San Francisco bill will protect newborns, allow men the freedom to choose
by Claire Vriezen
Iowa State Daily, 2 March 2011
I must begin with acknowledging that by nature of being female, I am not as qualified as some to be addressing this issue. But as a human being, concerned with human rights, I am indeed allowed to comment. Citizens of San Francisco are working to pass a bill that would outlaw male circumcision until the child reaches the age of 18. The bill would allow for exceptions if the procedure was deemed medically relevant, and the person performing the circumcision must be a medical practitioner where the procedure is performed. No exceptions will be made for those that desire their child to undergo the operation as a matter of custom or tradition.
Although circumcision rates among male newborns has decreased in the past few years, 32 percent of male infants are still having bits of their anatomy snipped off after leaving the womb. It baffles me how widely accepted this practice still is, despite it’s similarity to female genital mutilation. In both cases, young children or newborns are subjected to a procedure that removes part of their sexual anatomy — half the time without anesthetic — because their parents judge it to be acceptable.
But isn’t it the job of the parents to know what is good for their children? Sure, for the most part. But when decisions result in the surgical removal of a normal, healthy part of anatomy, rationale must be called into question. There’s a reason the American Medical Association, as well as most of the medical community, term male circumcision as “non-therapeutic.” In many other developed countries — Canada, the Netherlands and other European countries — medical societies strongly recommend against routine circumcision of males. There is no immediate reason for the majority of male newborns to be circumcised.
The main medically based argument for circumcision seems to be that it reduces the risks of sexually transmitted diseases and infections. Most commonly cited are studies that provide a positive correlation between higher HIV rates and lack of circumcision. The World Health Organization has decided the relevant research is compelling enough to recognize male circumcision as a way to reduce the risk of HIV infection, though others claim the studies conducted have exaggerated data and overlooked confounding factors.
Regardless, this still does not provide a basis for circumcising infants. Is an infant expected to participate in sexual behaviors that could result in HIV exposure? I should hope not. Is circumcision the only way to reduce HIV risks? No. Condoms remain an effective way to combat HIV exposure and safe-sex education and practices are much preferred options when seeking to reduce STI rates.
Perhaps an even more common defense of circumcision is the claim that it is a cultural or religious decision of the parents. This defense has even less basis than medically related evidence. To again make the comparison, female genital mutilation is a common cultural or religious practice in many African, Middle Eastern and Asian regions. Yet, we regard this act with disgust, and we pity the young girls forced to endure it. Research on female genital mutilation has even resulted in some reports linking it to lower HIV rates, but this does nothing to quell our horror. Certain cultural practices that result in the genital mutilation of an infant — male or female — should most certainly be subject to scrutiny.
But what about those that desire to circumcise their child for religious reasons? The most obvious example is Judaism. Circumcision is required by Jewish law, so shouldn’t children born into Jewish families be circumcised? Freedom of religion allows people to practice what they want, right? This is true, up until the point where religion crosses ethical lines. There have been court cases where the medical needs of the child violated the religious beliefs of the parents, and the courts tend to rule that the life and health of the child overrides the religious dictates of the parents. Religious circumcisions should follow the same guidelines. In this case, medically irrelevant amputation of the foreskin on an infant crosses similar ethical boundaries. If treating a child for disease overrides the religion of the parents, shouldn’t preserving the child’s anatomy fall under the same protection?
I do not know whether the bill put forth in San Francisco will amount to anything, but I hope the decline of circumcision among newborn males continues. Infants need not be subjected to an undoubtedly painful procedure with dubious medical benefits. With only a third of the world’s male population circumcised, a good deal of men seem to be getting along just fine without the procedure.
To promote male circumcision is to promote the marring of a normal body and to promote needless pain for newborns. If young men reach 18 and find they are willing to undergo the operation and become circumcised for whatever reason they choose, that is their prerogative. Whether they deem the alleged benefits valid or whether they have religious, cultural, or personal motivations, it should be their own decision to remove a part of their body, and no one else’s.
Circumcision, genital mutilation must end
by Ryan Holland
The Daily Targum, 8 March 2011
Male circumcision is a deplorable act with an archaic founding and should not be allowed to continue. Jews believe in circumcision because of God's discussion with Abraham in Genesis. Abraham — who by the way was 100-years-old at the time — was told that any uncircumcised child will have his soul "cut off from his people" (Genesis 17:14). Similarly, Passage 16:123 in the Quran states that Allah wanted the Prophet Muhammad to live according to Ibrahim's faith. Noting that Ibrahim circumcised himself — with an axe, by the way — the prophet decided to continue the tradition. The fact that Jews, Muslims and followers of other religions believe in circumcision does not mean that it should be accepted. Some pious followers believe that AIDS was created to punished homosexuals or that women who have extramarital sex should be stoned to death. Just because these beliefs come from a religious background does not mean that they should be tolerated. Religion is a poor excuse for genital mutilation.
It is not a hyperbole to describe circumcision as genital mutilation. The majority of men in this world and virtually all of male animals are uncircumcised. It does not appear as if they are any less healthy because of this. There is also arguably very little benefit to cutting off one's foreskin, and it is agreed upon by the medical community that there is no medical need to have one. Conversely, there are various downsides to the practice. For one, infections and even death can occur because of this unnecessary surgery. Hundreds of babies die every year because of complications related to circumcision. Furthermore, there is a noticeable sexual numbness that those with less foreskin experience. After circumcision, the glans become less sensitive, which impedes pleasure. Also, uncircumcised men declare that most of their sexual excitement comes from the foreskin — not the glans. By removing the foreskin along with all of its nerves, there is a significant decrease in the sexual experience.
Many argue that the government should not be able to interfere with religious practices. That is a ridiculous generalization to make. Surely, it is okay for the United States to ban female circumcision or lashings for public intoxication even though these acts are based on religious doctrines. It is our responsibility as human beings to bring attention to great injustices. The act of circumcision for religious purposes is a very thinly veiled excuse to mutilate a baby's genitals. There is no medical need to have a circumcision, and it can in fact cause harm and even death. It also causes irreversible sexual damage. It is inexcusable to let this practice continue. What others think their god believes is meaningless when it comes to human rights violations. Circumcision and other forms of genital mutilation need to end. Thinking otherwise is disgraceful to our species.
Ryan Holland is a School of Arts and Sciences sophomore majoring in cell biology and neuroscience at Rutgers University.
American opposition to infant circumcision gathers steam
A few months ago the proposal for a citizens’ ballot to place a legal prohibition on circumcision of male minors was regarded as yet another silly Californian whim that would get nowhere, but the success of the promoters in gathering sufficient signatures to put the proposal to a referendum has alarmed devotees of circumcision and aroused fierce editorials and mockery in the mainstream media - and of course the familiar accusation that the measure is motivated by anti-semitism. Conservatives now fear that the referendum may actually be passed, and are pulling out all stops in an effort to discredit the promoters.
Despite the hostile media blitz, accusations of anti-semitism are difficult sustain when the proposal is aimed principally at the 50 per cent (approx) of American parents who circumcise their sons, 97 per cent of whom are not Jewish at all, and when it is supported by numerous Jewish men and women and has actually been given sympathetic coverage in quite conservative Jewish media, such as the Jewish Reporter. A recent edition carried a forceful article by Rebecca Wald (founder of the website Beyond the Bris) in favour of the measure, which attracted an immense volume of comment (some hostile, much supportive) on the journal’s website.
Another Jewish mother recently published a heartfelt critique of circumcision on the parenting forum Babble.com, explaining why she, as a Jewish woman, had decided that it was morally wrong to circumcise her sons: "Despite a [Jewish] cultural legacy of thousands of years, my husband and I did not circumcise our son ... Let’s keep American baby boys intact. It’s wrong to force an irreversible circumcision on a child when he is too young to decide for himself."
Conservative Jewish site publishes op-ed praising circumcision ban measure.
Questioning circumcision
by REBECCA WALD
The prospect of a circumcision ban sits poorly with many in America where parents enjoy relatively broad rights to raise their children as they choose. Jewish people are understandably concerned, fearing such restrictions would be discriminatory, hurtful, and violate religious freedom. However, as a Jewish person who opposes the genital cutting of all children absent medical necessity, I’m glad these measures are being considered. What’s best for children deserves continual assessment and, thanks to these proposals, that’s happening.
My husband and I are both Jewish. We’re both American. Yet deciding to leave our son with the penis he was born with was not difficult. Causing pain to our beautiful child and forever changing his body didn’t seem right. We considered infant circumcision from different angles and concluded the surgery wasn’t in his best interest, either as a tender newborn or as the man he will become.
In December I launched Beyond the Bris, a web-based project that is putting real faces and voices to the Jewish movement against infant circumcision. It is an open and dynamic forum where likeminded Jewish people can come together. We share our ideas with one another and visitors to the project in whatever ways feel right to us. This includes original music, poetry and art. I couldn’t be happier with the terrific response I’ve been getting from Jews in America, Israel and elsewhere who agree that children are entitled to keep their whole sex organs.
Skim the recent headlines and you will likely read stories of Jewish outrage over the proposed circumcision bans in California. However this isn’t the full story. I recently spoke with Lloyd Schofield, the San Franciscan who spearheaded the effort to place the ban on the November ballot. He expressed to me his amazement about how open, interested and positive many members of the Jewish community have been about his efforts. He told me that when he was gathering signatures, many people self-identified as Jews and some signed his petition on the spot. Others declined, but even within this group he said all were respectful and many seemed genuinely happy to take educational handbills and learn more about the subject.
I think the positive Jewish response to the Beyond the Bris project and to the efforts in California speaks tremendously of the Jewish people; that we are willing to seriously consider this issue even when it means challenging thousands of years of tradition. I can’t say I’m surprised. Jewish people have been integral in every rights movement in this country and this is no exception. Parents agreeing to cut their children’s healthy sex organs has occurred throughout history among diverse cultures. Groups that cut rationalize their behavior yet are quick to criticize other groups who modify the sex organs differently.
I would encourage anyone who thinks along these lines to look into the anatomy of the natural versus the circumcised penis and what foreskin removal really is and does from an anatomical perspective. FGC is done for many of the same reasons as male infant circumcision including perceived cleanliness, preferred appearance, cultural and religious tradition and the prevention of disease. In recent years, FGC has even moved to modern hospitals, for those families who can afford it, and is performed by trained physicians. Medical studies have even “proved” FGC prevents sexually transmitted disease.
It’s difficult to step outside of one’s culture and see it with perspective. For Jews in America and Israel I think it’s doubly hard to recognize our own brand of cutting as being harmful because it is both a cultural and a religious norm. But if you do the research and look at this issue in an openminded and intellectually honest way, it just might “click” that there’s something not right about infant circumcision.
For me, once this shift happened, my perspective changed forever and I could no longer see it as just another parenting choice.
Rebecca Wald, J.D., is the founder of the Beyond the Bris project. She lives in Fort Lauderdale, Florida.
Read full article and comments here
Why My Son Isn't Circumcised: One mother’s stance against infant circumcision
by Jennifer Margulis
My friend Peter, whose parents are Russian, grew up in America with an intact foreskin, as have all the men in his family for generations. But when he became sexually active the foreskin was so tight around the head of his penis that it did not retract easily. Peter’s condition has a name, phimosis, and if you Google “foreskin problems” you’ll find chat groups of young men experiencing similar difficulties asking for advice.
Peter decided to be circumcised as an adult. Circumcision is part of my Jewish cultural heritage. All of my male relatives — my father, uncles, and three older brothers — have been circumcised. In the Bible, God commands Abraham to circumcise his male descendants. Practicing Jews hold a festive ceremony, called a bris, on the eighth day of a boy’s life during which the foreskin is removed either by a doctor or a mohel, a rabbi trained in circumcision. Even in countries where circumcision is not the norm, the majority of Jews choose to circumcise. Despite the problem he had with his foreskin, Peter — a nurse practitioner who advises thousands of patients a year on medical issues — decided not to circumcise his own son when the time came. Peter’s story in addition to the research I’ve done — witnessing the procedure firsthand, talking to men about their feelings — has convinced me that circumcision is not only unnecessary, it’s a painful and traumatizing procedure that should not be done in infancy.
Although in England less than 5 percent of men are circumcised, in America my uncircumcised son is in the minority. According to an article in the New York Times, approximately 79 percent of all adult American males are circumcised. According to Intact America, a nonprofit organization trying to stop routine circumcision, circumcision is one of the most common surgeries performed in America, happening to over 1 million newborns a year, more than 3,000 times a day, once every 26 seconds.
Every parent of an American boy faces a decision about circumcision, though the majority simply chooses to follow the doctor or hospital’s recommendation. Yet most American hospitals do not present circumcision as a choice, they simply assume that parents will opt to circumcise. When my friend Karen’s son, born in Atlanta, was a day old, a nurse bustled in with paperwork. “Ready for his circ?” the nurse asked. Karen looked at her husband. Patrick shrugged, “I guess so,” he muttered, and the baby was taken away. Karen and Patrick assumed the hospital was making the best choice for their child, but they had obviously never discussed it.
Most parents do not watch their baby being circumcised and do not know that the procedure can be excruciatingly painful, even with anesthesia. Anyone who has ever witnessed a circumcision and heard the high-pitched scream of a newborn having part of his penis cut off (you can watch one on the internet if you don't believe me) knows that this surgery causes pain. "It’s wrong to force an irreversible circumcision on a child when he is too young to decide for himself.”
Since the foreskin is attached to the head of the penis (also called the glans) like a fingernail is attached to the nail bed, in order to remove it has to be forcibly pried away. For the week or so that the cut is healing, a baby is peeing and defecating on a raw, open wound. Circumcision can be dangerous. This past March an Atlanta jury awarded $1.8 million in damages to a boy's parents after a seriously botched circumcision. It's also a procedure that can cause lasting regret. My cousin so laments being circumcised that he tries to dissuade the rest of the family from imposing it on our children. Although this is not a subject broached at cocktail parties, when men take the time to talk about having been circumcised, they often regret the loss of their foreskin.
My husband is a good example. James had never really thought about being circumcised himself until our son was born six years ago. After reading up on the subject, he said: “I kind of feel cheated. I could have made my own decision as a teenager if my parents had left well enough alone.” He was horrified to realize that, in order for the penis to heal, the skin of the glans grows a covering, like a callous, to protect it. “It’s appalling. If I’d had the choice, I would have left my body as evolution left it, with functioning parts.”
Other men feel similarly. An economist sent me this email: “Many say the anger only comes from botched surgeries, mine wasn’t. I’m hurt and upset about what happened to me as a baby boy and I have nightmares about it a few times a year. To be strapped to a board and violated like this is one of the most upsetting things that has happened to me in life... and I’m a cancer survivor as well.”
Why circumcise a baby? The trend started in America in large part to keep boys from masturbating. Physicians writing in the 19th century even suggest the surgery should be done without medication so that a child will associate his genitals with pain. In Plain Facts for Young and Old (1882), John Harvey Kellogg writes: “A remedy [for masturbation] which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision ...The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anaesthetic, as the pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind …” Like female genital mutilation, the idea was to make sexual sensations less pleasurable. Is that really what you want to do to your son?
Today arguments in favor of circumcision are supposedly based on scientific research. Recent health studies in Africa suggest that circumcised heterosexual men are less likely to get HIV than non-circumcised counterparts, if they choose not to wear a condom. If they wear a condom, circumcision makes no difference. Proponents also argue that urinary tract infections are less likely, and that it is necessary for cleanliness.
Yet the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) claims that the medical data in favor of circumcision “are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision,” and most American doctors admit the procedure is not medically necessary. Given the AAP’s stance against recommending circumcision, why do some hospitals encourage or even pressure parents to circumcise? Of course they make money from the procedure, as they do from every medical intervention performed. But there may be another, much more nefarious reason: Human foreskin is used to manufacture artificial skin for burn victims and diabetics, as well as high-end cosmetics. “Where does the supply of foreskins come from?” my husband asks, looking disturbed. “Adult donors?”
The male foreskin is not a superfluous body part; it protects the penis when a boy is a child and also plays a key role in female pleasure when a boy is a man. If there really is a correlation between circumcision and HIV prevention, then we should let adult men choose to have the procedure done once they decide to be sexually active.
Despite a cultural legacy of thousands of years, my husband and I did not circumcise our son. If he chooses to get circumcised as an adult, either for a medical reason or to follow his cultural heritage, that’s his decision. Let’s keep American baby boys intact. It’s wrong to force an irreversible circumcision on a child when he is too young to decide for himself.
Read full article and readers’ comments here
Infant circumcision: Abolish the unkind cut
by Julie Van Orden, Salt Lake Tribune, 1 July 2011
In Loudon Wainwright III’s song “Men,” he says that men are treated as if they were expendable, fodder for wars and drowning ships. Women, in general, stay out of direct combat and join the children on the lifeboats. It is true that our culture expects men to sacrifice, fight, protect. We are not in the habit of reflecting upon where men — and boys — need help, concern, change. Our cultural blinders allow us to inflict upon men what would be considered atrocities if they were inflicted upon women. Nowhere is this more clearly evident than in the practice of circumcision.
American girls are protected by federal law from the cutting and removal of even the slightest bit of their genitalia. Even a ceremonial “nick,” desired by some immigrant cultures, is outlawed. Of course, this is as it should be. Every girl, of every culture, should be able to keep her whole body intact. Yet, as the mother of both a daughter and a son, I have to ask: Why do we treat our boys differently? Why are boys’ bodies less valued in this way? Why is it OK to separate, slice, and sell off part of a boy’s body, often without anesthesia? (The selling of foreskins in America to biomedical companies is a million-dollar industry.) Is it inherent sexism? Is it because, as Wainwright suggests, we are just going to send them off to war anyway?
Fortunately, many parents are realizing just how insane this practice is, and are leaving their sons intact, whole, and just the way that God and/or Mother Nature made them. They are saying “no,” loudly and clearly, to this barbaric cosmetic surgery. They are valuing their newborn sons just as they would their newborn daughters. The circumcision rate is plummeting. Informed parents realize that the risks of circumcision include shock, infection and death. Losing just 2 ounces of blood can be fatal for a newborn. Moreover, 18 states (including Utah) no longer use Medicaid dollars to pay for circumcision. Thus, I fully support the San Francisco ballot measure that would ban the sexist, outdated and harmful practice of routine infant circumcision. My son’s body is as valuable as my daughter’s. Codifying this into law is a civil rights movement of our time.
Source: Salt Lake Tribune, 1 July 2011
Circumcision: Harm and Psychological Factors Ignored
by Ronald Goldman, Bay Citizen (San Francisco), August 4, 2011
An initiative banning circumcision that was removed from San Francisco's November ballot stimulated a wave of articles related to the topic, but virtually all of them avoid discussing the inherent harm of circumcision. By defending or advocating circumcision, proponents avoid some of the emotional discomfort connected with questioning circumcision and fail to disclose the adverse effects. Consequently, they do not help us to see the whole picture. Psychological factors affect every aspect of the practice, including who chooses to study circumcision, what questions are studied and what questions are ignored; which studies are approved for publication and which studies are rejected; what circumcision information is communicated to parents and what information is withheld from parents; what recommendations are made by policy committees and what recommendations are ignored; and what circumcision information is reported in the media and what information is withheld from the public.
Circumcision is a very misunderstood subject, and statements by "experts" may be misleading. National medical organizations unanimously find no proven medical benefit for circumcision. The endless search for a medical benefit―from treating epilepsy, irritability, and masturbation in the late 1800s to preventing sexually transmitted diseases today―has always been suspect. Studies show that circumcision is significantly painful and traumatic. Some infants do not cry because they go into shock. After circumcision infants exhibit behavioral changes, and there are disruptions in mother-child bonding. Changes in pain response of circumcised infants have been demonstrated in baby boys at six months of age, evidence of lasting neurological effects and a symptom of post-traumatic stress disorder. Anesthetics, if used, do not eliminate circumcision pain. Circumcision also has about two dozen surgical risks including, in rare cases, death. Some doctors and nurses refuse to perform or assist with circumcisions because of ethical considerations.
Long-term harm is also a consideration, but circumcised American researchers also typically avoid the discomfort of studying the sexual and psychological harm (e.g., erectile dysfunction) associated with circumcision. This pro-circumcision bias in American medicine reflects the pro-circumcision bias in American culture. The United States is the only country in the world that circumcises many of its male infants for non-religious reasons. Europeans think we’re crazy. Americans generally ignore the fact that the loss of the foreskin matters. Most circumcised American men (and doctors) do not know what they are missing. Based on recent reports, circumcision removes up to one-half of the erogenous tissue on the penile shaft. The adult foreskin is a double layer, a movable sleeve equivalent to approximately twelve square inches. Medical studies have shown that the foreskin protects the penile head, enhances sexual pleasure, and facilitates intercourse.
Cutting off the foreskin removes several kinds of specialized nerves and results in the thickening and progressive desensitization of exposed erogenous tissue as men age. This tissue would normally remain sensitive because it would normally be protected by the foreskin. Some men who are circumcised as adults (usually because they followed the questionable advice of a doctor) report a significant decrease in sexual pleasure as a result. For example, having sex after being circumcised has been compared to "seeing in black and white instead of in color." Some dissatisfied men report wide-ranging psychological consequences of circumcision including anger, a sense of loss and sadness, and sexual anxieties. Reduced emotional expression and the avoidance of intimacy may also be related to circumcision. Most circumcised men may seem satisfied because they accept cultural beliefs about circumcision and may not understand what circumcision is and the benefits of the foreskin, they may suppress certain feelings about circumcision because they are too painful, or they may not disclose these feelings due to fear of being dismissed or ridiculed.
We have not had the courage to admit we are making a very serious mistake by continuing to circumcise. For American society, circumcision is a solution in search of a problem, a social custom disguised as a medical issue. Defending circumcision requires minimizing or ignoring the harm and producing overstated medical claims. Beware of circumcised American medical doctors who defend or advocate circumcision. Instead, watch a circumcision video and trust your feelings, instincts, and common sense. You will certainly want to keep your baby safe and intact.
Ronald Goldman, Ph.D. (psychology) is executive director of the Circumcision Resource Center and author of Circumcision: The Hidden Trauma and Questioning Circumcision: A Jewish Perspective.
Source: The Bay Citizen, 4 August 2011
The case against circumcision
by Matthew Taylor, Mondoweiss blog, August 4, 2011
Alan Dershowitz's flippant, dismissive remarks about male genital mutilation (aka circumcision) are infuriating, but an apropos Freudian slip. From where I sit, military Zionism shares a lot in common with this barbaric practice. Both involve inflicting violence against an oppressed victim without regard to his/their wishes, rendering the oppressed a voiceless object, an 'It' as opposed to a 'Thou.' I'm 37, and have been sitting on a mountain of grief and rage for 17 years, since I discovered what was stolen from me while reading a critique of circumcision in a hip, underground, alternative Jewish newspaper I found at a campus Hillel, of all places.
Most circumcision advocates don't know the first thing about what a foreskin is and what its purpose is in human sexuality. Did you know that a foreskin increases pleasure for both a man and his partner? Did you know that a foreskin contains tens of thousands of fine touch nerve receptors found nowhere else in the male genitalia, covers and protects the head (glans) of the penis, and creates a pleasure-inducing gliding mechanism? Did you know that circumcision removes the most sensitive and pleasurable parts of the male penis?
Most adult circumcised men I've spoken to are reluctant to discuss this topic and get highly defensive about it, saying, "Hey, my penis is perfectly fine. My sex life is great." If you don't have a foreskin, you don't know what you're missing, Tricking yourself into thinking your sex life is all it could be (when it's not) is a very bad reason to continue inflicting this cruelty on future generations. Think of it this way: if there was a ritual surgery performed at birth that removed a child's ability to see in color, the world would still be beautiful in black-and-white. But why should your son's ability to see in color be taken away just because yours was? Sex in black-and-white is good, but sex in color is much better. It's well documented that one of the primary drives for circumcision, in both Jewish and gentile communities, was to dampen sexual pleasure. Moses Maimonides, the famed medieval Jewish rabbi, physician and philosopher, wrote, "One of the reasons for circumcision is to bring about a decrease in sexual intercourse and a weakening of the organ in question." Shouldn't that choice be left to the man whose body it is, not inflicted upon him when he's a defenseless baby?
Much like military Zionism, circumcision is promoted on the back of a load of bald faced lies. Consider "a land without a people for a people without a land." Its analogs are "circumcision makes the penis cleaner," "circumcision reduces your chance of catching an STD," and the shopworn "God commands us to do this" (just like God allegedly promised us this land exclusively, and ordered us to ethnically cleanse it of non-Jews.) None of these statements are true, and I shudder at the necessity of debunking them, but debunk them I must, as I can only assume many readers of this blog have been brainwashed about circumcision as I was as a child, and are perhaps reading a rebuttal of the myths for the first time.
"Circumcision makes the penis cleaner" - Let's apply some common sense here. Virtually no European men are circumcised. Is there rampant gangrene in Europe? No. Intact male genitals are as easy to clean as a female's.
"Circumcision reduces your chance of catching an STD" - Again, Europe and common sense are our allies. Why is it that in uncut Europe, STD rates are lower than in circumcised America? Regardless, are infants at risk of catching STDs? Shouldn't decisions about how to practice safe sex be left to grown men? Condoms and responsible sexual choices prevent STDs, not genital mutilation.
"God commands us to perform circumcision" - In the Torah, God also commands us to stone people to death, burn animal sacrifices, and take slaves from neighboring nations. Jews have given up those unholy practices, why shouldn't we give this one up too? The majority of Swedish Jews are intact, and guess what? They're still Jewish! Judaism, whether a cultural, ethnic, or religious identity, does not require circumcision. Jewishness is solely defined by parental lineage or conversion, not by genital cutting. Today, there are Jewish baby welcoming ceremonies for all genders free from genital cutting.
In addition to significantly reducing a grown man's capacity for sexual pleasure, circumcision is a highly risky, unnecessary surgery that results in over 100 infant fatalities every year in the U.S., and leaves countless others with highly disfigured genitals in so-called "botched" circumcisions. In one famous case, David Reimer committed suicide because of his grief over his lack of a penis, the result of a botched circumcision.
My entire argument boils down to one thing: It should have been my choice, and it should be the choice of every man/boy whose body it is -- not the parents. I have no objection to a man who's reached the age of consent choosing circumcision or any other permanent body modification for himself. But that choice must be preserved, not stolen. Parents who defend circumcision by saying "It's a personal choice" – I encounter that argument all the time in my work as an intactivist – are quite delusional to think they should have the right to choose to amputate healthy tissue from a non-consenting minor. They wouldn't do that to their daughters, why should they have the right to inflict such a human rights violation on their sons?
I stand against sexual abuse, child abuse, genital mutilation, and torture, all of which are accurate – and I meant that logically, according to the precise dictionary definitions of those terms – descriptors of the anachronistic practice euphemestically called 'circumcision.' The very fact that our culture is so proud of judging African tribes as barbaric for practicing 'female genital mutilation,' while the mainstream media never uses the term 'male genital mutilation' to describe what routinely happens here, says a lot. Hint: In Europe, they think we're as twisted and barbaric as we think the tribes in Africa are. Fortunately, circumcision rates are falling in the U.S., from a peak of higher than 80% in the 1970s to around 33% today.
According to a 1996 U.S. federal law, it is illegal to perform any act of genital cutting on a non-consenting minor female, even variants of circumcision that are far less invasive and damaging than the typical male circumcision. It's illegal in this country to even prick a clitoral hood and draw a tiny drop of blood from a baby girl for religious purposes, or for any purpsose! I want to see the same legal protections extended to baby boys. In San Francisco, efforts are underway to ban circumcision within city limits, although unfortunately a judge struck it from the ballot - I hope that an appeal will be successful. I see the anti-circumcision movement as being where the gay rights movement was 40 years ago, and I hope it doesn't take that long to catch up. The organized Jewish community presents a significant barrier to this effort, just as they do in the quest for Palestinian rights.
Back to Mr. Dershowitz. He said: "And the first thing you have to do is have all these guys who are circumcized demand it back, go to the hospital, and have it sewn back on. That’ll make them complete pricks, instead of the pricks that they are, O.K.?"
If I could sue the doctor who cut me (unfortunately I'm past the statute of limitations), or wave a magic wand and regenerate what I lost, believe me I would. But since I can't do either of those things, I'm restoring. It doesn't give me back everything that your allies in the penis mutilation industry stole from me, and it doesn't provide justice for the crime, but it does make a big difference. And I'll tell you what Mr. Dershowitz, circumcision has something in common with military, apartheid Zionism: both belong in the dustbin of history. Someday – someday! – Palestinians and Israelis will live together as equals, and someday baby boys will enjoy the same human rights baby girls already do in this country, namely, freedom from non-consensual genital cutting. I wonder if your fear that we'll ask for our foreskins back is an analogue to your fear of ethnically cleansed Palestinians demanding their right of return. (An aside: The fact that circumcision is widely practiced by Muslims, American gentiles, and others doesn't let Dershowitz and his pro-mutilation allies off the hook. Worldwide, 75% of men are intact, putting the circumcision camp in a dwindling minority.)
For more info, check out my resources page.
P.S. - Mr. Dershowitz, if you're reading this, I challenge you to a public debate about circumcision. I'll win. All I need is one legal, constitutional argument: it's called Equal Protection. Thus, if this law were ever challenged at the Supreme Court level, it would have to be amended to outlaw male genital mutilation, too. Maybe you'd get used to Brit Shaloms instead, I hear they're quite enjoyable for everyone involved - especially the baby.
Circumcision decision is only for consenting grown-ups
by Amanda Windsor, The Times-Standard (USA), 9 September 2011
Genital cutting as a medical procedure rather than as a ritual sacrifice got its start as a Victorian fad treatment for masturbation. They blamed masturbation for many of the serious illnesses they could not understand or treat. A lot of Americans of my generation don't know this, but the foreskin is the most sensitive erogenous zone on the male body, and cutting it off was seen as a convenient “cure” for this problem of pleasure. Other treatments involved chastity belts and burning the head of the penis with hot pokers. I'll quote one of the fathers of medical genital cutting, Dr. John Harvey Kellogg
"A remedy for masturbation which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision, especially when there is any degree of phimosis. The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering anesthetic, as the pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind, especially if it be connected with the idea of punishment, as it may well be in some cases. The soreness which continues for several weeks interrupts the practice, and if it had not previously become too firmly fixed, it may be forgotten and not resumed.”
The same “benefits” were also recommended for girls, and clitoridectomies (removal of the clitoris) were also performed. But even Dr. Kellogg thought circumcision was inappropriate for infants and could lead to problems later. Nevertheless, as more births began happening in
hospitals instead of at home, attended by doctors instead of midwives, the procedure began to be performed on infants more and more often.
After World War II, doctors in all other industrialized nations rejected circumcision as harmful and unnecessary, but the U.S.A. followed a different path. Wartime military policy, the medicalization of childbirth, the adoption of a for-profit medical system instead of a public health service, and the opinions of popular figures such as Dr. Spock all played a role. Today the United States is also beginning to abandon the practice. Circumcision rates in the United States have dropped as low as one-third in recent years. I'm thrilled! Circumcision permanently removes 50 to 75 percent of a person's healthy erogenous tissue, is very painful, and has all of the same human rights issues as cutting girls and all of the risks that come with any surgery. What about those HIV results in Africa? The media likes to talk about a 50 percent risk reduction, and that sounds impressive, until you look at the numbers and discover that the risk was reduced from 3.38 percent to 1.58 percent. Not so exciting, and for each new study the benefit goes down; original studies suggested that cut men were eight times less likely to get HIV. Skeptical scientists suspect that when all the outside factors have been thought of and accounted for, there will be no benefit at all. These sorts of minuscule results are why no medical association in the world, not even in the U.S., recommends the surgery to prevent disease. I'll quote the American Medical Association: ”... behavioral factors are far more important risk factors for acquisition of HIV and other sexually transmissible diseases than circumcision status, and circumcision cannot be responsibly viewed as 'protecting' against such infections.”
Ladies, would you cut off half or more of your happy parts for a reduction in your disease risk that's no better than the risks from the surgery? Would you like someone to surgically alter you to make you look just like your mother? Would you rather amputate your sensitive bits than go to all the work of washing them? Maybe you would. Hey, everybody's different, and I'm down with that. But maybe you wouldn't, and maybe it's time that guys have that freedom of choice too. Let's face it. Genital cutting is only for consenting grown-ups. A 2006 report estimated 100 neonatal circumcision-related deaths occur annually in the United States from anesthesia reaction, stroke, hemorrhage, and infection. A newborn has to be among the worst candidates for an unnecessary surgery. It's true that estimates of the annual number of deaths vary widely, everywhere from 2 to 2,000. Data on the number of injuries and unintentional amputations is also difficult to nail down. I can't wait for the number to certain: zero.
Do you like this page?