complementary topic. However, and this is where this discussion is failing thus far IMHO, sources do not call this genital self-modification. We should be following the sources (and I list some above). If sources are speaking of genital mutilation, then so should we. Which is not to say that the term has to be in the title. What the title has to do, is it has to describe the article content. This proposed move removes one side of the coin (mutilation) and leaves the other (modification). A one sided coin would be unbalanced. I may support an RM, but I do not support this RM. I might also support a split if we decided that the subjects are not complementary... although I expect that would be problematic. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:01, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * We can still call certain types of genital modifications - in theory - mutilation. The RFC is about the article title itself. Cases of unambiguous mutilation can be referred to as such.
 * I'm assuming you support the article title itself changing to just "modification" with that in mind? Or no / KlayCax (talk) 23:05, 15 April 2024 (UTC)
 * No. How did you read that into my words? I may support an RM, but I do not support this RM. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 06:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC)
 * What alternative titles would you be okay with, ? It seems heavily problematic to have "genital mutilation" in the title if modifications are listed that are not it.
 * Additionally, I think the separation between "modification" and "mutilation" is pretty artificial, many scholars do call things such as FGM female genital modification or female genital cutting as well. KlayCax (talk) 02:17, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * If I could think of an alternative I would be okay with, I would have suggested it! It would need to be a title that sufficiently encapsulates both the concept of modification and the concept of mutilation. For now, I can think of nothing better than "modification and mutilation" but I am open to suggestions. Sirfurboy🏄 (talk) 09:54, 21 April 2024 (UTC)
 * I've requested closure for this at Closure_requests. Natg 19 (talk) 22:26, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Describing the controversy
As an attempt to draw light onto attitudes regarding the many different types of genital modification, the various controversies might well best be described in tabular form. Here is an attempt at that (update: as amended, see comments below):

Does this describe the various controversial attitudes correctly? &mdash; The Anome (talk) 16:57, 17 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Are we defining "liberal consensus" as "left-wing to centrist individuals" or "liberal democracies" here, ? KlayCax (talk) 20:09, 29 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Liberal democracies. &mdash; The Anome (talk) 00:22, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * My quick thoughts here, :
 * As a broad outline: it seems broadly right. Although we'd probably have to have a singular source about this. (Rather than a WP: SYNTH of multiple citations.)
 * I'd put labiaplasty, circumcision of children, female sterilization, and vasectomy as considered "generally acceptable" by most. (Outside of circumcision in Northern and Eastern Europe.)
 * Intersex genital alterations/cutting has always been at least somewhat controversial. Even back in the 1980s and 1990s. Maybe "generally acceptable to controversial"? We'd need non-original research for this, however.
 * Medical organizations are clear that circumcision doesn't increase or decrease sexual pleasure. (Per the World Health Organization, Canadian Medical Association, American Academy of Pediatrics, and others.) It's a popular meme and misconception in several cultures. However, the evidence has repeatedly indicated that it doesn't, with dozens of high-quality studies in AMAB who were circumcised as adults and reported no substantial change in pleasure, sensation, and function.
 * Labia is sexually sensitive. So I wouldn't state that it isn't "destructive of original function" in some ways.
 * Gender-affirming care and gender-affirming surgery is controversial among many political conservatives in liberal democracies. (Just take the United States, Eastern Europe, and the rest of the Anglosphere for examples.)
 * Gender-affirming care and gender-affirming surgery's impact on sexual function is complicated. Libido however is generally regarded as decreasing in MTF, however, as testosterone levels (alongside others) are correlated with sexual drive.
 * Multiple medical organizations are starting to oppose intersex genital cutting as well. So I'd put "many human rights organizations" as well. KlayCax (talk) 00:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Thanks for your comments. I've amended the chart a bit per some of your suggestions. I'm glad you like my general approach, and I think if we work on describing the controversy, with suitable in-table cites to reliable sources, rather than picking sides or trying to right great wrongs, this is a possible way forward for the article. &mdash; The Anome (talk) 00:46, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Do you mind if I edit it, ? I feel like it'll get taken down as WP: SYNTH or WP:NOR unless we have a singular source that states all of this. Does any exist? KlayCax (talk) 02:06, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't mind at all. Please do. &mdash; The Anome (talk) 07:05, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Alright, . I'll try and do that in the next few days. Will tag you when done. KlayCax (talk) 20:53, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * For instance: I think you can find mention of "controversy" in almost all of those body modifications. So it's going to be a likely hot potato of edit wars depending on contributors' bias.
 * (I wouldn't be shocked if the gender-affirming healthcare/surgery, circumcision, vasectomy, and sterilization parts become conflict zones.)
 * It would be best imo to leave it out unless we have a similar table in a reliable source, then just cite it to Example Author, 2024. KlayCax (talk) 02:08, 30 March 2024 (UTC)

The table is intended as a discussion tool, not (yet?) a draft for the article. But it does show what a thorny issue distinguishing between what is acceptable and what is not is -- opinions differ wildly depending on the observer's cultural, religious and political perspective, and what one person views as an ethical (or in some cases even sacred) practice can easily be viewed by another, even within the same culture, as an atrocity. And this is true across a really wide range of modifications, in many different and often quite complex ways. So we are left with NPOV as the only practical way of addressing this, but it's a huge and rambling topic to address. &mdash; The Anome (talk) 07:05, 30 March 2024 (UTC)


 * To be neutral: wouldn't we have to include other cultural perspectives in as well, to, and not just the Western World? ? I don't know.
 * I'm not opposed to it in possible, but it seems, again, like a breeding ground for edit wars. KlayCax (talk) 20:14, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It is indeed likely to be fractious, but the NPOV policy requires us to try. The alternative of not trying to describe all those distinct views is even worse, as it will result in a never-ending edit war about which set of views is correct and moral. Describing viewpoints we find repugnant is not the same as endorsing them. Nor are we required to give all viewpoints equal weight, see WP:UNDUE; for example, there is a clear global consensus on female genital mutilation aka "female circumcision", with only a few outlier views that we can describe as such. On transgender surgery, there is now a mainstream consensus in the West (and many places beyond) that this is OK for consenting adults to get done, but a big right wing movement to try to roll that back, using the controversy about transgender children as a wedge issue. And so on. I think we can find WP:RS to support all of these -- not the views themselves, but the characterization of those views and the people that hold them. We've managed it on other contentious topics, and we can manage it here. &mdash; The Anome (talk) 20:33, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * There's also the problem of what "consensus" is supposed to mean here. Even within liberal democracies, views can differ greatly.
 * I'd classify "neonatal circumcision" as controversial in Denmark but "acceptable" or "generally accepted" in the United States.
 * Transgender surgeries might be "controversial" in the United States but viewed as "wrong" in Ghana. KlayCax (talk) 18:29, 3 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Comment Firstly, I appreciate The Anome's initiative and intention to be helpful and clear things up. It is evident that their work in good faith. On the other hand, I also understand KlayCax's comment (concern?) here; I believe that a table like this functions, in a way, similar to an infobox (which, from what I've seen, is a bit disliked by some users here). This happens when we try to put complicated things in clear-cut boxes. The table can be potentially helpful here in the talkpage, but it can also be an easy target and cause more disagreements than we had before. I also hear KlayCax's concern about the potential originial research, since we do not base it on an already existing work.
 * PS, this comment is not criticism towards The Anome's work; it is more a comment about the use of tables like this in general. Piccco (talk) 03:06, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't be opposed in principle, . The problem is that using multiple sources in this instance (unlike most cases) would allow an endless barrage of cherrypicking.
 * (Oppose sex-reassignment/gender-affirming surgery? Well, here's a source labeling it "controversial". Vasectomy? Let's find a Catholic source that calls it controversial.) It's all very subjective. KlayCax (talk) 03:09, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Some oppose all genital modifications and even label all mutilation. (Sikhs, certain other cultures)
 * Some classify mutilation under religious/natural arguments (Predominantly among traditionalist and the conservative religious )
 * Some classify mutilation under sexual pleasure/function arguments. (Regardless of consent.)
 * Some classify mutilation based on consent (Predominantly in the Western world.)
 * I don't feel comfortable using any one definition for Wikivoice. KlayCax (talk) 03:11, 6 April 2024 (UTC)

I've restored the text about the term "genital mutilation" in the lede, with the note that opinions differ. "Genital mutilation" is absolutely the WP:COMMONNAME of some of these modifications, see female genital mutilation. This doesn't change my view that this article should be at Genital modification as the more general term, but mention of the term "genital mutilation" absoutely needs to be in the lede, because it is common usage. &mdash; The Anome (talk) 10:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)

I see we are back to selecting one single option from the above. I have added the qualifer "generally used", while as this is the general definition used in the Western world and typical among Wikipedia contributors (including myself, as I believe the "mental bad health" qualifier includes distress from non-consensual modifications) it is not, as  says above, the only one. &mdash; The Anome (talk) 12:30, 27 April 2024 (UTC)

Example of foreskin restoration
Under the section circumcision, there is a subsection: Foreskin Restoration. I have attempted to add this photo of a circumcised penis that from years of foreskin restoration now looks uncircumcised.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d6/Restored_Foreskin.png NuManDavid (talk) 12:20, 27 April 2024 (UTC)


 * I don't find your image controversial, but can you tell my why you could not put it in the article? &mdash; The Anome (talk) 12:33, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * The page blocked me from editing and adding the image. NuManDavid (talk) 13:04, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * This is an edit filter issue. You are repeatedly hitting various automatic filters aimed at stopping various kinds of fairly crude vandalism edits, probably because your account is not autoconfirmed yet because you have not been here for very long and have made very few edits. These filters exist because we have a lot of fairly juvenile drive-by vandalism; they're a brute-force method but they work very effectively. Try contributing usefully on other topics for a week or two, and then come back here and try again; if you have done so effectively, you should pass the thresholds needed to be autoconfirmed, and your edit should be allowed through. (Specifically, the filters involved were Special:AbuseFilter/1295, Special:AbuseFilter/384 and Special:AbuseFilter/53) &mdash; The Anome (talk) 16:03, 27 April 2024 (UTC)
 * Thank you NuManDavid (talk) 18:48, 27 April 2024 (UTC)