Category: Parenting

Quoting Dr. Doug Diekema Against the AAP’s Position

There’s been some mystery about why the AAP has taken so long to issue its revised statement on routine infant circumcision. It was expected years ago but still hasn’t been released. I won’t speculate on why this delay continues. Instead, we must look at the only new piece of information, a bit of insider speculation revealed this week. Deirdra Funcheon interviewed task force member Dr. Doug Diekema for the Broward Palm Beach New Times.

“Your frustration is shared by many,” Diekema said. He said that it had been hard to coordinate schedules of the busy task force members but that they had finally completed an exhaustive review of all relevant studies, and now “our work is 95 percent done. To my knowledge, the [new] statement and technical report have been drafted and are being reviewed by other members of the task force. We expect that this will be released sometime this spring.” Said Diekema: “Our starting point was the existing policy statement from 1995, which took a fairly neutral stance — it said there were modest medical benefits and some risks. Since then, data has been generated that might alter that recommendation. It’s fair to say that there are much more clear medical benefits than there were at the time of the last report, although no radical change in the data regarding risk. I expect that the academy will come out with a somewhat stronger statement.”

I don’t think “somewhat stronger” suggests a statement that will say anything close to “everyone should circumcise their sons”. That’s a guess, but if the task force was determined to say that because they feared parents leaving their sons intact was any real danger to the boys, they’d work harder to coordinate their schedules. They didn’t. Still, any inching toward a more positive statement would be indefensible, because the statement should be stampeding to the ethical position, the one which removes the choice from parents and leaves the choice with its proper owner, the (healthy) child. But I suspect Dr. Diekema’s statement is less than we fear. As always we should respond to this with logic and respect. The facts are on our side.

For example:

He went on to say, “If you talk to reasonable people about what the data shows… it’s real. …

I’m interrupting his thought here to point out that “reasonable people” is a framing device intended to show that he’s serious, unlike others who reject the data. It’s pointless. Reasonable people can disagree on the data, the methodology, and the application without being insincere or propagandists.

On that point, the data also shows that almost every male has healthy genitalia at birth. No surgery is indicated. The pursuit of some possible future benefit is speculative because the child is healthy. This is as true for the normal foreskin as it is for every other body part on boys and every body part on girls. This is the ethical question improperly ignored when advocates ask us to focus on “what the data shows”. A healthy body is also science.

… [Circumcision] does carry some risk and does involve the loss of the foreskin, which some men are angry about. But it does have medical benefit. Not everyone would trade that foreskin for that medical benefit. Parents ought to be the decisionmakers here. They should be fully informed.

There’s the ethical question improperly ignored. Dr. Diekema understands that not all males would trade that foreskin for the medical benefit. The condition he set can’t be met. Parents can’t know if their healthy son will be one of those males. They can never be fully informed. This is the beginning and end of the discussion.

Dr. Diekema is a pediatric bioethicist. If he is to adhere to the ethics his position requires, he would immediately and completely oppose any AAP statement other than a complete rejection of non-therapeutic male child circumcision. Non-therapeutic genital cutting on a non-consenting individual who may not want the surgical alteration is ethically wrong.

Consider the AAP’s policy on the ethics of female genital mutilation (while remembering the comparison is non-therapeutic genital cutting on a non-consenting individual):

The physical burdens and potential psychological harms associated with FGM violate the principle of nonmaleficence, a commitment to avoid doing harm, and disrupt the accepted norms inherent in the patient-physician relationship, such as trust and the promotion of good health. More recently, FGM has been characterized as a practice that violates the right of infants and children to good health and well-being, part of a universal standard of basic human rights.

Which parts of the emphasized sections have an exemption based on gender? It’s certainly not the pursuit of benefits that he stressed in the linked interview. Those are subjective and speculative. He has indirectly testified to this standard in court. Participating in the revision of a statement to encourage parents and physicians to behave unethically doesn’t make sense.

“Moral Case for Circumcision” Ignores Morality

In this essay Rabbi Shmuly Yanklowitz attempts to make the moral case for infant circumcision. Rabbi Yanklowitz fails in every all seven attempts, and in the familiar ways. This is not surprising since non-therapeutic genital cutting on a non-consenting individual is immoral.

He starts with health. He makes the mistake of focusing on relative risk without concern for absolute risk or the implications of his approach. He concludes the paragraph with this:

… Is it fair to avoid giving a boy protection when it is available? It’s not only Jewish law to maintain one’s health but also Jews should serve as a model for this important health practice.

“To avoid giving a boy protection” is a weird way to frame this point. It shows the flaw because it suggests that the conclusion informs the defense rather than the reverse. It assumes parents are unreasonable if they don’t circumcise healthy boys. Is it fair to avoid giving any child any protection that might reduce the risk of something, regardless of how small that risk?

This approach to healthy children is only applied to the male foreskin. Every other possible intervention is rejected. We are not immoral when we “avoid giving” other potential protections. The moral case against infant circumcision demands its rejection as we already refuse to consider any other intervention that might reduce something at some point. Rejecting infant circumcision is the only consistent moral approach.

Next, explaining circumcision’s role in “sexual morality”, he quotes Maimonides and responds:

… Circumcised men may not have less sexual desire or more self control but teaching a value of sexual moderation may be one pedagogical goal of this ancient ritual. We have many sexual wrongs in society to be reminded of such as rape, adultery, impropriety, and molestation. Perhaps circumcision can serve as a sacred reminder for men, in our over-sexualized world, to cultivate self control.

What is this, if not a means to control male sexuality? I’ve written before about the mistaken belief that non-therapeutic male child circumcision does not involve control. It does, even if this is not consciously understood when expressing intent. So it is again with Rabbi Yanklowitz’s reasoning.

Worse, this is borderline insulting because he seems to imply that men are less likely to control themselves without some external intervention against their genitalia. If my foreskin hadn’t been removed shortly after birth, would I now be inclined to commit rape, adultery, impropriety, and molestation?

Next, Rabbi Yanklowitz offers a utilitarian approach:

If an uncircumcised man chooses to have the procedure done later in life, it will be much more painful (even with anesthesia) and dangerous than it would be for a newborn. It is the responsibility of parents to shield their children from unnecessary pain.

There is no guarantee a male left with his foreskin and choice will need or want circumcision later in life. Statistics show neither is likely. Yet, pain is guaranteed when a child is circumcised. The choice that shields the most children from unnecessary pain is to leave everyone intact until need arises or they can make the choice themselves. Instead of every child – male only – experiencing pain, only those who have the misfortune to have a malady or who decide that the potential benefits outweigh the costs (e.g. pain) for them will experience pain. From a utilitarian standpoint, the prudent (i.e. moral) position is to leave children intact with their normal genitals because this non-action causes the least amount of unnecessary pain.

It’s also questionable whether or not circumcision later in life is more painful and dangerous. If it’s more dangerous¹, the individual facing the danger can consent or reject the surgery if he doesn’t want the risk. (My assumption there is for elective, non-therapeutic circumcision, which is the issue involving infants.) And infant circumcision has its own dangers, since the foreskin is fused to the glans and it’s difficult to judge how much to take off since the child still has all of his growing remaining. Severe consequences like amputation and death can – and do – occur, as well.

The utilitarian approach is subjective and has a tendency to favor whatever argument someone is making because it assumes all people favor the same choices. Yet, each person must provide his own weighting to the relevant issues. (The typical flaw of utilitarianism is to completely ignore the value of the foreskin in the equation. Its loss somehow isn’t a cost of the surgery.) The utilitarian push for circumcision ignores that individuals are must live with the negative outcomes and/or the intended outcomes he may not want. All children together won’t share the lost glans, lost penis, or lost life in the instances of severe complications. It makes no sense to consider all children lumped together.

His fourth point is parental values and social acceptance. The topic itself demonstrates the necessary proof that this is about control. That control makes it immoral. The circumcision is unnecessary, yet the values of the parents override the child’s lack of need and possible preferences throughout his life. Making sure that others accept him via surgery elevates the opinion of others above his own about his body. It denies personal autonomy. The paragraph endorses that view, but these sentences warrant focus:

… Not circumcising a Jewish boy may hinder his social acceptance and his chances of finding a Jewish spouse. The overwhelming majority of Jewish women look for a mate who is circumcised. It would be cruel to prevent a man from potentially finding a suitable mate. …

This is a claim commonly made in defense of female genital cutting. If we reverse the genders in his position, it’s easily understandable that this is about controlling the child. There is no compelling reason why this defense is acceptable for male genital cutting while being (rightly) rejected for female genital cutting. It is immoral when imposed on either gender.

Next, he extols the virtues of modesty. I don’t have much to say on this. Parents surgically altering their son to remind him to live up to their idea of modesty is self-evidently about control, and thus, immoral.

Next, “unconscious memory”:

…We give our baby boys one token formative experience, and then we do all we can to protect and shelter the child. This experience helps to ensure that the boy can be a moral agent. However, this reasoning, of course, should not be extended beyond this minor example.

Whether this experience is “token” or not must be decided by the individual receiving it, not the individual giving it. It is a subjective judgment.

Beyond that, empathy is a wonderful trait. There are better ways to instill this in children involving parenting rather than surgery. Are males not empathetic enough, or capable of learning through logic and example, that they require such an experience before they can practice it in their lives? This is preposterous and impossible to prove. Using it as a defense isn’t acceptable, as evidenced by the qualifications offered at the end of the paragraph. Again, they suggest that the conclusion informed the defense rather than the reverse. (Every defense of circumcision suggests this in some way.) Inflicting pain and the removal of healthy body parts to teach lessons is immoral.

The last item is that circumcision is a symbolic reminder. It focuses on religion, which I’m going to leave alone. My response is that symbolism isn’t valid if the individual doesn’t value the symbols. There seems to be a considerable chance that a child will value many of the same things his parents value. I accept that without reservations. But the focus must be on the individual. This is not guaranteed for any individual. Permanently altering a child to remind him of something he may one day reject is problematic, at best.

Rabbi Yanklowitz proved nothing he set out to prove. The moral case for infant circumcision he attempted is little more than the most common responses given. The emphasis is on the parents, not the child. The moral case for surgery with children starts and ends with their physical need. For circumcision, there is no need. There is no moral case for non-therapeutic infant circumcision.

¹ This is where I’ll invoke the articles on the PrePex as an example. My objection to the recent pieces about it centers on the poor journalism rather than the device. I expect the device will eventually be tweaked to allow for infant circumcision at some point. That would be wrong. For now it’s a device for voluntary, adult circumcision. I have no objection to that. The claimed risks involved with the device are low. The claim that adult circumcision is more dangerous than infant circumcision doesn’t appear to hold up, generally, regardless of the method. This claim is a framing device of dubious quality rather than a fact to be negate ethics.

Flawed Circumcision Defense: Dr. Paul Rein

As activists we’ve all encountered poorly thought out, often incomprehensible arguments advocating for non-therapeutic child circumcision. In their mildest forms, these merely conclude that parents should do what “works for their family”, as if all penises in the family belong to the parents. In their worst form, they’re clueless, uninterested in learning, and offer any number of bizarre justifications that defend the decision while remaining ignorant of basic facts. This essay by Dr. Paul Rein is built on the latter foundation, with the surprise of an irrational excuse for surgically altering healthy boys that I’ve never heard before.

After an introduction and a brief, incomplete history of circumcision, Dr. Rein quotes Genesis 17, including the bit about circumcising one’s slaves. In response, he writes:

… WOW, pretty powerful stuff when taken literally. So why do you think this “law” came about? For me, like Jewish dietary laws (sic) it was all about health. In days past, before modern times, food such as a pig was not considered ok to eat by the Jews because pigs were dirty, ate garbage and carried worms. Bottom feeders in the waters fall in the same category. Circumcision was a matter of numbers of complications for not doing it. Circumcision is done on day 8 of life for what reason? Is there something magical about day 8? It turns out that on day 8 of a boy’s life his blood clotting factors are normal, such that his risk for bleeding is less. In most countries of the world where babies are delivered in the hospital a circumcision if performed is done in the first couple of days and the babies are given a shot of Vitamin K which helps the blood clot, in other words it is a convenience to be done then. Surely the Jews figured out by trial and error that day 8 was the earliest, best and safest time to perform the circumcision. Most likely their dietary laws also discovered that eating pigs caused more illness than not eating them. So lets get back to circumcision.

This is conjecture. It shows the logic-optional framework upon which Dr. Rein is willing to build his conclusion on non-therapeutic child circumcision. I’d like to see citations for the number of complications throughout history “for not doing it”. But I can accept that without citations because it’s irrelevant to the more immediate question: what is justified today?

For example, whether or not there’s something magical about day 8 or the availability of Vitamin K may be interesting, but neither is a valid defense for circumcising healthy infants. Being convenient doesn’t make it acceptable. Any biological magic of a healthy human’s Day 8 ability to properly clot his blood still applies to his Day 6,574¹ ability to properly clot his blood. But, ethically, only one of those is valid.

When Dr. Rein begins to discuss risks of circumcision, he fails to include a complete list of objective outcomes. Some are possible and some are guaranteed.

… The risks include, pain on performing the procedure, bleeding and infection, irritation of the glans, increased risk of meatitis- which is an inflammation to the opening of the penis, injury to the penis during the procedure, and a belief by some that removing the foreskin decreases sexual pleasure. There are also some people who believe it is a violation of the child’s human rights because they did not consent to the procedure.

He should’ve mentioned that circumcision includes the risks of amputation and death. Those are rare, but if he’s not including the absolute risk of the maladies against which non-therapeutic circumcision is a prophylaxis, a full set of known risks should be included.

He should also state that circumcision leaves a scar. That could lead into an actual discussion of whether the male himself wants that, as well as the intended cost of the surgery, the loss of his foreskin. The foreskin is not, biologically, an inert afterthought. I’m not surprised he would omit this because I don’t think he understands this. But the burden is on him to be educated, not on others to defend why healthy, normal body parts exist.

His advice focuses into one key paragraph:

What is a FAMILY to do when they have a newborn boy? …

Celebrate and not cut his healthy genitals. This is what a family does when they have a newborn girl.

… As I have mentioned in the past it is up to you to make informed choices. You as the responsible adult who has had a child should make an informed decision. Educate yourself as to the benefits and risks remembering that most of the risks are small, but when they do happen to you they are 100% in your experience. Nothing is without risk and you weigh the risk versus the benefit. …

Being the “responsible adult” does not mean that option is valid. Tradition does not justify its imposition. The possibility of benefits, the “responsible adult’s” subjective minimization of the risks involved, or the doctor’s omission of the full costs also fail as justifications. The surgical alteration is not medically indicated or necessary. That is the sole relevant information. Where circumcision is being imposed on another who can’t consent, only medical need can justify it.

… Regarding circumcision if you choose not to have your child circumcised and as an older boy or adult he needs to be circumcised the risks increase. The risk of surgery such as pain, bleeding and infection are higher for older boys and men. …

This logic could be applied to any non-therapeutic surgery one might choose to force on a healthy child, primarily with respect to pain. The claimed inability to remember the pain as an infant does not mean the infant does not experience the pain. As an adult, the individual has the choice to use sufficient pain management. It’s also worth noting that actual need for circumcision is rare. Where an adult male’s circumcision is optional, his preference for the possible benefits demonstrate that he values them more than the costs, including the pain. Infants don’t get that choice.

… If you believe that the pain of a circumcision is traumatic to the child and affects him for the rest of his life then don’t do it. To that I say, c’mon. A newborns brain is immature and the few seconds to minutes of crying is no more traumatic that a night of crying from colic. Does that baby who has colic from a formula become so traumatized that he never wants to drink from a bottle? …

Dr. Rein’s lack of concern for the child and what he may experience from unnecessary surgery is scary. Is “c’mon” the scientific term for a newborn’s pain coping mechanism?

… Arguments such as decreased sexual pleasure from a man’s point of view are pretty tough to make. Do you really know any guys who say, geez I wish ….?

Here I am: Geez, I wish I had my foreskin. I am not alone. Dr. Rein should research the topic before he mocks opinions he does not understand. Research would allow him to reject his own incorrect ideas that are easily refuted.

It gets worse:

… Another thing to think about in making your decision is are you a single mother having this child? Little boys, 5 and up are probably not inclined to have their mom making sure that they are practicing proper hygienic techniques and in light of the fact that the USA has the highest rate of single parent homes in the western world that might be something you want to consider. …

Yeah. I thought I’d heard all the dumb arguments. I’m not pleased to know that more creative stupid excuses develop. Raising children involves teaching them proper hygiene and setting expectations for maintaining that throughout childhood. Dr. Rein’s suggestion is nothing more than telling parents (i.e. the “responsible adults”) it’s okay to abdicate their parental responsibilities because that responsibility is too uncomfortable.

To put it in a different perspective, as someone stated in the comments section of the essay, would it be legitimate to suggest that single fathers have their daughters’ genitals cut because it would be too uncomfortable to monitor their hygiene? Even if I accept the incorrect suggestion that forced, non-therapeutic female and male genital cutting don’t involve the same rights (and ethical) violation, the underlying implication of Dr. Rein’s statement is that parents should act against their child if it’s more convenient for them to do so. All other considerations be damned. It’s about the parents, not the patient. That’s unethical, anti-science nonsense.

Dr. Rein addresses the human rights point, badly:

… Finally the human rights issue is in my opinion a weak argument. As parents we are making many decisions for our children. Children don’t get to make too many medical decisions including vaccinations and antibiotics that are often forced on them when they don’t need them.

This decision is not like other decisions. It’s the unnecessary surgical alteration/reduction of a child’s body in pursuit of subjective outcomes based on someone else’s preferences. Parents vaccinate to protect their children, so, yes, in that limited non-useful manner, vaccinations and non-therapeutic circumcision can be viewed the same way. But the same thing could be said about comparing vaccinations to removing the healthy breast buds of a girl whose family has a history of breast cancer. There has to be more for it to be intelligent and useful. So, vaccinations work to build the body by using its natural mechanisms. Circumcision simply removes a body part that may develop a future problem. Dr. Rein’s comparison is invalid.

If Dr. Rein thinks that the irresponsible use of antibiotics by parents is a defense of the irresponsible use of circumcision, he’s more interested in establishing defenses for his pre-determined conclusion than reaching a conclusion based on facts and logic. I’m going with that because I read his essay. He didn’t provide any evidence for me to conclude otherwise.

¹ Or Day 6,575…

Flawed Circumcision Defense: California Assemblyman Mike Gatto

California Assemblyman Mike Gatto is an authoritarian. He believes that male children do not have human rights equal to the rights of their fellow citizens. Mike Gatto believes that freedom and liberty involve parental ownership of the genitals of their male children. He believes that the individual right involved in child genital cutting is exclusively the right to cut a male child without medical need. He believes that subjective, non-medical “affiliative benefits” are enough to justify surgery on a child, even if the child does not or might not want to be forcibly affiliated. California Assemblyman Mike Gatto prefers mindless, unquestioned deference to parental choices about non-therapeutic male child genital cutting.

Thankfully for Mike Gatto, his colleagues in the lesiglature and California Governor Jerry Brown share his authoritarianism. Gov. Brown signed Assembly Bill 768, which prevents local governments within California from prohibiting non-therapeutic circumcision on male minors. Now history may know that these individuals supported genital mutilation after the point at which sufficient evidence existed to understand the correct position that respects individual rights, science, and morality.

To understand what these politicians have failed to grasp, imagine a male. He is an adult. He is intact. He is healthy. He tells his parents that he has unprotected sex with HIV-positive women. What rights do his parents have to deal with this? Under the illogic of Assemblyman Gatto and his colleagues, his parents may force him to be circumcised.

But he’s an adult, so they don’t have that right, correct? Of course. Yet Mike Gatto has accepted a delineator based on age to define when the child receives his right to decide which permanent, non-therapeutic alterations he wants or does not want inflicted on his body. By legislating an endorsement of non-therapeutic genital cutting against healthy male children, Mike Gatto endorsed a form of permant parental control over a male’s genitals. Circumcising an infant creates a circumcised adult, without regard for the adult’s opinion.

Legally there’s no reason to distinguish between a healthy newborn and a healthy teen one day shy of his 18th birthday. His penis belongs to his parents, according to the worldview of Mike Gatto. We understand that there is a difference and most (probably, hopefully) think that forcibly circumcising the latter male is offensive and shouldn’t be done. But that requires us to backtrack to the age where it becomes acceptable to circumcise a healthy child for no reason. We must ask why that age and not a later age. So, what is that age? Is it 17? 13? 10? 6? 3? 1? When does it become unacceptable to cut the healthy genitals of a male, because that distinction is arbitrary? What will it require to make Mike Gatto understand that the correct age is upon birth?

California already established that there is no arbitrary, unspecified age before which parents own the genitals of their female children. They may not allow someone to take a scalpel to the genitals of their daughters for non-therapeutic reasons, even if those reasons include a parental preference for forced “affiliative benefits.” The only factor involved in any decision to cut female minors is the presence or lack of medical need. That is the ethical, scientific view, which succinctly demonstrates that genital integrity exists within human rights. Mike Gatto believes that male children have only a mere subset of human rights, a subset that does not include genital integrity. It is a flaw in his character that Mike Gatto believes the full range of human rights only belong to male adults, female adults, and female children.

Truth and Loaded Words

There’s currently an image floating around that states “Circumcision without informed consent is surgical rape at any age.” The visual is intriguing, but this is a bad message to push. The only people to whom it will appeal are those who already understand that non-therapeutic child circumcision is wrong. Those who advocate for circumcision will not change their minds based on this, so those who have some qualms about circumcision are the only target audience. Will they think advocats for individual choice are rational, based on this message?

Taken literally, by definition, circumcision is a form of rape and the action is surgical. But most people will not associate “rape” as “to take”, but rather will think it’s wrapped up in assault and sexual gratification. Being literal is not useful on this point, which is about marketing. This image is meant to sell genital integrity and human rights. While there must be truth in advertising, the target audience matters. We have to work with the framework of their thinking, as well. If a slogan requires a disclaimer or clarification, it’s a bad slogan.

“Circumcision is surgical rape” suggests that parents intend to rape their children. That implication is that their intent is about power, control, and sexual gratification. There is power and control inherent in non-therapeutic child circumcision, but it’s not intended as harm. And there is no sexual gratification from circumcision in the general population of advocates. Accidentally implying it of anyone who circumcises their healthy son compounds the image’s damage.

Consider this, from the judge who sentenced an Oregon mother to probation for unsuccessfully circumcising her son at home with instructions from a video on YouTube:

Multnomah County Circuit Judge Eric Bergstrom told Peterson on Monday that “the reality is you love your children and had absolutely no intent to harm your child.”

Our default assumption should be that parents love their sons, that they do not intend to harm their sons. Too many circumcision advocates think that, because of this intent, circumcision does no harm. This is wrong. Despite these parental intentions, circumcision causes harm. That’s our message. Anything that distracts from that, or suggests evil intentions, diminishes our ability to convince. Reason and facts are on our side. Let’s use them.

Inquiry Is Better than Insinuation

Rabbi Gary Creditor wrote an essay in the Richmond Times-Dispatch on the subject of circumcision, laws, and anti-Semitism. The title assigned is “Circumcision ban is veiled anti-Semitism.” The premise is absurd because it accepts no nuance into the discussion. It’s possible (and common) to oppose non-therapeutic child circumcision and anti-Semitism. The former can be expressed in clear principle without the latter. If Rabbi Creditor will make an effort to look, he will find examples.

Instead, this, after significant buildup:

Throughout history, those who sought to destroy the Jewish people always forbade brit milah, usually upon penalty of death. They thought that if they could eradicate the sign of the covenant, they could eliminate the covenantal people. They failed.

To the extent that I can (i.e. intellectually), I understand his concern. But this is not that. There is no effort to destroy Judaism or Jewish people. Any male may consent to circumcision when he is able. The proposed law would’ve set the age he could consent at 18, but I do not believe that is required. At whatever age he could consent, that would be acceptable. The focus is consent.

The proposed law would’ve established criminal penalties. That makes sense given that the fact involved is that non-therapeutic circumcision is (well-intentioned) battery, which violates the rights of the child. We criminalize female genital cutting on minors that causes less damage. There is nothing abhorrent about the proposed penalties. They would’ve very rarely, if ever, been enforced. That’s politics. But to connect a proposed year of imprisonment with capital punishment is inexcusably unfair.

That’s Rabbi Creditor’s premise. He exposes the flaw in his reasoning that demonstrates the principle of human rights and bodily integrity with his next paragraph (emphasis added):

That is the issue that reverberates these days in San Francisco with the attempt through legislation to ban all circumcision. It is a thinly veiled attack upon Judaism and the Jewish people. Anyone who objects to this ritual has the democratic right not to participate in it. Yet as parents with a religious persuasion, we make decisions on behalf of our children. One of those is the perpetuation of the faith. This is how we do it. This attack is not new — just its method. It violates core American principles.

I had a right not to participate in circumcision. I would exercise that right if I still had my choice. My parents (and the doctor) violated my right and my body when they circumcised me without medical need. Every human, male or female, possesses that basic right. Rabbi Creditor is mistaken. Society incorrectly fails to protect that right for male children, which violates core American principles. The core American principle is individual liberty, not collective “liberty” to permanently impose one’s beliefs on the physical body of another.

Flawed Circumcision Defense: Harold Witkov

When I first read this essay by Harold Witkov, I assumed it was just an offensive smear without research. On my second reading, it has to be a satire of how a non-thinking conservative views opposition to non-therapeutic child circumcision. I know it’s the former, but it’s also accidentally the latter.

After a brief description of a bris he attended recently, he writes:

Just prior to the blessed ritual, the Rabbi got everyone’s attention with a joke. He began, “We Jews are a team. Once you make the first cut you are on the team for life!”

Sad to say, there are some misguided Americans who would love to break up the Jewish team. They are the intactivists (as in keep the penis intact), a generic term for the activist opposition to infant circumcision. They have succeeded in getting a proposed ban on male circumcision on the San Francisco ballot this November, and are working hard to get similar ban proposals across the nation.

I do not wish to “break up the Jewish team”. Although I do not refer to myself as an “intactivist”, I advocate for the principle that all children have a right to be free from non-therapeutic genital cutting to which they do not consent. It’s a principle that everyone respects for female children. There is no justification sufficient to overrule that for healthy males. If a male reaches an age of consent (not necessarily the age of consent) and wishes to be circumcised for any non-therapeutic reason, he should be able to do so. I expect an overwhelming majority of males raised in Judaism would undergo the procedure. Wonderful, nothing would stop them. But the elective rate would not be 100 percent. That is why this individual right to reject the surgery must be protected.

So far, Mr. Witkov is wrong, but he’s barely dancing on the border of ridiculous. From this point forward, he’s abandoned logic in favor of the absurd and ad hominem.

Intactivists are twisted-minded do-gooders who are trying to convince the masses that a law to ban circumcision is as commonsense as a law that mandates car seats for infants. They are dangerous thinkers who have organized. While grossly exaggerating medical risks and denying the medical benefits of circumcision, the intactivists oppose male circumcision, citing it as an unnecessary cruelty and mutilation imposed upon an unwilling baby. While they hide behind their false front of grave concerns, I have figured out who they are and what makes them tick.

“Twisted-minded” is interesting. In what way? By demanding equal protection of existing law for male minors under the same principle? That’s not twisted, unless one ignores the reality of circumcision. Again, it’s non-therapeutic genital cutting on a non-consenting individual. There is nothing twisted in suggesting that no one should have normal, healthy, functional body parts removed without their consent. If protecting that right is pejoratively “doing good”, so be it.

A law to ban circumcision is common sense because circumcision is a form of harm inflicted on children. Think of it this way. A law mandating car seats is designed to protect children from harm. But how many infants are involved in accidents? Most infants would be fine if their parents didn’t use car seats because their parents don’t get into accidents. They would never be harmed by riding unsecured in a car. Yet, we know that illogical approach is flawed. The harm to all infants from being a passenger without being in safety restraints is the risk of harm from an accident. They probably won’t be in an accident, but they might be. We don’t know who will be the unlucky victims, so we protect every infant from the harm, to the extent possible.

The same applies to circumcision. Every circumcision involves objective harm, of course, which is neither an exaggeration nor a denial of potential benefits. But for the comparison to car seats, every circumcision involves the risk of harm beyond what is inevitable from the surgery. These include excessive bleeding, infection, skin bridges, meatal stenosis, partial or complete amputation, and death. Thankfully the more extreme complications are rare, but they occur. Any individual infant could be affected by such an outcome. So, yes, it’s common sense to protect all children from unnecessary, non-therapeutic surgery and the permanence and risks it involves.

Now, for Mr. Witkov’s ad hominem:

First and foremost, intactivists are anti-Semites. I do not use this accusation lightly. But what better term can be used for a group that advocates fines and imprisonment for those who follow one of the most important precepts of their Jewish faith? Intactivists have no respect for the covenant of Abraham and his descendants. By seeking to outlaw it, they have meddled with the primal forces of Judaism and declared war on it.

Is someone who opposes in civil law other actions prescribed in religious texts anti-religion? Of course not. There is a principle involved. The burden to prove anything about circumcision should rest with those who wish to impose it. Our society is flawed, so the burden is on me to prove that my position is stronger. I can and will. But to accuse all who advocate against child circumcision of being anti-Semites is an attempt to shut down the conversation. The language of the law is generally applicable and promotes a legitimate state interest. Any advocacy will attract its share of people on the fringes who hold offensive, incorrect beliefs. The anti-Semitic actions of a few are not useful as a blanket description of those who advocate against non-therapeutic child circumcision on principle.

Intactivists are a bunch of hypocrites. They see nothing wrong with a pregnant woman choosing to annihilate her fetus. Yet, they feel compelled to ban infant circumcision due to the suffering it inflicts. I wonder if they would be agreeable to circumcision in the womb?

Mr. Witkov is conflating opposition to non-therapeutic child circumcision with adherence to liberal politics. That’s incorrect. I am not a liberal/progressive. I have not stated my opinion on abortion here, so his sweeping claim can’t be proven. He does not know whether I’m a “hypocrite” or not. Regardless of one’s position on abortion, though, it’s clear that children, once born, have rights. That is the focus here. Abortion is a red-herring that distracts from the discussion. (I’m sensing a trend in Mr. Witkov’s non-rigorous methodology.)

Intactivist men and women are part of the far-left movement and are a threat to the American system designed by our founding fathers. Their mission is a big brother government that removes individual choice and imposes the will of their self-anointed elitism. Leftists, in most cases, love government-imposed regulations, are anti-Israel, are pro-abortion, and pine for the day the United Nations can regulate every human activity on the planet. Leftists believe in uniformity. They have no room for the individual, for non-Jewish parents who want circumcision for their sons, or for Jewish religious exemptions. Intactivistits [sic] are far leftists who embrace uniformity to such an extreme they want to regulate penises!

Again, I’m not a liberal/progressive. As a defender and promoter of individual rights, including the rights of children, I’m hardly a “threat” to the American system designed by our founding fathers. I don’t seek a big brother government that removes individual choice. The only ones in this debate who remove individual choice are those who remove their sons’ foreskins without his consent. In my view, every individual retains his choice, even if he chooses what I wouldn’t. In Mr. Witkov’s view, every individual male gets the choice of his parents. Unlike Mr. Witkov I don’t pretend to know what is appropriate for other individuals, which is why I want the decision left to each individual to choose – or reject – for himself. Mr. Witkov is defending individual choice over another, permanently.

His last two paragraphs are comedic proof of his accidental satire of a non-thinking conservative, with a nod to Godwin thrown in. I won’t bother highlighting them further. But in doing a moment of research, which is more than Mr. Witkov apparently did, I encountered this essay he wrote about being dismissed over his fear of a one-nation Islamic Middle East in the future. I am bemused that he opened with this:

Because I am a conservative, as far as the left is concerned, I am assumed guilty of several psychological disorders. I am, just to name a few, a sexist, a racist, and a homophobe.

Because I’m an intactivist, as far as the right is concerned, I am assumed guilty of several psychological disorders. I am, just to name a few, an anti-Semite, an elitist, and a hypocrite.

Interesting.

Flawed Circumcision Defense: LZ Granderson

The editorial I analyze in this post is several weeks old now, but it’s been referenced elsewhere a few times. It’s worth a response.

LZ Granderson wrote an editorial at CNN on the proposal in San Francisco to prohibit non-therapeutic male child circumcision. It’s an embarrassing piece, largely because Mr. Granderson never considers the healthy child as an individual who might not want to be circumcised.

Once he gets going:

Besides the measure having no provision for religious practices — thereby making it unconstitutional — …

This is armchair lawyering, and easily refuted. There are the merits of the First Amendment and parental rights, which are summarized quite well in these two posts at The Volokh Conspiracy from last week. The religious freedom to act on another is a lot more complicated than simply claiming a religious requirement. There are competing rights involved, including a right to be free from unnecessary harm that is not yet adequately (or equally) protected. Mr. Granderson’s dismissal is flawed. It doesn’t disqualify his opinion, but it suggests the level of research he has (not) performed on this topic.

We chuckle, but from interracial marriage to masturbation, politicians have been trying to tell us what to do with our genitalia for centuries. …

Here, parents are telling their sons what to do with their genitalia. If the male does not want his genitals altered, his genitals are still altered. Since his body has been violated, what difference is it to him that his parents did it than if his government had ordered it? The proposed government involvement leaves that choice to individuals rather than dictates how he must be, which is what parents have been doing for more than a century in the U.S. Proposals like this that protect individual rights possess the stronger liberty position.

I get the science behind not having the procedure done: There are nerve endings that are being severed during the procedure, and it is normally not medically required. But generally speaking it has not been proven to be medically harmful either, though there have been rare occasions of infection and excessive bleeding requiring stitches.

Surgery is harmful. How can Mr. Granderson acknowledge that in sentence one and then deny it in sentence two? In the space between writing those two sentences, did severing nerve endings become not harmful? It’s more frustrating because his denial includes examples of medical harm. Other, more severe, outcomes are possible, too, including death. Mr. Granderson seems determined to believe what he wants to be true, regardless of facts.

Besides being an important aspect of some religions, circumcisions improve hygiene, …

Access to proper hygiene facilities is not a modern American problem in significant numbers. The same hygiene that females use to maintain their bodies works for males. To think that surgery is justified is simply begging one’s own question.

… which is effective in limiting urinary tract infections and the transference of STDs. …

The same treatments we use for UTIs in females work for males. For STDs condoms work better. Not all males engage in unsafe sex, so the potential benefit is useless for them. It is unethical to impose it because it may not be desired.

…And speaking of sex, having a circumcised penis saves the young man of the potential embarrassment of having a new partner look at his nude body and say “What in the hell is wrong with your… penis.”

Or something like that.

Maybe.

A recent study conducted by a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention researcher suggests the number of circumcisions performed dropped from 56% in 2006 to 33% in 2009. So chances are you or someone you know is uncircumcised, a fact that is really none of the business of complete strangers — government officials and busy-body voters alike. Why someone would sign a petition making it their business is beyond me.

This is just ridiculous. If a man reveals his normal nude body to a new sexual partner and the response he gets is “What in the hell is wrong with your… penis?”, I hope his parents will have taught him enough self-respect to treat his new partner as the person with the (hopefully correctable) defect. Would we accept that thought process if we started surgically altering girls so that they wouldn’t be shamed by their eventual sexual partners?

I could see the government getting involved in the decisions parents make about their children if there was evidence that circumcisions were a life-threatening practice — like failure to use car seats for young children. …

The standard is not whether the action is “life-threatening” or not. A punch to the face isn’t life-threatening, but it’s still wrong. Genital cutting on healthy female minors is illegal (and wrong), even where the damage is equally or less harmful than male genital cutting, which is to say, not life-threatening. (Typically.) This is once again question-begging.

Of course, some boys do die from circumcision. Circumcision is not usually life-threatening, but the risk of death exists every time it’s performed, which is why we generally avoid inflicting surgery on healthy people. Especially without their consent.

… I could see if the proposed ban was addressing a patriarchal practice such as female genital mutilation.

Male circumcision is a patriarchal practice. Aren’t many boys circumcised by their parents, at the father’s insistence that the child’s genitals match his genitals? Some doctors advise undecided parents to make the decision based on the father’s penis. Is that the rule of the male? Does it subordinate children? Mr. Granderson’s view here seems to be the mistaken belief that there is no harm if a practice is being imposed by someone onto someone else of the same gender. Do I need to link to examples of women imposing FGM on their daughters to demonstrate the fallacy of relying on this faulty standard?

This is about choice and preference and opinion and I am really tired of being subjected to ridiculous laws instituted by religious conservatives pandering to a bunch of crazy people or by meddling liberals who have nothing better to do.

This is about choice and preference and opinion? In what way? The child being circumcised does not choose. No one cares about his preference. No one waits to hear his opinion. The child is subjected to the choice, preference, and opinion of his parents. Permanently.

Seriously, if municipalities in San Francisco or Santa Monica honestly believe parents can’t be trusted to decide what’s best for their newborn’s foreskin, why on earth would they let them leave the hospital with the rest of him? It just doesn’t make sense.

California law already believes that parents can’t be trusted to decide what’s best for their newborn’s foreskin, but on the discriminatory view that only the female prepuce should be untouched without need or consent of the patient.

No wonder these anti-circumcision organizers have their sights on the rest of the country. We’re a bunch of nosy busy bodies who believe in an abbreviated version of freedom where we’re free to publicly debate what someone else should do with their private parts or the private parts of their newborn.

The status quo is the society with an abridged version of individual freedom. Again, the law in California (and most other places) already ended the public debate on what someone may do with the private parts of their daughters. Does that restrict parental “rights”? This debate is about fixing the status quo into a legitimate version of freedom where every individual, male or female, gets to decide which unnecessary genital surgeries they undergo or reject.

**********

To address a point Mr. Granderson raises, the issue of the “Foreskin Man” comic book series is relevant to the discussion. It is not the end of the discussion, as some are suggesting. That the series is embarrassing, and that issue two uses anti-Semitic imagery, is undeniable. The comic book is disgusting and has no place in the discussion by anyone advocating against non-therapeutic male child circumcision. It is a shameful mark on its creators.

That said, I hope it’s abundantly clear that only a minority of people opposed to non-therapeutic male child circumcision accept this type of filth. As the Jewish Circumcision Resource Center states, “there is no organization that controls, or could control, what individuals who oppose circumcision may say or do.” The first issue of “Foreskin Man” is probably unhelpful, but issue two is unacceptable. But it’s not reflective of the principles involved or the majority of those who support and advocate those principles. I have commented elsewhere on this, and will let that stand as my personal defense. I also recommend this post from The Volokh Conspiracy as a useful guide on objectionable material.

Rejecting Majority Rule in Favor of Majority Rule

There is simply too much pro-infant circumcision talk within The Washington Post’s opinion sections recently to adequately address everything flawed within its pages. Instead, some quick hits.

From Dr. Mohammad A. Khalid:

In my opinion as a doctor, male circumcision should not be banned, and should not be in any way equated with female genital cutting (FGC).

He’s making a legal argument based on his medical degree. That is a logical fallacy The Washington Post shouldn’t have enabled. We don’t legally allow parents to cut their daughters’ genitals if that cutting will leave a “minor”, non-permanent wound. Legally, we know it is a violation of the child’s constitutionally-protected rights. The medical argument within the legal argument is settled once we approach the initial diagnosis of the child that any genital cutting would be non-therapeutic. Legally, there is no justifiable distinction to be made. That is the issue involved.

Later:

[FGC] is a violent procedure, often done in a primitive, non-medical setting and is mostly accomplished with crude instruments and performed without anesthesia.

Male genital cutting (MGC) is a violent procedure. That comparison works. The rest of the second paragraph doesn’t, but it proves nothing. No one would support FGC if parents have it performed in a modern medical setting with proper surgical tools and anesthetic. They shouldn’t, of course, because it’s wrong whenever it’s non-therapeutic and forced. But the principle is the same, regardless of gender: non-therapeutic genital cutting on a non-consenting individual is wrong. In this core, logical respect, Dr. Khalid is wrong. MGC equals FGC.

Next, from Dr. Aseem Shukla:

The data is mixed, there is no wrong or right answer. Families deal with the nebulous every day and make a decision that is right for their children. But to me, the inanity over the circumcision debate lies also in its ignorance of medical realities. If a child has had recurrent urinary tract infections or a lower urinary tract anomaly, circumcision can protect the child from the risk of renal damage by nearly 10 to 15 fold. If a child has a hypospadias, an anomaly where the urethral opening opens along the shaft of the penis rather than at the tip, then I will use the foreskin to reconstruct the urethra, and a circumcision results. And while my clinic is full of children, also, with partially done circumcisions, adhesions that have formed, and urethral openings that have narrowed after circumcision requiring additional surgery and health care dollars, my clinic is just as full of children with foreskin that is painfully infected, scarred with lichen sclerosis, ballooning, torn and tight that may necessitate a circumcision.. [sic]

Dr. Shukla is a voice of ignorance here regarding medical realities. If a child has recurrent UTIs, circumcision may be medically necessary. If a child has a hypospadias, circumcision may be medically necessary. The question is not “Should we treat patients who have medical needs”, but “Should we treat children who have no medical need?”. The issue at stake is non-therapeutic circumcision. Unless we start making a “logical” case for non-therapeutic appendectomy, cholecystectomy, or any other intervention that might solve some future problem, society abuses logic in defending non-therapeutic male circumcision. Even female genital cutting could be justified on the confusion Dr. Shukla creates by muddying the obvious distinction between therapeutic and non-therapeutic.

[As an aside, is it possible that some of the problems for the intact children he cites are created by premature, forced retraction of the normal foreskin by parents and/or pediatricians?]

Sticking with Dr. Shukla, he is arguing against a proposed prohibition that is not up for consideration:

… Any type of blanket ban on a circumcision until the age of consent so ignores the real medical necessities of circumcision in some cases, that the concept is beyond contemplation; it is medically irresponsible and dangerous.

The proposed law is not a “blanket ban on a circumcision until the age of consent”. It would prohibit non-therapeutic circumcision until the age of consent. Healthy children do not need surgery. Thus, it shouldn’t be imposed, even if that surgery might reduce the risk of some malady later. The only stance here that is medically irresponsible is Dr. Shukla’s. Until he reads the proposed law, he shouldn’t pontificate on his factual errors.

Next, from Charles C. Haynes, Director of the Religious Freedom Education Project:

The anti-circumcision referendum is both wrong and dangerous because it subjects religious freedom to a popular vote. As Justice Robert Jackson wrote in West Virginia v. Barnette (1943):

“One’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to a vote; they depend on the outcome of no elections.”

Each healthy male child’s bodily integrity – his life, liberty, and property, as well as other fundamental rights – is submitted to a vote by his parents. If they vote “yes”, his rights are violated. Why should it be better that the vote belongs to his parents rather those who would protect his right to choose “yes” or “no” for himself? He is an equal individual, allegedly with the same liberty interests that his sisters have. Yet, his sisters are protected by law, regardless of parental wish. The use of an election here is because legislatures and courts are not doing their job to protect those rights equally for all citizens. The flaw is in the reason this method is necessary, not the method itself.

Of course, opponents of circumcision – who call themselves “intactivists” – are free to make their argument against a medical procedure they consider “male genital mutilation.” But what they should not be free to do is criminalize a religious ritual that medical authorities generally agree is not harmful.

It is harmful. It removes healthy, normal tissue and nerves. It leaves a wound that results in a scar. The only debate over whether circumcision is harmful is carried out by people who believe that subjective preferences are universal, and anyone who does not share one’s opinion is somehow misguided or uninformed. We don’t have to look for the examples of circumcision complications, including death, to understand the obvious truth that all surgery inflicts harm. Legally and medically.

As for Mr. Haynes’ implied rejection that male circumcision qualifies as genital mutilation, the World Health Organization defines female genital mutilation as follows (emphasis added): “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.” In other words, any surgical intervention less damaging than male circumcision, inflicted on females for the exact reasons we cite for male circumcision, would still qualify as genital mutilation. To avoid confusion, any reason for circumcising a healthy male child is non-medical. If we are to pretend that chasing potential benefits counts as a medical reason for surgery, then parents may impose any intervention they wish, unrestrained by society. We reject that, correctly, since children have rights. The only viable conclusion is that societal deference to non-therapeutic child circumcision is mistaken and should be corrected.

As a society we’re establishing that “one’s right to life, liberty, and property, to free speech, a free press, freedom of worship and assembly, and other fundamental rights may not be submitted to a vote,” unless one is a male minor. That’s what all of these individuals advocates, albeit ignorantly. They argue for a viewpoint where male children do not possess the same rights as everyone else in society, because society’s opinion is the correct norm to which male children must conform forever, if demanded by their parents. That is wrong. Each of these advocates – Dr. Mohammad A. Khalid, Dr. Aseem Shukla, and Charles C. Haynes – is wrong on non-therapeutic male circumcision.
Charles

Incomplete Opinions and Certainty

Debra Saunders has an editorial in the San Francisco Chronicle on the ballot initiative that would finally protect all children in San Francisco from non-therapeutic genital cutting. The essay is a mess of incomplete information. She begins:

In 2010 San Francisco supervisors banned Happy Meals. They showed no regard for parental choice.

That’s correct. It’s also irrelevant to the discussion of circumcision, when considered and considered correctly. The new proposal doesn’t show “no regard for parental choice,” since parents would still be able to choose therapeutic circumcision for their sons in the rare event it becomes necessary. Presumably they would choose the least invasive effective method for treating an ailment, but they would retain the choice. That is the proper extent of proxy consent for circumcision.

So it should not come as a shock that activists have managed to put a measure on the November ballot that essentially would outlaw the circumcision of baby boys. If it passes, then parents won’t be able to choose to circumcise their infant sons. The penalty for the “genital cutting of male minors” will be a $1,000 fine and/or up to a year in jail.

It would “essentially” outlaw the circumcision of baby boys because it would prohibit the circumcision of healthy baby boys, the ones who do not need surgery. Again, contrary to the slant Saunders offers, parents would still be able to choose to circumcise their infant sons. The only difference is that it would have to be medically necessary. This proposal would “restrict” parental choice in the same manner California law restricts parental choice for genital cutting of healthy daughters.

Saunders is working to that, of course:

The ballot measure bills itself as a ban on “forced genital cutting” and “mutilation.” Clearly the authors want to confuse voters …

If Saunders is in favor of not confusing voters, then she should be precise in her language and specify that the proposal involves non-therapeutic circumcision, not all circumcision. It should also be obvious that she never addresses the question of whether or not non-therapeutic circumcision on an infant male is, in fact, “forced genital cutting” or could be considered “mutilation.” If we’re avoiding confusion, it is both initiated without the consent of the patient and it involves cutting away the foreskin, a portion of the child’s genitals.

… by equating male circumcision to female genital mutilation, the barbaric, unsanitary butchering of a young girl’s private parts in a procedure that has been known to leave girls severely infected and in pain.

Non-therapeutic genital cutting on a non-consenting individual is wrong, regardless of whether the individual is female or male. Saunders expects us to take the position that gender matters, if only because the procedures involves some differences. But California law makes no distinction between unsanitary butchering of a healthy girl’s genitals and sanitary non-permanent injury. It’s all prohibited, restricting parental choice. California law does not – and should not – distinguish the difference and permit the latter. Thus, if equal rights mean anything, then gender shouldn’t be an acceptable distinction, either.

It’s also worth noting that male circumcision has been known to leave boys severely infected and in pain. Does that matter?

The purpose of female genital mutilation is to reduce a woman’s sexual pleasure. The World Health Organization says it has “no health benefits for girls or women.” On the other hand, a 2007 WHO report recommended that male circumcision be recognized as “an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention.”

Since we’re quoting WHO, let’s also consider this: “Female genital mutilation (FGM) includes procedures that intentionally alter or injure female genital organs for non-medical reasons.” If the definition of genital mutilation is the result from “procedures that intentionally alter or injure <...> genital organs for non-medical reasons,” and it is, then male child circumcision is also genital mutilation. Again, if all individuals have equal rights, then <...> can’t just be female. Parents who circumcise their healthy sons “intentionally alter or and injure” their son’s genital organs for non-medical reasons. It is genital mutilation.

Saunders seems to lump “HIV prevention,” another imprecise term, into “medical” reasons. It isn’t a medical reason because circumcision is not essential to the health of the child or his ability to prevent the transmission of HIV. Anyway, HIV “prevention” is a misnomer. It reduces the risk, a not-subtle semantic distinction. And that reduction in risk is only in female-to-male transmission in high-risk populations, neither of which describes the male infants of San Francisco.

With further exploration of the WHO factsheet, it’s useful to note that California law prohibits all four types of FGM, including those that are equally or less damaging than male circumcision. Butchering has a broad scope.

The purpose of FGM also has a broad scope. I agree that it is used to reduce a woman’s sexual pleasure. However, this is not a unanimous reason. The WHO factsheet states, “[t]he causes of female genital mutilation include a mix of cultural, religious and social factors within families and communities.” Many of these involve variations of power, control, and sexual harm. But some less so, and others not at all. There is some note of cultural tradition and models of “proper” gender ideals. These excuses should be quite familiar to the typical American parent considering non-therapeutic circumcision for their sons. Yet, California law makes no exemptions for stated intent or desired extent of damage in prohibiting parental choice involving daughters. If protection from harm for non-medical reasons is a right, and we claim to value equal rights, why do boys deserve less protection than girls?

The WHO factsheet also states this about the reasons for FGM (emphasis added):

Local structures of power and authority, such as community leaders, religious leaders, circumcisers, and even some medical personnel can contribute to upholding the practice.

The next section from Saunders is this:

The American Academy of Pediatrics suggests that parents be informed that “newborn male circumcision has potential medical benefits and advantages as well as disadvantages and risks.” Palo Alto pediatrician Erica Goldman follows the guideline. She informs parents of the pluses – reduced chances of urinary tract infection and sexually transmitted diseases – as well as the risks – it’s a permanent cosmetic change. “It really is a decision to be made on a personal and cultural basis,” Goldman told me.

“I personally believe the medical benefits outweigh the medical risks,” Goldman added.

We’re not discussing a decision made on a “personal” basis, are we, since males don’t get to choose for themselves? Quoting a doctor on cultural justifications for non-therapeutic surgery is nothing more than an appeal to authority, a logical fallacy using her MD as proof that she’s correct on something unrelated to her expertise. (Her expertise should also declare that healthy children do not need genital cutting.)

Finally, Saunders offers an attempted witticism to demonstrate how foolish it is to “restrict” parental choice.

How wonderful it must feel to be floored at Ess Eff’s latest exercise in self-parody. The bill fits. A busybody law? Check. Does it address a problem most folks did not know existed? Check. Pun opportunities? Oh, yeah. First they came for the Chicken McNuggets, then they came for my son’s …

The only person coming after the foreskin of her hypothetical parent’s son is… her hypothetical parent. That’s what is at issue. There is currently no individual choice. A ban on Happy Meals limits individual choice, including parental choice, without a compelling governmental interest to prevent objective harm. The current proposal expands individual choice by limiting parental choice. There is a compelling governmental interest in protecting the rights of healthy children from the objective harm of non-therapeutic surgery.