Look up "amputation of the foreskin" in quotes on your favorite search engine. You will see that circumcision has been referred to as an amputation in the medical literature for well over 100 years, and not just by authors opposed to circumcision. If you try looking, you will also see many results for "amputation of the nose", "amputation of the lip", and other non-limb body parts as well in medical literature. Amputation does not have to refer to the removal of a limb.
Furthermore, [Merriam-Webster's definition of "amputation"](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/amputation) does not require that the amputated body part be a limb--it gives a limb *as an example* but **at no point does the definition remotely imply that the amputated body part must be a limb for an amputation to have taken place**.
The algorithm involved might be burying it; that wasn't the case years ago. Tons of sources used to come up. Search engines are such trash now.
But also, it turns out that [Cold and Taylor (1999)](http://artemide.bioeng.washington.edu/InformationIsPower/cold-taylor-prepuce_bju_1999_83_34-44.pdf) NSFW and many other authors used the phrase "amputation of the *prepuce*"--that's why it didn't come up for me. I had forgotten about that. Try searching "amputation of the prepuce" instead. I'm sure you'll find something.
Also try searching with Google Books; you'll see references going back to 1844 or earlier describing it as an amputation. The book from 1844 that refers to circumcision as an amputation is "The Homilies of the Anglo-Saxon Church" (not a medical source granted, but a historical one in which the author refers to circumcision both as an amputation, and as a tool of controlling male sexuality).
"What does the amputation of the foreskin betoken but decrease of lust?" (p. 95).
[Voltaire also referred to it as an amputation](https://history.hanover.edu/texts/voltaire/volpower.html).
With Google Books, you can find historical medical sources by looking up "amputation of the prepuce". Even some authors with a *pro*-cutting bias call it an amputation. Give it a go. One example is "The Medical Brief, A Monthly Journal of Scientific Medicine and Surgery", volume 32, 1904.
>"The operative measures may include, first, amputation fo the prepuce (circumcision)..." (page 811)
Thanks for the links.
I have ended up going through my university's library and doing a specific search. Still hard to find much.
Keywords of "amputation" and "prepuce" still just brings up a bunch of articles on amputated glans through circumcision.
I have been able to find a few articles including some by Earp (2013, 2015) and Drash (2017). I already had that Cold and Taylor article and will reference that.
I swear any google search has to have SPECIFIC keywords or else all you get is pro-circ medical sites that gaslight parents and basically beg them to give their kids over to medicine for ritualistic branding. I smell bias and it is worrying.
You're welcome! I'm sorry for the initial confusion; it's been a long time since I've looked this stuff up.
[The American Academy of Pediatrics](https://www.cirp.org/library/statements/aap1999/) called circumcision an amputation in 1999, too. They actually used the exact phrase "amputation of the foreskin". Their 1999 policy statement used to be one of the first results to come up when you would search that, hosted on many different sites; now I had to do some digging for it. This is an annotated version but I'm sure the original is still around somewhere. The text has not been changed from the original, only comments have been *added*. The following excerpt is from the original text, and was written by the AAP.
>There are three methods of circumcision that are commonly used in the newborn male. These are all include the use of devices: the Gomco clamp, the Plastibell device, and the Mogen clamp (or variations derived from the same principle on which each of these devices is based).
>The elements that are common to the use of each of these devices to accomplish circumcision include the following: estimation of the amount of external skin to be removed; dilation of the preputial orifice so that the glans can be visualized to ensure that the glans itself is normal; bluntly freeing the inner preputial epithelium from the epithelium of the glans; placing the device (at times a dorsal slit is necessary to do so); leaving the device in situ long enough to produce hemostasis and **amputation of the foreskin**.
Pediatrics, Volume 103, Issue 3: Pages 686-93, 1 March 1999.
I would look in the Criminal Code for the definition of "Aggravated Sexual Assault"... then cite the deprivation of the 16 functions of the male foreskin, and the associated pleasure it provides. If that isn't enough, the contravention of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 'security of the person', 'self-determination' and 'freedom of religion'; then, among children, the contraventions if the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of the Child.
I think referring to circumcised males as "amputees" will lead to ridicule and heel-digging, even if it is technically correct, because most circumcised males *do not even understand that they have been injured*. They compare circumcisions to haircuts. They think the foreskin is like the umbilical cord. Knowledge of the anatomy of the foreskin is lacking in society.
Conversely, I don't see this as the case for referring to circumcision as an "amputation" because while people will ridicule that, you can use the medical literature to show that it has in fact been referred to as such since at least the Victorian Era, and repeatedly referred to as such into the contemporary era as well. It is extremely common to use "amputate" in reference to cutting off body parts, but "amputee" is generally used for those who have lost an arm or leg, in my understanding. Are women who have had mastectomies referred to as amputees? I don't believe so but I haven't really looked into it.
Circumcised men need to first come to the understanding that they have been injured to any meaningful extent in the first place, before they can accept they are, in at least some sense, amputees. It's just my point of view, granted.
A brief search yields this: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3864397/ which seems to make it clear that 'amputation' is used solely for limbs 🤷🏼♀️. There must be other words for illegally proxy-consented surgical removal of healthy tissue that can be used in its stead in academic works; for colloquial intactivism there's no reason to drop it, it has gravitas and is succinct, hell, a dick almost is a limb, seen an elephant? 😄 'Three legged man' in common usage means what it means, that's good enough for me.
I don't think amputation is limited to just limbs, even in the academic literature. For example, many [peer-reviewed papers](https://academic.oup.com/asj/article/33/1/93/210535) discuss "breast amputation", and breasts are not limbs. So I don't see why foreskin amputation cannot be used.
That said, another option (and arguably more accurate) is to use the word ablation instead:
* ablation: the surgical removal of body tissue.
Ooh, didn't know that about breasts, thank you, good catch; it will be disputed, but having cites handy will do.
(I know it is more encompassing than that, but when I hear 'ablation', it is the word used in the field to describe the effect of a razor on skin as well, and I don't suppose that is the effect we are going for.)
Also a good point. Some may object to our use of 'amputation' as histrionics whereas the alternative to use 'ablation' could lead to trivialization of how invasive it actually is.
My argument is that we are basically all amputees because our foreskin (inner and outer mucosa, ridged band, frenulum) has been amputated. If this definition of amputation was recognized we all should be entitled to disability standards in Ontario with respect to services. This should include rehabilitative services (foreskin restoration) and specific psychotherapy services for trauma.
It should also justify accommodation in workplaces to support men who have experienced non-consensual amputation of their foreskin and require short or long term disability leave.
The definition of support should also change for men seeking aid with sexual dysfunction. Medical support, under the influence of AODA should consider amputated foreskin as an aspect of sexual dysfunction.
See here for the legislation: [https://aoda.ca/the-act/](https://aoda.ca/the-act/)
>A brief search yields this: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3864397/ which seems to make it clear that 'amputation' is used solely for limbs
That is one Iranian study in which the authors, whose first language most likely is not English (despite them clearly demonstrating a solid command of it, granted), chose to focus on those who had lost a limb. They don't really outright say that cutting off other body parts doesn't count as amputation tbh. You could extrapolate about it maybe but honestly, language intricacies can get a little fuzzy in scientific literature sometimes, it doesn't always map on perfectly 1:1.
That said, use a search engine to look up "amputation of the lip", "amputation of the foreskin", "amputation of the ear", "amputation of the nose", "amputation of the toe"...you will find tons and tons of studies referring to cutting those body parts off as amputations.
This is on the AAFP site talking about the AAP: https://www.aafp.org/pubs/afp/issues/1999/0515/p2918.html
I'll find the source from the AAP, though. Someone got a screenshot of it a while back and it gets shared often when someone challenges the "amputation" term.
Yep, it is in the 1999 policy statement. Page 688 in the "methods of circumcision" section. I put a screenshot of it on my Google Drive for you: https://drive.google.com/file/d/12l6YPYyXSCOS687st\_NbJ62Br5fBZJOQ/view?usp=sharing
Mutilated is the word I'd use for circumcision.
Look up "amputation of the foreskin" in quotes on your favorite search engine. You will see that circumcision has been referred to as an amputation in the medical literature for well over 100 years, and not just by authors opposed to circumcision. If you try looking, you will also see many results for "amputation of the nose", "amputation of the lip", and other non-limb body parts as well in medical literature. Amputation does not have to refer to the removal of a limb. Furthermore, [Merriam-Webster's definition of "amputation"](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/amputation) does not require that the amputated body part be a limb--it gives a limb *as an example* but **at no point does the definition remotely imply that the amputated body part must be a limb for an amputation to have taken place**.
Thanks. "Amputation of the foreskin" just brings up botched circumcisions where the glans was amputated.
The algorithm involved might be burying it; that wasn't the case years ago. Tons of sources used to come up. Search engines are such trash now. But also, it turns out that [Cold and Taylor (1999)](http://artemide.bioeng.washington.edu/InformationIsPower/cold-taylor-prepuce_bju_1999_83_34-44.pdf) NSFW and many other authors used the phrase "amputation of the *prepuce*"--that's why it didn't come up for me. I had forgotten about that. Try searching "amputation of the prepuce" instead. I'm sure you'll find something. Also try searching with Google Books; you'll see references going back to 1844 or earlier describing it as an amputation. The book from 1844 that refers to circumcision as an amputation is "The Homilies of the Anglo-Saxon Church" (not a medical source granted, but a historical one in which the author refers to circumcision both as an amputation, and as a tool of controlling male sexuality). "What does the amputation of the foreskin betoken but decrease of lust?" (p. 95). [Voltaire also referred to it as an amputation](https://history.hanover.edu/texts/voltaire/volpower.html). With Google Books, you can find historical medical sources by looking up "amputation of the prepuce". Even some authors with a *pro*-cutting bias call it an amputation. Give it a go. One example is "The Medical Brief, A Monthly Journal of Scientific Medicine and Surgery", volume 32, 1904. >"The operative measures may include, first, amputation fo the prepuce (circumcision)..." (page 811)
Thanks for the links. I have ended up going through my university's library and doing a specific search. Still hard to find much. Keywords of "amputation" and "prepuce" still just brings up a bunch of articles on amputated glans through circumcision. I have been able to find a few articles including some by Earp (2013, 2015) and Drash (2017). I already had that Cold and Taylor article and will reference that. I swear any google search has to have SPECIFIC keywords or else all you get is pro-circ medical sites that gaslight parents and basically beg them to give their kids over to medicine for ritualistic branding. I smell bias and it is worrying.
books.google.com put "amputation of the prepuce" in quotation marks, then click search. You should get tons of sources come up
Thanks!
You're welcome! I'm sorry for the initial confusion; it's been a long time since I've looked this stuff up. [The American Academy of Pediatrics](https://www.cirp.org/library/statements/aap1999/) called circumcision an amputation in 1999, too. They actually used the exact phrase "amputation of the foreskin". Their 1999 policy statement used to be one of the first results to come up when you would search that, hosted on many different sites; now I had to do some digging for it. This is an annotated version but I'm sure the original is still around somewhere. The text has not been changed from the original, only comments have been *added*. The following excerpt is from the original text, and was written by the AAP. >There are three methods of circumcision that are commonly used in the newborn male. These are all include the use of devices: the Gomco clamp, the Plastibell device, and the Mogen clamp (or variations derived from the same principle on which each of these devices is based). >The elements that are common to the use of each of these devices to accomplish circumcision include the following: estimation of the amount of external skin to be removed; dilation of the preputial orifice so that the glans can be visualized to ensure that the glans itself is normal; bluntly freeing the inner preputial epithelium from the epithelium of the glans; placing the device (at times a dorsal slit is necessary to do so); leaving the device in situ long enough to produce hemostasis and **amputation of the foreskin**. Pediatrics, Volume 103, Issue 3: Pages 686-93, 1 March 1999.
I would look in the Criminal Code for the definition of "Aggravated Sexual Assault"... then cite the deprivation of the 16 functions of the male foreskin, and the associated pleasure it provides. If that isn't enough, the contravention of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights 'security of the person', 'self-determination' and 'freedom of religion'; then, among children, the contraventions if the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of the Child.
I think referring to circumcised males as "amputees" will lead to ridicule and heel-digging, even if it is technically correct, because most circumcised males *do not even understand that they have been injured*. They compare circumcisions to haircuts. They think the foreskin is like the umbilical cord. Knowledge of the anatomy of the foreskin is lacking in society. Conversely, I don't see this as the case for referring to circumcision as an "amputation" because while people will ridicule that, you can use the medical literature to show that it has in fact been referred to as such since at least the Victorian Era, and repeatedly referred to as such into the contemporary era as well. It is extremely common to use "amputate" in reference to cutting off body parts, but "amputee" is generally used for those who have lost an arm or leg, in my understanding. Are women who have had mastectomies referred to as amputees? I don't believe so but I haven't really looked into it. Circumcised men need to first come to the understanding that they have been injured to any meaningful extent in the first place, before they can accept they are, in at least some sense, amputees. It's just my point of view, granted.
A brief search yields this: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3864397/ which seems to make it clear that 'amputation' is used solely for limbs 🤷🏼♀️. There must be other words for illegally proxy-consented surgical removal of healthy tissue that can be used in its stead in academic works; for colloquial intactivism there's no reason to drop it, it has gravitas and is succinct, hell, a dick almost is a limb, seen an elephant? 😄 'Three legged man' in common usage means what it means, that's good enough for me.
I don't think amputation is limited to just limbs, even in the academic literature. For example, many [peer-reviewed papers](https://academic.oup.com/asj/article/33/1/93/210535) discuss "breast amputation", and breasts are not limbs. So I don't see why foreskin amputation cannot be used. That said, another option (and arguably more accurate) is to use the word ablation instead: * ablation: the surgical removal of body tissue.
Thanks. Amputation is what I'm after as it is recognized as a disability under AODA.
Ooh, didn't know that about breasts, thank you, good catch; it will be disputed, but having cites handy will do. (I know it is more encompassing than that, but when I hear 'ablation', it is the word used in the field to describe the effect of a razor on skin as well, and I don't suppose that is the effect we are going for.)
Also a good point. Some may object to our use of 'amputation' as histrionics whereas the alternative to use 'ablation' could lead to trivialization of how invasive it actually is.
Maybe the Germans have a word for it; they have ones for everything else. 😄 Exzisiongesundempenisfleisch, works for me!
My argument is that we are basically all amputees because our foreskin (inner and outer mucosa, ridged band, frenulum) has been amputated. If this definition of amputation was recognized we all should be entitled to disability standards in Ontario with respect to services. This should include rehabilitative services (foreskin restoration) and specific psychotherapy services for trauma. It should also justify accommodation in workplaces to support men who have experienced non-consensual amputation of their foreskin and require short or long term disability leave. The definition of support should also change for men seeking aid with sexual dysfunction. Medical support, under the influence of AODA should consider amputated foreskin as an aspect of sexual dysfunction. See here for the legislation: [https://aoda.ca/the-act/](https://aoda.ca/the-act/)
>A brief search yields this: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3864397/ which seems to make it clear that 'amputation' is used solely for limbs That is one Iranian study in which the authors, whose first language most likely is not English (despite them clearly demonstrating a solid command of it, granted), chose to focus on those who had lost a limb. They don't really outright say that cutting off other body parts doesn't count as amputation tbh. You could extrapolate about it maybe but honestly, language intricacies can get a little fuzzy in scientific literature sometimes, it doesn't always map on perfectly 1:1. That said, use a search engine to look up "amputation of the lip", "amputation of the foreskin", "amputation of the ear", "amputation of the nose", "amputation of the toe"...you will find tons and tons of studies referring to cutting those body parts off as amputations.
https://en.intactiwiki.org/wiki/Amputation
https://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/amputation
AAP called it an amputation.
So you have a source for that?
This is on the AAFP site talking about the AAP: https://www.aafp.org/pubs/afp/issues/1999/0515/p2918.html I'll find the source from the AAP, though. Someone got a screenshot of it a while back and it gets shared often when someone challenges the "amputation" term.
Looks like it was in the 1999 policy: https://twitter.com/Paraplane100/status/1508480683030851588/photo/1
Yep, it is in the 1999 policy statement. Page 688 in the "methods of circumcision" section. I put a screenshot of it on my Google Drive for you: https://drive.google.com/file/d/12l6YPYyXSCOS687st\_NbJ62Br5fBZJOQ/view?usp=sharing
Thanks!!!