Posted: February 26th, 2014 | Author: Tony | Filed under: Control, Ethics, FGM | No Comments »
I’ve discussed the comparison between male circumcision and female genital cutting/mutilation in depth across various posts. In a great post, titled Female genital mutilation (FGM) and male circumcision: time to confront the double standard, Brian Earp discusses the principled comparison in a single post that should become the “Go To” link. It’s worth the read because it’s so thorough and sourced. I know there are people who will read that and remain unconvinced. That is not because the proof isn’t there. He demonstrates the complexity that dismisses the “FGM is always the worst extreme/male circumcision is always the best extreme” that perpetuates superficial thinking on the principled comparison.
Again, it’s all worth reading, but I like this the best (links in original):
So what are the implications here? Given that both male and female forms of genital cutting express different cultural norms depending upon the context, and are performed for different reasons in different cultures, and even in different communities or individual families, how are we meant to assess the permissibility of either one? Do we need to interview each set of parents to make sure that their intended act of cutting is intended as an expression of acceptable norms? If they promise that it isn’t about “sexual control” in their specific case, but rather about “hygiene” or “aesthetics” or something less symbolically problematic, should they be permitted to go ahead? But this is bound to fail. Every parent who requests a genital-altering surgery for their child – for whatever reason under the sun – thinks that they are acting in the child’s best interests; no one thinks that they are “mutilating” their own offspring. Thus it is not the reason for the intervention that determines its permissibility, but rather the consequences of the intervention for the person whose genitals are actually on the line. …
That’s the truth missing from society’s moral relativism. One is judged on outcome alone, with intent assumed from the outcome. The other is judged on intent alone, with outcome assumed from the intent¹. For female genital cutting we focus on the female. For male genital cutting we focus on the parents. That’s the mistake. Separate approaches for the same inherent violation – non-therapeutic genital cutting on a non-consenting individual – cannot hold under inspection. Earp’s post is great for revealing that error with such clarity.
¹ This is especially maddening because the intent we assume and praise is not benign.
Posted: October 11th, 2013 | Author: Tony | Filed under: "Voluntary", Control, Ethics, FCD, FGM, Logic, Media Marketing, Pain, Parenting, Science | No Comments »
At The Good Men Project Renee Lute makes a request: Please Respect Our Circum-Decision. It only requires a short response: No. Still, her essay is worth analyzing to explain why the only answer is “no”.
Circumcision on a healthy child is a permanent body alteration without the child’s consent. I’m under no obligation to respect that. I do not believe anyone should respect that. If Lute understood circumcision as well as she claims, she’d understand how absurd it is to request respect for her decision from someone who recognizes this surgical intervention as the human rights violation it is.
She is, of course, due a respectful rejection of her request. I will not engage in ad hominem, nor will I call her names as a result of what she intends to do. Anyway, facts and logic are enough to demonstrate her errors.
… I’m apologizing to [my unborn son] for writing this piece, because now the world will know just a little bit about the future state of his penis, and most little boys don’t have to deal with that. …
This common theme is strange. Intact genitals are the human default. Unnecessary intervention is the only reason the status of a child’s genitals is considered an issue if people know, as if knowing is a Big Deal. Or, rather, unnecessary intervention is the only reason the status of a boy’s genitals is considered an issue if people know. This bizarre reality is the result of intervening, not some inherent shame in having others know we have human genitals.
That gets to the reason why I won’t respect her and her husband’s decision for their unborn son. A daughter’s normal, healthy genitals are off-limits for surgical intervention, and rightly so. Those who recognize the ethics involved as gender-neutral must stand against the opinion that a son’s normal, healthy genitals can be subjected to surgical intervention. (There will be more on the valid comparison below.)
She discusses Mark Joseph Stern’s terrible Slate piece (my post) and Brian Earp’s reply at The Good Men Project. She writes:
Neither of these articles really threw me. I know the arguments against circumcision, and I know the arguments for circumcision. What did surprise me, however, was what I found in the comments section under The Good Men Project article. …
Never read the comments. We know that doesn’t mean “never read the comments”. But it’s a reminder that the Internet is a place for bad manners and emotional responses. That’s particularly true in comment sections. Discussion of circumcision is no different. I’m not excusing the behavior. The rude, hateful, and misogynistic garbage is wrong and needs to stop. But reasoned proponents of bodily integrity, as I aim to be, have our argument harmed only in the sense that someone is willing to generalize about those who disagree based on the miscreants that any group has.
… I am not a circumcision enthusiast. In fact, I could not care less whether other people circumcise their sons or not. Do it if you want! Don’t if you don’t want! But I am begging you—begging you—to not make families who choose to circumcise their sons feel like they are abusers of children, or human rights violators.
“Do it if you want! Don’t if you don’t want!” is the false argument. What does the child who will live with the circumcision want? That is the core. Without knowing what he will want, imposing it as a non-therapeutic intervention is a human rights violation. I suppose it’s unfortunate if that makes someone feel bad about circumcising their healthy son(s). But I recognize that my parents violated my rights when they circumcised me. I won’t pretend¹ that someone else circumcising their son isn’t violating his rights because stating a truth makes them feel bad about the choice they make. (I do not take a position on how individual males should feel about being circumcised.)
Why am I going to have my son circumcised? Because his father and I have done our reading. We’ve talked about it, and we’ve made our decision. There are legitimate reasons. Circumcision eliminates the risk of phimosis (in which a foreskin is tight and cannot be fully pulled back, which makes cleaning and passing urine difficult, and increases the risk of penile cancer). This affects 1 in 10 older boys and men. Circumcision reduces the risk of inflammation and infection of the head of the penis and the foreskin, and greatly reduces the risk of urinary tract infections in infants. Uncircumcised men have a 15-60% increased risk of prostate cancer (which affects 1 in 6 men).  We are not uneducated about circumcision. …
That last line is not necessarily true, given what comes before it in that paragraph. The sole source cited for this knowledge is a pamphlet by Brian Morris, which contains no sourcing of its own. (Some of the material in this excerpt is verbatim from Morris, without quotes to indicate as much.) It contains information that is biased and exaggerated.
To the claim that circumcision eliminates the risk of phimosis, this is incorrect. Contrary to the risk of phimosis being a “legitimate reason” to circumcise a healthy child, the ethical standard is that the risk of complications is a legitimate reason to refrain from intervening on a healthy child. Remember, too, that Brian Morris is the cited source for the 1 in 10 claim. He’s stated that all boys are born with phimosis, which is false. Even if the statistic is true, it is that phimosis will affect 1 in 10, not that it will require circumcision in 1 in 10. This mirrors his claim in the pamphlet that “the foreskin leads to 1 in 3 uncircumcised boys developing a condition requiring medical attention.” A condition requiring medical attention is not a synonym for circumcision. This is a rhetorical sleight of hand. The true incidence of medical need for circumcision within an intact male’s life is approximately 1%, which includes for phimosis.
As for the “15-60% increased risk of prostate cancer” statistic, that is a correlation, not a proven fact. “Circumcision before first sexual intercourse is associated with a reduction in the relative risk of PCa in this study population.” To quote the author, “‘These data suggest a biologically plausible mechanism through which circumcision may decrease the risk of prostate cancer,’ said study researcher Dr. Jonathan Wright, an assistant professor of urology at the University of Washington School of Medicine. He noted that the study was observational; it did not show a cause-and-effect link.”
… One of the aforementioned commenters wrote that anyone who would have their child circumcised should have to experience it themselves, first. Well, my husband has experienced it (and remarkably, he gave me his permission to tell the world just now), …
I don’t like that pointless suggestion because it invites that pointless rebuttal.
…and while I have not gone through the completely incomparable horror of female circumcision (I am not going to detail why it’s incomparable here, but I do encourage you to research the differences if you don’t know what they are. You’ll find some information here), …
I know what the differences are. I know what the similarities are. The difference is in degree, not in kind. That difference in degree can be great, of course, but non-therapeutic genital-cutting on an individual without the individual’s consent is not a gendered principle. The WHO defines female genital mutilation as “all procedures that involve partial or total removal of the external female genitalia, or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons.” The perceived difference², including in the link Lute provides, rests on what constitutes a medical versus non-medical reason. If we assume the “no known health benefits” argument against FGM turned into “known health benefits”, would people change their mind and decide it’s no longer mutilation? Some might say “yes”. They’d be wrong. I suspect most people would not change their conclusion. As the WHO states, FGM “also violates a person’s rights to health, security and physical integrity, the right to be free from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, and the right to life when the procedure results in death.” That would still hold true if their were potential benefits. It holds true for male circumcision, as well.
… My husband and I aren’t unfamiliar with pain, and we are willing to put our child through a moment of discomfort for the benefits this procedure provides. Kind of like we’re willing to put our child through a moment of discomfort for the benefits that vaccinations provide.
But is their
child son willing to have the moment (i.e. 1+ week) of discomfort and a lifetime without his foreskin for the potential benefits this procedure provides? (Remember from above that the Lutes do not appear to understand the benefits.)
Circumcision is not like a vaccination. Vaccinations work with the body’s immune system to trigger disease resistance. Circumcision merely removes a part of the body because it might cause a problem later. The comparison needs critical thinking beyond “prevents disease”, lest we further open parental decision-making to other ridiculous interventions.
This piece is both explanatory and pleading. I am pleading with you. Don’t make these perfectly well intentioned families—like us—feel like monsters because you’ve decided to go a different way with your own sons. We’re doing something different, and that’s okay. We each have our reasons. I don’t care whether you breastfeed or formula feed. I don’t care whether you co-sleep or have your babies in their own cribs, and I don’t care whether you’ve named your child something completely traditional (like Kate) or whether she’ll be answering to Zenith for the rest of her life. I’m asking for the same courtesy.
It’s okay to do something different. It is not okay to do this something different. You can’t respect one right of your son less than the same right of his sister and brush it aside as “parenting”. If someone asks me to respectfully tell them they’re wrong, I agree with that request for decency. But I will not respect what is obviously indefensible and deeply offensive to basic human rights.
¹ I don’t call circumcision “abuse”. (c.f. Truth and Loaded Words)
² The other mistake is in thinking that FGM is designed to control sexuality, but that male circumcision isn’t and doesn’t. It controls male sexuality because it forces a specific form on the child for his genitals. (e.g. It’s more aesthetically appealing to women.)
There is also a history, up to the present, in circumcision reducing sexuality. Read Moses Maimonides or this.
Posted: September 19th, 2013 | Author: Tony | Filed under: "Voluntary", Ethics, FCD, FGM, Hygiene, Logic, Media Marketing, Parenting, Public Health, Science | 1 Comment »
It takes a special commitment to ignorance to cherry-pick evidence to prove that opponents cherry-pick evidence. Mark Joseph Stern possesses that special commitment.
There are facts about circumcision—but you won’t find them easily on the Internet. Parents looking for straightforward evidence about benefits and risks are less likely to stumble across the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention than Intact America, which confronts viewers with a screaming, bloodied infant and demands that hospitals “stop experimenting on baby boys.” Just a quick Google search away lies the Circumcision Complex, a website that speculates that circumcision leads to Oedipus and castration complexes, to say nothing of the practice’s alleged brutal physiological harms. If you do locate the rare rational and informed circumcision article, you’ll be assaulted by a vitriolic mob of commenters accusing the author of encouraging “genital mutilation.”
One paragraph in, and there’s so much to unpack. First, the obvious point is that Mr. Stern is another in a long line of lazy writers who thinks that the ability to type a word into Google proves much of anything for a story. If it’s just “a quick Google search away”, in a paragraph filled with links, it’s reasonable to expect an author to include the search he used to get to the evidence of alleged malfeasance. When I use Google to search circumcision, I get Wikiepdia, news articles, KidsHealth.org, the Mayo Clinic, the government’s Medline Plus, Intact America, Jewish Virtual Library, NOCIRC, and so on. I’ll point out that only the results for Intact America and NOCIRC are to something decidedly against non-therapeutic child circumcision, but so what? It’s a search algorithm. That’s easily gamed. It doesn’t prove Mr. Stern’s silly angle.
That “rare rational and informed circumcision article” is another in Hanna Rosin’s string of awful circumcision defenses.
As for the vitriol, this is the internet. Never read the comments. That doesn’t excuse the comments. They’re often offensive and uninformed and the people who engage in that behavior are wrong, even if they’re ostensibly on my side. But you’ll find them on both sides. It doesn’t prove anything on the argument. Using it as evidence against the argument is ad hominem.
So. There are facts about circumcision. Circumcision is the “surgical removal of the foreskin of males”. The foreskin is the “loose fold of skin that covers the glans of the penis”. Those are facts. But he’s implying the context of non-therapeutic male child circumcision. What should parents want?
Parents shouldn’t want anything, of course, because this is not their decision. Just like we don’t allow them to cut off any other normal body parts of their children, they do not possess a right to circumcise their sons for any reason other than immediate medical need that can’t be adequately resolved with less-invasive methods. Proxy consent is not sufficient for non-theratpeutic circumcision. But because our society doesn’t yet grasp the full implication of an equal right to bodily integrity, parents want information. Fortunately, there is scientific evidence against non-therapeutic circumcision!
The normal, healthy foreskin is normal and healthy. If parents leave it alone, as they should, statistics demonstrate that their son(s) will almost never need any intervention for his foreskin, and much less a medically-necessary circumcision.
Of every 1,000 boys who are circumcised:
- 20 to 30 will have a surgical complication, such as too much bleeding or infection in the area.
- 2 to 3 will have a more serious complication that needs more treatment. Examples include having too much skin removed or more serious bleeding.
- 2 will be admitted to hospital for a urinary tract infection (UTI) before they are one year old.
- About 10 babies may need to have the circumcision done again because of a poor result.
In rare cases, pain relief methods and medicines can cause side effects and complications. You should talk to your baby’s doctor about the possible risks.
Of every 1,000 boys who *are not* circumcised:
- 7 will be admitted to hospital for a UTI before they are one year old.
- 10 will have a circumcision later in life for medical reasons, such as a condition called phimosis. Phimosis is when the opening of the foreskin is scarred and narrow because of infections in the area that keep coming back. Older children who are circumcised may need a general anesthetic, and may have more complications than newborns.
Those numbers, from the Canadian Pediatric Society, are hardly compelling in favor of circumcising healthy children. Non-therapeutic circumcision prevents 5 boys (0.5%) from being admitted to a hospital with a UTI in the first year of life. Yet, between 20 and 30 (2-3%) boys will suffer a surgical complication, and another 2 to 3 (0.2-0.3%) will suffer a more serious complication.
The really curious statistic is the last in each group. About 10 (~1%) babies may need to have the circumcision done again due to a poor result. If normal, healthy boys are left with their normal, healthy foreskin, 10 (1%) of them will need a medically-necessary circumcision later in life. Those numbers look curiously similar.
So, to recap the facts in this context, circumcision is the permanent removal of a normal, healthy foreskin from a boy who can’t offer his consent to eliminate the 1% lifetime risk that he’ll need a circumcision.
There are other potential benefits, which Mr. Stern links in great detail. I have no problem including them, regardless of how weak or stupid I think they may be. That still isn’t enough to permit non-therapeutic child circumcision. The inputs into the decision are facts, but their value is not. Each person is an individual with his own preferences that his parents can’t know. What Mr. Stern values is not automatically what I value. Or to make the more appropriate connection, what parents value is not automatically what their son will value. That is why proxy consent requires a stricter standard than consent. A surgical decision that permanently alters a healthy child’s body can’t be permitted within proxy consent.
Mr. Stern writes this curious statement among many curious statements:
… Yet in the past two decades, a fringe group of self-proclaimed “intactivists” has hijacked the conversation, dismissing science, slamming reason, and tossing splenetic accusations at anyone who dares question their conspiracy theory. …
What a specific subset of people do is hardly the entirety of the argument or proof in favor of his position. Again, this is just silly, indefensible ad hominem. But what he says is also untrue. Dismissing science? Not here. I’ll accept any claimed benefit. The argument against forcing circumcision on a child is still as powerfully conclusive. Slamming reason? Stating that normal, healthy children should not undergo surgery is the position using reason. Conspiracy theory? Nope. Parents who circumcise, and people who support that option, are generally well-intentioned. I can show examples where that isn’t true, but I’m aware that such evidence is isolated. It’s surely true that some doctors circumcise for the money. I assume most circumcise because they believe it’s acceptable or believe parents should choose, even if the doctor wouldn’t. It’s important to understand how we got here, but I don’t much care about placing blame for that. I care about moving forward. There are any number of like-minded individuals Mr. Stern could find and talk to rather than write the wrong things he wrote.
… For doctors, circumcision remains a complex, delicate issue; for researchers, it’s an effective tool in the fight for global public health. But to intactivists, none of that matters. …
All of that matters. No one I know believes that adult (or older teen) males shouldn’t be able to volunteer for non-therapeutic circumcision.
Mr. Stern’s tactic here is what he’s complaining about. It’s similar to when Dr. Amy Tuteur goes on a tedious rant about “foreskin fetishists”. Smear your opponents because they smear you. “They”, of course. Internet comments are a part of humanity, not representative of it.
… The first rule of anti-circumcision activism, for instance, is to never, ever say circumcision: The movement prefers propaganda-style terms like male genital cutting and genital mutilation, the latter meant to invoke the odious practice of female genital mutilation. (Intactivists like to claim the two are equivalent, an utter falsity that is demeaning to victims of FGM.)
I’ve written circumcision a whole bunch above. But circumcision is genital cutting, because facts. The comparison is in the principle of those facts. Non-therapeutic genital cutting on a non-consenting individual is unethical. It’s also genital mutilation if we are to accept the WHO definition of female genital mutilation:
Female genital mutilation (FGM) comprises all procedures that involve partial or total removal of the external female genitalia, or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons.
… It is nearly always carried out on minors and is a violation of the rights of children. The practice also violates a person’s rights to health, security and physical integrity, the right to be free from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, and the right to life when the procedure results in death.
The issue is human rights, not a specific subset of human rights from which male minors are somehow exempt.
Anti-circumcision activists then deploy a two-pronged attack on some of humanity’s most persistent weaknesses: sexual insecurity and resentment of one’s parents. Your parents, you are told by the intactivists, mutilated you when you were a defenseless child, violating your human rights and your bodily integrity. Without your consent, they destroyed the most vital component of your penis, seriously reducing your sexual pleasure and permanently hobbling you with a maimed member. Anti-circumcision activists craft an almost cultic devotion to the mythical powers of the foreskin, claiming it is responsible for the majority of pleasure derived from any sexual encounter. Your foreskin, intactivists suggest, could have provided you with a life of satisfaction and joy. Without it, you are consigned to a pleasureless, colorless, possibly sexless existence.
Some take that approach. I only speak for myself on being unhappy with circumcision. I’ll quote myself on his generalization:
… The problem is not that circumcision is bad, per se. Healthy men who choose to have themselves circumcised are correct for their bodies. Men circumcised as infants who are happy (or indifferent) about being circumcised are also correct for their bodies. …
But if you only dive into comments sections, it’s easy to believe that’s the only opinion. It’s not excusable to believe that, but it’s easy.
Intactivists gain validity and a measure of mainstream acceptance through their sheer tenacity. Their most successful strategy is pure ubiquity, causing a casual observer to assume their strange fixations are widely accepted. Just check the comment section of any article pertaining to circumcision. …
Take, for example, the key rallying cry of intactivists: That circumcision seriously reduces penis sensitivity and thus sexual pleasure. …
My “key rallying cry” is that circumcision is medically unnecessary and violates the child’s basic rights to bodily integrity and autonomy. That holds up even if the rest of his paragraph’s citations hold up. Sexual satisfaction is a subjective evaluation to each individual. The ability to orgasm is not the full universe of sexual satisfaction. And any change to form changes function. The individual may view that change as good. He may view it as bad. Parents can’t know. That’s the ethical flaw in circumcising healthy minors.
… Study after …
Surely Mr. Stern read through the studies to understand exactly what they say. I have my doubts. I read it. That study is problematic when viewed as conclusively as Mr. Stern cites it. It requires nuance the study’s author provided. Does an appeal to authority sweep away any concerns about limitations?
… study after …
“Adult male circumcision does not adversely affect…” Is that proof that circumcision of male minors doesn’t affect sexual satisfaction, with the glaring caveat against surgery that such a male can’t know?
It’s also worth noting that Mr. Stern linked that same study again later in the paragraph. He also linked another study in consecutive sentences. And a third. That’s deceptive and improperly gives an impression about “an entire field of resarch”, no?
… ([No adverse effect] fits with what my colleague Emily Bazelon found when she asked readers for their circumcision stories a few years ago.) …
Ms. Bazelon’s premise and finding were ridiculous.
So much for circumcision’s supposedly crippling effect on sexual pleasure. But what about its effect on health? Intactivists like to call circumcision “medically unnecessary.” In reality, however, circumcision is an extremely effective preventive measure against global disease. …
The potential benefits don’t render non-therapeutic circumcision “medically necessary”. Earlier he complained about propaganda-style terms. Pretending that “medically unnecessary” doesn’t have an accepted, factual meaning is propaganda-style question begging.
… Circumcision lowers the risk of HIV acquisition in heterosexual men by about 60 to 70 percent. … [ed. note: (Later in this paragraph, he uses the WHO link again.]
The “60″ link states “male circumcision should be considered an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention in countries and regions with heterosexual epidemics, high HIV and low male circumcision prevalence.” Not one of those three criteria matches a Western nation. Those studies also involved adult volunteers, not unconsenting minors.
As both a personal and public health matter, circumcision is clearly in men’s best interest. …
Ethically, as a personal health matter, each healthy individual should decide for himself what body alterations are in his best interest based on his own preferences.
… Anyway, to intactivists, mutilation is mutilation; what does it matter if it’s for the greater good?
“The greater good” doesn’t matter because individuals are humans with rights, not statistics to be treated without regard for what they need or want. Life is full of risks. Because we seemingly can mitigate that does not mean we may or should.
Posted: August 20th, 2013 | Author: Tony | Filed under: Ethics, FGM, Mission | 1 Comment »
This almost-good post from the AHA Foundation, FGM is Not Female Circumcision, and Other Thoughts on Terminology, is worth discussing for the reason it is not good.
The premise that female genital mutilation (FGM) is not “female circumcision” is correct. Language matters. In basic semantics, calling FGM “circumcision” is inaccurate. The etymology of the word circumcision means “to cut around”. That can be done to the female prepuce, in a sense, but that’s not how we understand it. I’m willing to grant this, and the result that the term circumcision doesn’t apply to females.
The gist of the AHA Foundation’s post is about the ethical implications from terminology:
A number of organizations and advocacy groups refer to the procedure as “female genital cutting”, or “FGM/C” to encompass both terms. The argument for “cutting” instead of “mutilation” primarily hinges on the belief that mutilation implies malicious intent on the part of parents or the community, or is otherwise demeaning or insensitive to the cultural particularities of any group that performs FGM. Some argue that referring to it as cutting is a less provocative and more balanced term. Particularly when speaking with those who have undergone the procedure themselves or in reaching out to affected communities, we do see the value in using the more neutral terminology of “cutting” rather than “mutilation”, but otherwise believe it important to state clearly that the procedure is a form of abuse.
I agree with that. What is done to the healthy genitals of females without their consent in any form of FGM/C is morally and ethically wrong. It is indefensible. We must be clear that this violence is abuse. It should never be tolerated.
The AHA Foundation’s post fails because of its next-to-last paragraph.
The argument for referring to FGM as “female circumcision” is blatantly off-base. Female circumcision was the popular term until approximately the 1980s, when FGM and FGC came into usage. As mentioned above, to perform a procedure that parallels male circumcision, one would only remove the prepuce of the clitoris, something that is hardly ever done. (The prepuce is the “hood” or fold of skin that surrounds the clitoris and has no impact on sexual arousal or pleasure.) In nearly all cases, at minimum, either part or all of the clitoris, labia minora, labia majora is removed. To use the term “circumcision” to refer to what is happening to these girls minimizes the brutality of the procedure and ignores the fact that is an act of violence.
First, the paragraph is likely factually wrong when stating the clitoral hood has no impact on sexual arousal or pleasure. It’s bizarre that this made it into the post. I suspect the connection is an implication that the male prepuce also has no impact on sexual arousal or pleasure. Whether the clitoral hood affects arousal or pleasure, its removal would alter the woman’s sexual experience. That is a reason removing it without the individual’s consent is unethical. The parenthetical makes no sense.
To my point, since the post brought it up, what parallels male circumcision is not the only consideration. There are recognized forms of FGM/C less harmful than male circumcision. Much, if not all, of Type IV is comparable to or less harmful than a typical male circumcision. The stated, correct argument against FGM/C in the post (and elsewhere) is that any genital cutting on a female without need or her consent is wrong. (Including removal of the prepuce.) Any lesser conclusion or implication for male circumcision is moral relativism.
The paragraph’s flaw is its implication that FGM/C should not be called circumcision because circumcision is not a brutal act of violence. I doubt this is what the author means. I trust that the AHA Foundation recognizes that males possess the same “basic rights and freedoms” listed on its About page, including “security and control of their own bodies”. But the argument in that paragraph is predicated on minimizing a form of genital cutting, and based solely on gender. The general thrust of the debate is that FGM/C is often done with crude instruments in unsanitary conditions. It is. However, no one suggests that FGM/C performed in a hospital setting with clean instruments is somehow acceptable. At its core, cutting healthy genitals without the person’s consent is the issue.
The accurate approach would’ve been to leave out male circumcision and focus the paragraph accordingly. It would not be difficult. For example: “The term circumcision minimizes the brutality of genital cutting without need or the individual’s consent and ignores the fact that it is an act of violence.”
I do not believe those focused on ending FGM/C are required to actively advocate against male
circumcision genital cutting. I expect them not to state or imply that male genital cutting without need or consent is acceptable. I expect them not to do this, from an exchange that started with the bottom tweet¹:
They responded to me:
We’re not advocating for anyone to be cut, only trying to point out the severity and harm done with #FGM.
I recognize that, as I indicated. But the response to Mr. Cummins was incorrect. There is no excuse for saying something false. (Or following up in agreement to his ad hominem.)
An organization that carelessly ignores the broader foundational principle to its work deserves no credibility. Every point that rejects FGM/C in the post applies to male genital cutting. In the points where the severity between the two is almost always different, and radically so, that is a critical distinction I’ve highlighted before. But something that should inform punishment rather than legality should not be used so recklessly. FGM/C isn’t made less terrible just because generally less-severe male genital cutting violates the same principle. Yes, those against forced male genital cutting need to be responsible when interjecting into a discussion on FGM/C, including by doing so less often. The same need for responsibility holds true for those who advocate against FGM/C.
¹ Contrary to Mr. Cummins’ rant, the argument is that non-therapeutic genital cutting on a non-consenting individual is wrong. There is almost always a difference in the degree of harm imposed from male and female genital cutting. It is often significant. But as the information in the AHA Foundation’s post also demonstrates, there is no difference in kind.
Posted: August 18th, 2013 | Author: Tony | Filed under: Ethics, FGM, Logic | No Comments »
Here’s an instructive video on UNICEF’s new report on female genital mutilation:
Kheiriya Abdi lives in Somalia. She is 10 years old. She said, “I don’t want to be circumcised because of the problems you face afterwards. I do not want any part of my body to be cut.“
Posted: March 17th, 2013 | Author: Tony | Filed under: "Voluntary", Ethics, FGM | 1 Comment »
Owen at Oggy Bloggy Ogwr posted a fascinating discussion on International Women’s Day – Life, Ethics & Independence III – Circumcision. He’s thorough and makes a strong case, summarized with this:
I think the point I’m trying to make here is that perceived injustices that might be deemed “the same cause” for both sexes might not be similar at all. It’s issues like this that mean we have/need an International Women’s Day in the first place.
There are millions of women who currently have to endure some of the worst abuses humankind can throw at them for simply being born the “wrong gender”, and who don’t have much of a voice – except on days like today.
His post is strong because he addresses the issues involved rather than defending International Women’s Day with the rhetorical equivalent of “Shut up, men”. I disagree with very few of his points in the post. However, those few lead me to disagree with his defense of his conclusion, while accepting his conclusion that there is value in addressing the injustices women and girls still face and doing so on their own. Basically, his second paragraph stands without the incorrect qualification presented in the first.
My primary disagreement is here:
Is there a double standard here?
If female circumcision only ever involved removing the clitoral hood – the female equivalent of a foreskin – and was still deemed “genital mutilation” then you would have a point. I doubt you can compare this with women making an informed and conscious choice to have various “body modifications” either.
The UK and US anti-FGM acts prohibit all non-therapeutic female genital cutting, including that which is analogous or less damaging than male circumcision. They prohibit “procedures that intentionally alter or injure female genital organs for non-medical reasons.” The WHO fact sheet on FGM defines it as “removing and damaging healthy and normal female genital tissue, and interferes with the natural functions of girls’ and women’s bodies.” All non-therapeutic cutting on a female without her consent is (rightly) considered mutilation.
Male circumcision fits within both descriptions above, as well as the definition of mutilation. There is no valid reason to distinguish non-therapeutic genital cutting on a non-consenting individual as mutilation or somehow not. The lack of consent to any level of permanent, non-therapeutic surgical harm is the critical issue in identifying genital mutilation. Male circumcision or hoodectomy or any other non-therapeutic cutting is ethically acceptable only when voluntarily chosen by the individual receiving it. Proxy consent is still lack of consent.
I recognize the often great difference in severity from what is typically done to males and females. That matters, and should inform penalties, whether criminal or civil. This difference should not inform legality. (The challenge of enforceability can’t be ignored, of course, but that’s separate from what “should be”.) As I’ve said before, a punch to the face is still battery even though a knife to the gut generally causes more damage.
To be fair, Owen made it clear that he understands the problem inherent in male circumcision. He disagrees with imposing it on children. I am not saying anyone needs to fight male circumcision in their fight against FGM, even though they are the same cause in principle. My point is that FGM is bad enough on its own that making that case doesn’t need a separation of male circumcision from mutilation. This is also true because separating male circumcision from mutilation is counter-factual.
(Conversely, the case against male circumcision can be made without a comparison to FGM.)
Posted: February 6th, 2013 | Author: Tony | Filed under: Ethics, FGM, Law, Media Marketing, Public Health | No Comments »
Today is International Day of Zero Tolerance to Female Genital Mutilation. The WHO statement on this is lacking, which I don’t find surprising. (emphasis added)
The International Day of Zero Tolerance to Female Genital Mutilation is observed each year to raise awareness about this practice. Female genital mutilation of any type has been recognized as a harmful practice and violation of the human rights of girls and women. WHO is committed to the elimination of female genital mutilation within a generation and is focusing on advocacy, research and guidance for health professionals and health systems.
Female genital mutilation (FGM) refers to all procedures involving partial or total removal of the external female genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons. Female genital mutilation has no known health benefits. On the contrary, it is associated with a series of short and long-term risks to both physical, mental and sexual health and well-being.
FGM is affecting about 140 million girls and women, and more than 3 million girls are at risk every year. A special focus for WHO this year, is the troubling trend of health-care providers increasingly being the ones performing female genital mutilation, and thereby contributing to legitimize and maintain the practice.
Today, I’m not going to discuss the comparison to male circumcision beyond the one inherent in this sentence. I am going to use WHO’s approach to male circumcision to compare why its last sentence shouldn’t be a surprise.
Stating that FGM has no known health benefits works from the premise that the possibility of benefits could justify FGM. No benefit could justify forced FGC (i.e. mutilation). The human rights principle is superior. WHO should state that as its foundation, and be consistent and repetitive. In reminding readers about this lack of benefits, WHO almost apologizes for being against FGM. The absence of benefits is not why this shouldn’t be done.
Think back to when the AAP issued a revised policy statement on FGC, later retracted. As I wrote here and here, I didn’t/don’t think it said what people read into it. But the reaction was universal and swift. On the idea that permitting limited forms of genital cutting could prevent greater harm to females, activists stood on the absolute principle. Whether or not this makes sense is a worthwhile discussion. (My posts linked above set out my thoughts on the issue. The principle still matters more.) Regardless, that incident demonstrates that activists would never excuse FGC/M if benefits were proposed or found. Can anyone imagine a scenario where any scientific committee allowed research into possible benefits? For those inclined to accept possible benefits as a justification, everyone else must discourage this thinking. Lazy statements that lack the courage to defends what is morally and ethically correct fail that goal.
WHO’s approach, which informs its stance on male circumcision, enables the predictable problems described in the last sentence. Because the organization refuses to stand for principle where courage is necessary, it creates the conflict of legitimizing genital cutting through “medical” male circumcision programs. I know of no populations that cut females that don’t also cut males. So, WHO drives campaigns to legitimize genital cutting while driving campaigns to delegitimize genital cutting. The flaw is obvious. The principle and consistency matter.
Posted: October 31st, 2012 | Author: Tony | Filed under: "Voluntary", Control, FGM, Politics, Religion | 2 Comments »
In a letter to the editor of the Standard-Examiner in Ogden, Utah, a reader attempts to make a point about Sharia Law. I’m not going to wade into the political aspect of this. But the reader makes an informative error. He writes:
When girls reach age 12 to 14 they are held down, naked, by usually their mothers or as many men that it takes to hold them down, as they cut their clitoris off. They say this helps to control them. Then the girl’s legs are wrapped together for 40 days so the wound can heal.
I could quibble, but this more or less sets up the issue. FGM is evil. But the reader loses his narrative in the next paragraph. He gets basic facts wrong that contribute to a mistaken distinction that doesn’t exist within the principles he aims to establish. (emphasis added)
They tell the little girls that this will make it more pleasurable for their husband when they get married while being denied any sexual pleasure themselves. This mutilation of the genitals makes it painful to have sex and extremely painful to bare children. Everyone knows that they have to be covered up head to toe and escorted by a male wherever they go, but I wonder if the American people know that it is OK to beat their wives by hand or by stick as needed. Or that they are forced to perform oral sex with their husbands, who have not been circumcised so the penis stinks due to the buildup of urine. If the woman complains the husband cuts off her nose.
The principles he implies are the basics. Females possess the rights to their bodily integrity and autonomy. They should be free from unnecessary harm without their consent. Cutting their healthy genitals violates them. It is bodily harm. They are mutilated.
The problem here is that the same rights exist for males. Non-therapeutic genital cutting on a non-consenting individual, not just the genital mutilation of girls, violates the principles involved, regardless of the extent. The husbands of these women are almost certainly circumcised. Their genitals are not cut to the extent that their wives’ genitals are cut. They are cut, though. I’m not aware of any cultures that cut females that don’t also cut males. (Please correct me if I’m wrong.) In Egypt male circumcision is practiced as a part of Islam.
The reader’s comment that the husbands are not circumcised would be bad enough on its own because it’s inaccurate. The additional “so the penis stinks due to the buildup of urine” is projection. It strives to distinguish forms of non-therapeutic genital cutting with an ignorant dismissal of basic hygiene. It seeks to reiterate a validity and desirability for male circumcision, without regard for the male’s preference. The issue the reader raises but fails to crystallize is the use of force.
Forcing genital mutilation on girls is wrong. Forcing wives to have any form of sex is wrong. That extends to males, as well, if the desire to protect females is to carry complete moral weight. Any system – whether political, cultural, or religious – that permits or encourages the use of force by one citizen against another citizen for any reason other than self-defense is illegitimate. The reader’s core point is correct. He should apply it as a universal to all people, not selectively as an instrument endorsing his own cultural relativism. (He is not unique in this, of course. Commonality doesn’t justify it.)
Posted: October 3rd, 2012 | Author: Tony | Filed under: FGM, Logic, Parenting | No Comments »
In an article about an Australian couple arrested for “allegedly organising the illegal circumcision of their one-year-old baby girl in Bali,” this anecdote from Edith Cowan University’s head of medical sciences Moira Sim about patients she has treated is insightful:
She said the women she treated did not see the mutilation of their genitals as an issue because they did not remember having the procedure.
That’s a defense for male circumcision so commonly offered in the United States. Yet, in this anecdote, it’s clear how irrelevant their opinion is as a defense. The violation occurred, and we can easily assume that these women would not feel that way if they hadn’t had their genitals mutilated as children. Ex post facto defenses of non-therapeutic genital cutting offered by the victim, or an assumption that the recipient will develop a specific opinion, can never justify imposing the procedure on a minor.
Posted: September 27th, 2012 | Author: Tony | Filed under: "Voluntary", Control, Ethics, FGM, HIV, Logic, Media Marketing, Public Health, Science | 2 Comments »
Amazon.com reviews of Tinderbox: How the West Sparked the AIDS Epidemic and How the World Can Finally Overcome It, by Craig Timberg and Daniel Halperin, PhD, are the subject of a flawed essay by Joya Banerjee, titled “How an anti-circumcision fringe group waged an ideological attack against AIDS scholarship”. I doubt Ms. Banerjee wrote the headline, although it doesn’t much matter because she ues the same silly accusation in her article. After an introduction describing Tinderbox, she writes:
One of the preventive measures discussed in the book, male circumcision, has become an unexpected source of controversy. Anti-circumcision activists have hijacked Amazon.com’s “peer review” comments section, which allows readers to vote on which book reviews are helpful. This system has morphed into a vicious game of character assassination by conspiracy theorists who reject decades’ worth of scientific evidence, showing how easy it is for a concerted crusade to squelch good science.
My first response is to ask if Ms. Banerjee has ever been on the Internet before researching this piece. I mean that only partially in jest. This is how every comments section works, with few exceptions. The primary focus for blame here is probably in the design of Amazon’s peer review system, or at least in anyone placing any significant value on its worth in 2012 as the criterion for buying a book with a controversial topic.
She seems to understand this later in her article, which makes her unfocused back-and-forth attack on opposition to circumcision feel more like an agenda than a critique.
Where does all of this leave us? Two diligent and dedicated authors spent years researching the origin, spread, and potential prevention of AIDS in Africa. Two minutes and a few clicks were all that was required for a passionate extremist group to obfuscate and delegitimize their findings in front of one of their most important and public audiences. Having failed to prove their beliefs through scientific evidence, the intactivists decided to have circumcision, and this entire book, judged in the court of public opinion. Unfortunately for the public, this jury was rigged.
If all it takes is “two minutes and a few clicks”, that’s a flawed system, however inappropriate the action motivation’s may be.
She’s ignorantly inflammatory in her article because she does not appear to understand opposition to circumcision. It is not “extremist” to argue that potential benefits learned through adult volunteers do not negate concern for the ethics of applying that science to healthy, non-consenting individuals (i.e. minors). For some reason she never addresses this aspect of the debate. If she were interested enough to become informed, she could’ve challenged this behavior without misstating the facts about opposition to circumcision.
That said, there is a legitimate problem with this strategy. It’s inappropriate. We can do better. The full set of facts are on our side, and we should always act like it.
But, as problematic as this is, it isn’t as widespread as she declares with her bizarre, broad attack. Most who are against non-therapeutic child circumcision do not engage in this behavior or condone it from those who do. The title states that an “anti-circumcision fringe group” participated in this without naming any group. The group is somehow all “intactivists”. That’s irresponsible, bordering on the same type of unfair maligning she criticizes. She writes later in her article:
Although male circumcision occupies less than 10 percent of the book’s pages, it was enough to spark outrage among a tiny but passionately vocal fringe group, many of whom call themselves “intactivists.” They argue that the procedure is a grave human rights violation and are lobbying to ban the procedure in many countries.
Let me be clear: I do not support what happened on the Amazon page for Tinderbox. I didn’t participate. I don’t recall seeing anything resembling an attempt at an organized tactic. I recognize a couple names among those attached to 1-star reviews, and at least one name attached to a 5-star review, but that’s it. The correct way to state the facts here is that a small group of individuals have done this. It is incorrect, and defies common sense, to suggest that those who engaged in this constitute the entire group of people who oppose circumcision (of healthy children), as Ms. Banerjee’s sloppy accusation does.
Look at the numbers, which are no doubt now influenced further (in both directions) by Ms. Banerjee’s article. Consider this sample of the helpful ratings for one star reviews:
- 91 of 232
- 83 of 215
- 81 of 212
- 124 of 342
- 76 of 277
- 52 of 221
- 33 of 197
Now consider this sample of the helpful ratings for five star reviews:
- 114 of 129
- 104 of 133
- 111 of 151
- 131 of 186
- 73 of 135
- 76 of 165
- 101 of 153
They look similar¹, right? That’s not to minimize or dismiss (or legitimize) the gaming of the system. And voting down many of the 1-star reviews is probably appropriate. But it can work both ways. Amazon’s review system allows those who support the book to vote down a 1-star review on the basis of it being a 1-star review, without regard for its content. One seems more likely than the other, of course. Reasonable analysis and criticism must still start with the system, not its users. Where the users are wrong, the problem should be identified without hyperbole.
That last rating is also interesting because it’s the rating on the review left by Ms. Banerjee in June.
It’s really too bad that the reviews here have been taken over by an ideological group that shuns science and hard fact. This group has mobilized hundreds of people to write bad reviews and then rate their friend’s bad reviews as helpful.
The reviews (by people who obviously haven’t read the book) are really about their opposition to male circumcision, not about the content of the book at all. Which is pretty nonsensical, seeing as how the majority of legitimate public health institutions (including the World Health Organization and UNAIDS) have accepted that voluntary medical male circumcision prevents HIV by over 60%, and long term data shows it protects by 76%! That’s better than even the flu vaccine- so it’s surprising that these ideological quacks would rather let Africans die from a preventable disease than admit they don’t understand science.
Anyway, READ THE BOOK! There were (sic) always be quacks and naysayers out there (akin to those who still oppose the measles vaccine because they think it causes autism). The racist attacks on the author in these reviews do nothing to bolster their credibility!
I haven’t rated Tinderbox because I haven’t read it. I’ve skimmed it to get a feel for its treatment of circumcision. I have an unfavorable opinion about it based on that, but skimming isn’t enough to rate it.
She has read it. That doesn’t excuse that she engaged in nonsense in her review, as she also does now in her current article. It’s odd to suggest that “hundreds” of people are rating the book down when the number that could be attributed to opponents is obviously under 100. Exactly one 5-star review has more than 100 “unhelpful” ratings, and that one belongs to Professor Brian Morris, who engaged in the same sort of unhelpful ad hominem evidenced in Ms. Banerjee’s article. The math doesn’t add up to this being widespread among all intactivists, unless she honestly believes opposition to circumcision consists of fewer than one hundred people. The population who would do this probably is that small, but she painted opposition with the broadest brush possible, as she inexcusably does in her current Slate article.
It’s also silly to assume one has to shun science and hard fact to oppose non-therapeutic child circumcision. I don’t shun either science or hard fact. My position is that there are probably flaws in the methodology, but I don’t worry about them in my position because the correct position starts with present health and the ethics involved in consent. I assume every potential benefit is real, including reduced female-to-male HIV transmission in high-risk populations with low circumcision rates. But I am not a utilitarian who ignores individual rights, including the rights to bodily integrity/autonomy and self-determination. The right to be free from unwanted – and critically in this case, unnecessary – harm supersedes every potential benefit until the individual can weigh in with his personal preference on which he values more, the benefits or his foreskin. Where public policy or Tinderbox limits itself to voluntary, adult circumcision, I have no issues. The former rarely does, to its great discredit. The latter appears to follow the same pattern. For example, in Note 18 on page 352, Timberg and Halperin write:
… There has also been some confusion caused by mistaken comparisons with “female genital mutilation,” which is a very different type of procedure and can have serious negative medical consequences. …
This ignores the science and hard facts of male circumcision. Non-therapeutic genital cutting on a non-consenting individual is unethical whether it’s forced on a girl or a boy. Gender doesn’t matter here because all people, including male minors, possess the same basic human rights equally. That’s the ethical principle being ignored. That must stop.
Timberg and Halperin mistakenly imply that male circumcision is innocuous. All non-therapeutic genital surgeries have negative medical consequences for the individual that he or she may not want. (e.g. loss of foreskin, severed nerve endings, damage to/loss of frenulum) And some number of males have serious negative medical consequences, including partial or full amputation, as well as death. Perhaps they discuss this in the book. From my review of the indexed circumcision segments, I’m not convinced they take this into account. (During my prior reviews of Halperin’s work, most notably in this two part series on an awful paper to which he attached his name, I’ve seen no evidence that he assigns any weight to these facts.)
Continuing with Note 18 on page 352:
… Further confusing the issue of male circumcision are the protests of a small but vocal community of activists who often call themselves “intactivists” because of their belief that the male genitalia should remain entirely intact. This constituency has launched aggressive campaigns, including one that resulted in getting an initiative on the ballot in San Francisco to ban the performance of any circumcisions on minors in the city. California officials later ruled that cities had no authority over medical proceduress (sic). …
Neither I nor anyone I know believes that the male genitalia should remain entirely intact. That’s too simplistic and unconcerned with hard fact. I believe my gentials should have remained intact because I was healthy and my foreskin belonged to me. I believe every other male child’s healthy penis and foreskin should also remain intact until he may choose for himself, even if he ultimately chooses circumcision. The issue is bodily integrity and autonomy, not opposition to circumcision full stop. The San Francisco ballot initiative would’ve prohibited the performance of any circumcision on healthy, non-consenting minors in the city, not “any circumcisions on minors”. Omitting key words incorrectly frames the discussion and dismisses valid ethical (and scientific) concerns.
It’s also indefensible to engage in ad hominem (i.e. “ideological quacks” who “would rather let Africans die from a preventable disease than admit they don’t understand science”), as Ms. Banerjee does, without understanding the necessary qualifiers. Personally, I think everyone should use condoms because they prevent the transmission of HIV. If the adult male is so inclined, he may also volunteer to undergo circumcision. I don’t want anyone to die from HIV, but I don’t want anyone’s rights violated in a condescending good faith effort to force on him what someone else thinks he should want. If Ms. Banerjee wants to limit the discussion to voluntary adult male circumcision, that’s fine. She fails to explicitly limit the application of the science to the bodies of adult volunteers. From what I’ve read of Tinderbox, Timberg and Halperin fail to do so, as well. They should all recognize that they’re ignoring the ethical distinction between voluntary adult circumcision and non-therapeutic child circumcision.
Since this is indirectly a critique of Tinderbox, consider another footnote, note 18 on page 385.
… Meanwhile, some critics have suggested that male circumcision is similar to “female genital mutilation’ because it allegedly also reduces sexual functioning and pleasure. Unlike male circumcision, however, these practices-particularly the most extreme forms such as infibulation-can pose significant health risks for women. …
They’re repeating their error, treating male circumcision as if it carries an irrelevant risk of serious complications. But circumcision also changes the form of the penis, which changes the function. The mechanics are different. Maybe that’s better, maybe it isn’t. It’s unique to the individual, contrary to the majoritarian argument they’re about to make.
… In the rigorous studies that have investigated male circumcision’s effect on sexual pleasure, (115-28) nearly all men and their female partners report that after men become circumcised sexual pleasure is the same or enhanced, for both partners. During the 2005-2006 Swaziland pilot circumcision program mentioned in chapter 26, many women began saying that after getting circumcised their partners could have sex longer before reaching orgasm. Some of the clinic nurses reported that women would use metaphors such as, “He used to go from here [Mbabane] to Manzini [a city half an hour's drive away], now he can go all the way to the border.”
Source 123, “Sensation and sexual arousal in circumcised and uncircumcised men”, states:
It is possible that the uncircumcised penis is more sensitive due to the presence of additional sensory receptors on the prepuce and frenulum, but this cannot be compared with the absence of such structures in the circumcised penis.
They (unintentionally?) demonstrate as much in their footnote, if only they were interested in the issue. The conclusion is that (voluntary, adult) circumcision doesn’t damage sexual pleasure because it is the same or enhanced for nearly all men and their female partners. So? This dismisses the diminished sexual pleasure for those outside the “nearly all” group. Those individuals matter, and no one should expect them to be mollified because another male is happy with his circumcision.
This approach is also based on “heads I win, tails you lose”. Circumcision is the same or better, and men can have sex longer. What logical reason can we think of that might explain lasting longer? Maybe this is good, but sexual pleasure involves a degree of individual preference. Not all males (or females) will want or need sex to last longer to enjoy it to the maximum extent for themselves.
Ms. Banerjee endorses this flawed argument in her article:
Although tens of thousands of men who were circumcised as adults and were studied in several large-scale clinical trials (and in a Slate series) reported no loss—and in many cases an increase—in sexual pleasure and function, the intactivists claim that male circumcision is equivalent to female genital mutilation, a practice whose purpose is to constrain a woman’s sexuality and impair sexual function. In one of its worst forms, a pre-teen girl’s clitoris and entire external genitalia are cut, scraped, or burned out, which can cause severe pain, infection, life-long incontinence, obstructed labor and delivery, and even death. To be truly equivalent, one would have to cut off a man’s entire penis in order to produce the same effect, rather than a small flap of skin.
First, that Slate series was ridiculous. I refuted it here and here.
Second, the possibility that one person might not like being circumcised as a healthy child exposes the ethical problem that she fails to address. Male circumcision involves control, and can be intended to directly impair sexual function. (It definitively alters sexual function.) Most forms of FGM result in far more harm than a typical circumcision, but civil law recognizes no level of acceptable harm from non-therapeutic female genital cutting, including forms less harmful than male circumcision. One does not have to remove the entire penis to produce the same effect that is legally prohibited for female minors. Male circumcision is not acceptable because FGM is usually worse. Even if the foreskin should be viewed as a “small flap of skin”, it is the male’s small flap of skin. Self-ownership rights do not disappear because possible benefits exist from a non-therapeutic surgical intervention.
Where she challenges the appropriateness of the comments attached to Tinderbox’s Amazon page, Ms. Banerjee is correct. Where she expands that into an indictment of any position against circumcision, she stumbles. There is more to the application of science to healthy individuals, whether adults or minors, than just a limited subset of science and hard fact. No male’s healthy body is a platform for expressing another’s personal preferences and fears, whether those of parents or technocratic public health officials.
¹ Sampled on September 26, 2012, except for the rating on Ms. Banerjee’s review. I updated that today because I kept the link.