[paXoo:]

Stop cutting your children.

Posted on October 1st, 2007 | by Billifer | circumcision, medical ethics, religion, social commentary

Male circumcision is genital mutilation, too. Although America likes to be outraged at the practice of female genital cutting (clitoridectomy) in other countries and cultures, there seems to be no problem with continuing the practice on infant boys.

It’s difficult to approach the issue of circumcision without treading on religious issues, so I’ll address that swiftly: Allowing those of Jewish and Muslim faiths to circumcise their male children but not allowing cultures that perform female genital cutting (primarily African cultures) cannot be excused. It is the oldest double-standard in the book. In fact, it is the two oldest double standards: One for male, one for female; and one for the haves, one for the have-nots. No two religions will ever completely agree on any subject: Leave religion out of ethics and law entirely.

While I respect and honor tradition and its role in our contemporary lives, that should be tempered by a pragmatic approach to how such tradition can adapt to the environment and culture in which we now live. While circumcision served a utilitarian purpose for Moses and his people as they wandered the desert—namely, keeping the sand and grit out of the ol’ prepuce—good hygienic practice and the general availability of water for bathing have obsoleted such utility.

Some continue to argue that circumcision is a practice that improves cleanliness. Regardless of whether it does, though, is not relevant, because, first, it involves post hoc reasoning: the effect justifying the cause; and second, it does not take into consideration much larger issues:

• the harm and pain inflicted upon the child (or adult man);
• the irrevocability of the decision, and the inability for the child to reverse that decision should he later disagree with it;
• the cultural context within most non-religious circumcisions are performed in America.

I shall address each of these in turn.

Although we cannot know quantitatively, because pain is always subjective and the infant is unable to communicate effectively, we can infer the qualitative pain involved in undergoing the removal or partial removal of the foreskin. There are practical reasons why circumcision is commonly performed on infants. They are unable to describe the pain involved or to protest or defend themselves. They also do not know what is about to happen until it happens. There are also practical reasons why circumcision is not performed in the presence of the parents—or even within earshot. Like our capitalistic consumer economy, “out of sight” means it does not harm anyone.

This is false. Decloak yourselves of these misconceptions immediately.

Second, the infant child is unable to make the decision about circumcision. What’s more, when the infant’s parents or guardians make that decision, they are robbing their son of the ability to do so at a time when he is emotionally mature to do so for himself. I have to wonder how many parents who mutilate their sons’ genitals would oppose their son getting a tattoo: The issue is largely the same—irreversible body modification—except that in one case the parents make such decision and in the second, the person exercises his own autonomy and decision-making ability.

The third argument against circumcision is one that most people never even consider: the reason for routine circumcision in America to begin with. It isn’t because of the nation’s religious composition, but is actually related to corn flakes¹ and efforts by physicians that can be generously described as misdirected². In fact, it was not until the Nineteenth Century that circumcision was seen as anything more than a religious offering:³

Richard Burton observed that “Christendom practically holds circumcision in horror”. This attitude is reflected in the ninth edition of the Encyclopaedia Britannica (1876) which discusses the practice as a religious rite among Jews, Moslems, the ancient Egyptians and tribal peoples in various parts of the world. The author of the entry rejected sanitary explanations of the procedure in favour of a religious one: “like other body mutilations … [it is] of the nature of a representative sacrifice”. (Robert Darby)

A small 1999 study (n=55) published in the Journal of the American Board of Family Practitioners shows us why parents choose to circumcise (or not circumcise) their newborn sons:⁴

Religious requirement for circumcision was not a significant factor in this sample: only 2 patients (4 percent) belonged to religious groups who require circumcision (although 3 Christians checked religion as a secondary reason)…. [This study] showed that (1) that the circumcision decision is most often made before parents discuss the issue with their care providers, (2) that social concerns are more important than medical ones, and (3) that providers’ discussions have limited impact on the decision made.

Another argument often cited in favor of circumcision is that the parents do not want their son to feel weird or out-of-place around all the circumcised boys. This study also addresses that myth: “Because these parents did not rate the father’s status as important, having a similar appearance is probably not the issue. This finding also raises the issue of whether parents are being provided with information about the potential medical benefits of not being circumcised.”⁴

There are so many rebuttals to such a claim—not least of which that circumcision rates are going down in the United States—but, from a commonsense perspective, I would ask those parents what they would do if all the other kids started gluing floppy dildos to their foreheads. Or, better yet, how do they respond when their children use the argument, “But all the other kids’ parents are letting them do such-and-such”?

This essay is much longer than I intended it to be. In fact, I had originally meant for it only to be a post of a video I saw at YouTube, but as I started writing the introduction, I got carried away. This is a topic I am passionate about. I learned only recently that I was, in fact, circumcised as an infant (it had been questionable because of the amount of foreskin remaining), and it only makes me angry that I can never get back what I didn’t choose to give up.

There are hacks out there, such as the one advertised in this video, to restore the appearance of a foreskin, but like phalloplasty, sometimes it just ain’t enough. There’s no erasing the past, and the knowledge would always be with me. Like wearing a mask, I’m still the same person underneath.

So please, parents and future parents and potential parents: Don’t cut your children: female or male. Just like your parents told you about that tattoo you wanted, “You wait until you’re 18 and then you make the choice to get it on your own.”  ⌘ 

1. John Harvey Kellogg ^

2. Medical circumcision from 1870 to 1950 in English-speaking countries ^

3. A book review of ??Circumcision: A History of the World’s Most Controversial Surgery?? by David L. Gollaher (Basic Books: New York, 2000). Reviewed by Robert Darby at “CircInfo.org” ^

3. Tiemstra J. Factors affecting the circumcision decision. J Amer Bd Fam Practitioners 12:1(16-20). Jan-Feb 1999. ^