Redirect to circumcision is not NPOV violation. Male genital mutilation should redirect to circumcision because female genital mutilation redirects to female genital cutting. It could redirect to male genital cutting, but this would be double redirect, because male genital cutting already redirects to circumcision. It is POV to say that female genital cutting is mutilation and male genital cutting isn't. Fact that some "mainstream" religions and some major cultures are practicing neo-natal circumcision for religious/cultural reasons is not an objective reason to say that calling male genital cutting a mutilation is more POV than calling female genital cutting a mutilation. --193.198.16.211 14:08, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no form of 'female genital mutilation' that does not involve cutting the female genitals. Therefore the term 'female genital cutting' is a superset of 'FGM' (it includes forms of cutting that some view as mutilation and forms of cutting that some do not), and by redirecting to FGC we give people an article with a wider perspective.

In contrast, although some view circumcision as a form of male genital mutilation, it is by no means the only form (consider castration, for example). So we need to redirect to an article with a broader, not narrower scope.

It is true to say that calling either FGC or circumcision 'mutilation' is POV, and we need to be very careful about doing so. In the case of FGM, the term is very widely used, and a redirect is justified because people might well search under that name. Using Google as an indicator, the ratio of hits from 'female genital mutilation' to 'female genital cutting' is 921,000:138,000 or 6.7:1 - we use the more neutral term although it is less commonly used. In contrast, 'circumcision' to 'male genital mutilation' is 4,280,000:24,700 or 173.3:1 - we use the more commonly-used term which is also the more neutral. Jakew 14:45, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Classic WP:POINT edit. -- Avi 15:04, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding:

no form of 'female genital mutilation' that does not involve cutting the female genitals

I have to disagree on that point. Labia stretching does not involve cutting, but could be viewed as mutilating, for example. Ranze (talk) 19:54, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if there is such pro-circumcision atmosphere, it may be good that male genital mutilation redirects to male genital cutting (just as female genital mutilation redirects to female genital cutting), BUT that male genital cutting do not redirect to circumcision. Male genital cutting could then contain brief descriptions of all forms of male genital cutting. Better to do that, which would be constructive, than to constantly revert efforts to make things more neutral, which leads to nowhere. --193.198.16.211 15:15, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hm... Isn't it POV that circumcision isn't and couln't EVER be a form of genital mutilation? --83.131.22.78 07:53, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That is a point of view, yes. Do you have a point? Jakew 09:47, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Being that there is a female genital mutilation article, it is worth considering evidence about whether or not this could be expanded into its own article. For that reason we should look and see if there are sources on the subject which would fulfill the "reliable" and related requirements people demand they have. I can't say exactly what that is since they apparently remain intentionally obfuscated/undefined.

I did find this abstract which uses the term in "Ethnicities" journal. Establishing the notability of the term itself would be foremost. Currently the only mention of 'mutilation' on the page this redirects to is for self-mutilation and FGM, so that article is not doing and adequate job discussing the issue. I've also redirected male genital modification to the same section. Either name could work as an article which focuses on the issue. Ranze (talk) 19:51, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]