Category: Logic

AAP Task Force Member Douglas Diekama Maligns Circumcision Opponents

The Washington Post’s parenting blog has a new post, ‘Intactivists’ furious at new AAP circumcision policy, that contains a misdirection from Dr. Douglas Diekema. After quoting Ronald Goldman and a few commenters to an earlier post, this:

AAP officials expected such a reaction.

“For individuals who have decided that circumcision is wrong, no amount or quality of data will put these questions to rest,” Douglas Diekema, who served on the AAP task force that wrote the report, told me last week when I asked him about potential pushback.

Diekema implies that people who are against circumcision simply haven’t correctly considered the data, which means “reached his personal conclusion”. He implies that opponents have made a demonstrable error in judgment. This is nonsense. It’s consistent to accept every single piece of data the AAP considered, and to ignore the relevant information the AAP explicitly ignored in its consideration, yet reach the conclusion that non-therapeutic infant circumcision is unjustified medically (and ethically), contra the AAP’s biased and flawed statement. To quote Douglas Diekema himself:

… But it does have medical benefit. Not everyone would trade that foreskin for that medical benefit. …

No kidding. That’s the ethical issue, but it also shows that the benefits do not outweigh the risks for every individual. Diekema is engaging in propaganda, facilitated by The Washington Post. Both aspects of that are inexcusable.

I’ve sent an e-mail to the Washington Post blogger, Janice D’Arcy, asking for comment on Diekema’s problematic quote. I will update if I receive a response.

Brian D. Earp on the AAP’s Flawed Circumcision Policy Statement

If you read only one analysis on the AAP’s revised policy statement on infant circumcision, make it this fantastic deconstruction by Brian D. Earp. It’s almost too perfect to excerpt. This is a great sample, but his entire post is required reading.

Here they depart from their 1999 statement in asserting that (1) the benefits of the surgery definitively outweigh the risks and costs and (2) that it is therefore justifiable to perform the operation without the informed consent of the patient. This does not follow. In medical ethics, the risk/benefit rule was devised for therapeutic procedures aimed at treating an extant pathological condition, and for minor prophylactic interventions such as vaccination. It has no relevance to nonessential amputative surgery, especially when it involves the painful removal of healthy, functional erogenous tissue from the genitals, and when safer, more effective substitute strategies exist for achieving the same ends.

You may be surprised to learn that the word “condom” does not appear even once in the 28 page AAP report.

In making their risk/benefit calculations, then, the AAP simply leaves out a critical bulk of factors relevant to the equation, including the existence of a range of proven healthcare tools like condoms, vaccines (including an effective HPV vaccine), and antibiotics. If they had bothered to consider human rights and bodily integrity issues, the function of the foreskin, its value to the individual, and his possible wishes in later life, as well, their computations would quite plainly yield a very different answer.

Seriously, it’s worth the time. And share it far and wide.

The AAP Worsens Its Flawed Circumcision Position

A lot has already been said about the AAP’s revised policy statement on non-therapeutic circumcision on non-consenting male children.

More will be said today and beyond. Much of it will be uncritical regurgitations of the AAP’s revision by news organizations. There will also be analysis from those who recognize and highlight the glaring deficincies and oversights in the policy. I expect to contribute my own thoughts. For now, I’ll highlight one key aspect from my initial read-through before going into what I think is a more important consideration to this apparent-but-not-really temporary setback.

The short version of the statement ends with this (emphasis added):

Parents ultimately should decide whether circumcision is in the best interests of their male child. They will need to weigh medical information in the context of their own religious, ethical, and cultural beliefs and practices. The medical benefits alone may not outweigh these other considerations for individual families.

That’s so close to the ethical stance. Remove families and focus on the individual and it would be ethical¹.

The way the promoted portion of the new “finding” within the revised statement differs from this conclusion is the key takeaway to challenge the supposed change from the AAP, which is really more-or-less just an exercise in urging politicians to permit circumcision on Medicaid. Here, the AAP demonstrates that its evaluation of the net benefit, that possible benefits outweigh the risks, is subjective and determined only by individuals. This directly contradicts the supposed proof based on their review of research that the potential benefits outweigh the risks (and the costs – the direct harm in every case – that they ignore). We should repeatedly emphasize that as often as necessary.

My concern is that we’ll get stuck in this low-level, short-term portion of the larger debate. It’s clear from European medical associations and courts that the eventual destination is public policy against non-therapeutic circumcision. The AAP and American society, in general, are (inexcusably) behind. But both will get there. Activists for the rights of children can make that happen sooner than it otherwise might happen.

The key is that we must give people the opportunity to save face, to avoid digging in to protect their egos. The problem is their stance, not necessarily their character. It should be obvious to them that their stance is incorrect. It isn’t. To address that, do we want to express an irrelevant, limited sense of superiority or convince others that we’re correct because facts and ethics demonstrate the case we’re making? If we impugn their motives and/or character by choosing the former, we may extend the period during which this policy statement stands or encourage people who can be influenced either way to choose the inferior stance of the AAP.

Edit note: I changed “it’s” to “their stance” to avoid possible confusion.

¹ The existing societal view treats certain basic human rights – for boys only – as a buffet from which parents may pick and choose for their own reasons. This is the problem merely expressed within the AAP’s policy statement.

One Unremembered Trauma: Emphasize Trauma, Not Unremembered

Here’s a report from Jezebel on the Johns Hopkins study. It’s maddening.

Personally, I don’t give a care what kind of a penis any grown man currently has, because I am not in the business of telling people what to do with their genitals, or judging whether anyone’s genitals are “right” or “wrong.” That said, if I had a boy-baby, I think I would probably circumcise him (not, like, with my bare hands, but you know), because I can’t imagine one unremembered trauma could be more painful than a lifetime of a nasty, unfair, pervasive stigma. But that’s just me.

Did you catch that? She’s not in the business of telling people what to do with their genitals, except she would probably have her son’s normal genitals permanently altered. That is definitely tell someone exactly what he can’t do with his genitals.

That also reads like judging “right” and “wrong” to me. What someone else might say to her son could direct her to parent with a scalpel. Thinking with assumptions like this – that a parent can’t educate their children that the problem rests with the person who would stigmatize – creates the self-perpetuating cycle that parents “have” to cut to make their sons normal common to protect them from possible ridicule. This is especially ridiculous if we’re honest, because children will find ways to taunt, and about anything. If it’s not genitals, it’s hair color or fashion or ears or pimples or freckles or weight or whatever. We don’t expect parents to surgically alter other aspects of their children to avoid this temporary, not-guaranteed harassment. Normal genitals should be no different. Non-therapeutic genital cutting is an abdication of parental responsibility.

**********

Post Script: The predictable chaos ensued in the comments, apparently. I didn’t read them because I don’t read comments sections. But it’s obvious since the first comment addresses it. The Jezebel writer, Lindy West, replied:

Hey, screaming people. First of all, male circumcision and female genital mutilation are not equivalent. …

Ms. West is wrong.

(Advocates for genital integrity should not be screaming, literally or figuratively, in comments sections. I wish that didn’t need to be repeated.)

Infant Male Circumcision and Current Human Rights Disparities

Another focused post for a story on which I’ll have more to say.

In a study published Monday in the Archives of Pediatric and Adolescent Medicine, a team of economists and epidemiologists estimated that every circumcision not performed would lead to significant increases in lifetime medical expenses to treat sexually transmitted diseases and related cancers — increases that far surpass the costs associated with the procedure.

I strongly suspect the study is flawed because it makes estimates. I’ll withhold further comment until I know more. For now, there’s enough to discredit the embarrassingly incomplete approach used to justify the study and its estimates.

That sentiment [that Medicaid should cover non-therapeutic child circumcision] was echoed in an editorial accompanying the study. UCLA health economist Arleen Leibowitz wrote that by failing to require states to cover circumcision in Medicaid plans, the U.S. reinforces healthcare disparities.

“If we don’t give poor parents the opportunity to make this choice, we’re discriminating against their health in the future,” she said in an interview. “If something is better for health and saves money, why shouldn’t we do it? Or at least, why shouldn’t we allow parents the option to choose it?”

We shouldn’t do it or allow it because non-therapeutic genital cutting on a non-consenting child is unethical. Male circumcision on a healthy child violates his basic human rights to bodily integrity and self-determination. It is indefensible, even if it’s possibly “better” for his health in someone else’s subjective evaluation or because it saves money when individuals are considered statistics rather than human beings with their own rights and preferences.

The abstract makes it clear the study is speculative. Yet, we already have rights-based law for females without absurd exemptions we refuse to touch for males, so the idea that rights trump speculative benefits isn’t foreign. The ability to do something or to possibly achieve some population-level result without concern for the individuals involved cannot – must not – be viewed in a bubble that contains only the factors one is interested in (e.g. male circumcision is currently practiced, so it’s acceptable).

There are no doubt many non-therapeutic surgeries we could perform on children that might result in some decreased prevalence of disease x, y, or z. Infant mastectomies to remove breast bud tissue might reduce the risk of breast cancer. Shouldn’t we study that, at least, since it might reduce cancer? Reducing cancer is “good”, whatever the means, right? No one is foolish enough (yet?) to think such a thing, which highlights the flaw in thinking by those making excuses for circumcision, such as Ms. Leibowitz here. Society should stop ignoring the costs to the individual who must bear the outcome of the decision. Ignoring them is unacceptable. The ethics of circumcision are not divisible from any other basic human rights consideration or proper medical analysis based on therapeutic need, or lack thereof.

Finally, that non-poor families can afford to violate their children’s sons’ rights is not a reason to use taxpayer funds to let poor parents violate their children’s sons’ rights. That’s a political question rather than a medical question. It is inexcusable to sacrifice the bodies of male children (only!) because we’re too cowardly to honestly evaluate the mistake of non-therapeutic circumcision on non-consenting individuals. This is the same idiotic approach Dr. Edgar Schoen pushed in his 2005 propaganda book, “Ed Schoen, MD on Circumcision”. Somehow, not using public funds to violate a child’s body and rights is discrimination. It isn’t because circumcision is not a valid parental choice. UCLA health economist Arleen Leibowitz is wrong.

None of this is a surprise, based on the editorial by Ms. Leibowitz and Katherine Desmond, “Infant Male Circumcision and Future Health Disparities”. The first two sentences reveal so much.

The health benefits of male circumcision (MC) have been extensively documented in observational studies and by randomized controlled trials in Africa showing that MC reduces heterosexual transmission of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection from women to men by 55% to 76% …

The trials showed that voluntary, adult male circumcision reduces female-to-male HIV transmission in high risk populations with a heterosexual epidemic and a low rate of circumcision among adult males. That’s quite different, since it doesn’t describe the United States. It also fails to describe the circumcision they’re advocating. Children are not adult volunteers. That’s the ethical flaw in their analysis.

… and provides significant protection against human papillomavirus infection. …

Gardasil is approved for girls and boys. Circumcision is unnecessary for this possible benefit, as it is for nearly every possible benefit.

… Male circumcision is negatively associated with prostate cancer in men and with cervical cancer in female partners of men infected with human papillomavirus.

Negatively associated. Correlation is not causation. The study’s authors acknowledged this when they stated that it was an observational study. “Negatively associated” is not sufficient.

Flawed Circumcision Defense: Charlotte Allen

Charlotte Allen has an editorial in today’s Los Angeles Times about circumcision and intactivists. She doesn’t understand either. She begins:

The “intactivists” — anti-circumcision people who are trying to get the practice outlawed in the U.S. and elsewhere — …

This is off to a terrible start. The effort is to prohibit non-therapeutic circumcision on non-consenting individuals. That’s an ethically significant difference. While I suspect she thinks that her words mean what I just wrote, they don’t. Her claim is what’s being repeated, as if this effort is the same as seeking a complete prohibition on religious circumcision for everyone of any age. When arguing against something, the first requirement is to fairly and accurately state the opponent’s position. She fails at that in the first half-sentence.

Intactivism, a movement of the last 20 years or so, got a boost recently when a German judge ruled that non-therapeutic circumcision of children amounted to “bodily harm” and must henceforth be outlawed. …

First: intactivism in its current form has been going on for at least twice as long as she claims. (e.g. Van Lewis)

Re: the court’s ruling. The issue of bodily harm, which is objective, appears only here. She will not directly address this again. She mentions sensitivity, as though that’s the extent of possible harm, and draws an incorrect conclusion by selectively quoting a press release. (More on that in a moment.)

The tagline attached to Ms. Allen’s essay is this:

‘Intactivists’ are trying to get the practice outlawed in the U.S. and elsewhere. But how bad can it be?

There is bodily harm in every circumcision. But to the question, it can be very bad. This bad. Or this bad. Or the worst case scenario. Those are thankfully rare, but they occur. Those males are (or were) individuals with human rights. They are not merely statistics to ignore.

The intactivists like to paint circumcision in lurid colors. The phrase they use to describe it — “male genital mutilation” — evokes the barbaric practice of female genital mutilation. But the two have almost nothing in common. …

Mutilation is an accurate description for non-therapeutic male circumcision without the child’s consent. And it has considerably more in common with female genital mutilation than Allen understands.

She continues:

… Female genital mutilation is invasive and ghastly, and results in long-term health risks for women subjected to it, not to mention the diminution or elimination of the ability to feel sexual pleasure. …

Usually, yes, but that doesn’t justify male circumcision. As I’ve said elsewhere, a punch to the face is not acceptable because a knife to the gut is worse. The difference should be in punishment, not prohibition.

Apart from the valid aspects of the comparison of non-therapeutic genital cutting on a non-consenting individual, male or female, male circumcision is unethical on its own.

Male circumcision involves snipping off about three-eighths of an inch of skin. It hurts, briefly, but so do the shots that babies routinely receive. And according to the World Health Organization, it “reduces the risk of heterosexually acquired HIV infection in men by approximately 60%.”

That three-eighths of an inch of skin will grow into a larger structure if left in place. It also removes the nerve endings within that three-eighths of an inch, and leaves a scar. But with that argument, the clitoral hood, or even the clitoris, is a tiny structure in infants. Does that render it ethical to remove either of these from a healthy infant? She’s offering a ridiculous defense of non-therapeutic genital cutting on a non-consenting individual.

For the HIV statistic, she cites this page. She failed to quote pertinent information beyond the first sentence. She should’ve included the part that says “male circumcision should be considered an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention in countries and regions with heterosexual epidemics, high HIV and low male circumcision prevalence.” Not one of those three criteria matches a Western nation. It isn’t compelling. Citing it as a justification for infant circumcision is an empty defense, which is worsened by additional arguments against this reason for circumcising infants. (Anything other than circumcision with the voluntary consent of the individual where those scenarios apply is still unethical.)

The notion that circumcision reduces a man’s sexual sensitivity has little basis in fact. Two medical studies, in 2003 and 2007 — one presented to the American Urological Society and the other published in the Journal of Sexual Medicine — found that circumcised and uncircumcised men experienced the same levels of response to touch and pain during sexual arousal. A press release issued by the 2007 study’s chief researcher, at McGill University in Montreal, stated: “This study suggests that preconceptions of penile sensory differences between circumcised and uncircumcised men may be unfounded.”

Suggests is not a synonym for proves. Allen seems to possess a tendency to consider only what is convenient rather than presenting all facts. This press release from McGill University about that study includes the following caveat:

Payne cautioned that though the study’s results are very promising, they are still preliminary and do not necessarily resolve many of the longstanding controversies surrounding circumcision. “This study only measures one sensation, so it questions the held notions, but it does not refute the idea that there may be some differences at some level. No one can deny the anatomical differences between a circumcised and uncircumcised penis.”

To be fair, it’s possible that the version she read didn’t include that caveat. I’m not sure why a press release from these scientists wouldn’t include such a caveat, but I don’t know what her source is. However, a simple bit of thinking reveals the inherent flaw in drawing such a broad conclusion from research like this. This basic fact can be confirmed by reading the study itself:

… It is possible that the uncircumcised penis is more sensitive due to the presence of additional sensory receptors on the prepuce and frenulum, but this cannot be compared with the absence of such structures in the circumcised penis. …

To state the obvious: the foreskin is removed during circumcision. Comparing that in circumcised men is impossible. The study does not demonstrate what Allen claims it demonstrates.

It’s obvious that Allen has not considered anything beyond her limited understanding of circumcision. At best, she presents lazy thinking with minimal research. Or worse, she started with her conclusion and created a fortress around her mind to protect myths and block facts. Whatever the reason, she is wrong. Her defense of non-therapeutic circumcision on children is pathetic.

**********

Post Script: Unsurprisingly, more errors exist in Allen’s analysis. I included them in the original version of this post. I deleted them because they weren’t egregious in the way the above excerpts are. I’ll include one bit in the comments. The above is what I think should be the critical argument against her propaganda.

Procedures that Intentionally Alter or Cause Injury

In Reverse the Approach, I had in mind the numerous blog posts like this I’ve encountered:

In this installment of things that should not be compared as equal, we’ll discuss how female circumcision is not the same as male circumcision. …

There’s the subtle difference I discussed. When I make the comparison, it’s to compare male circumcision to female genital cutting. That method allows for the relevant comparison, as well as the opportunity to discuss how the comparison is limited. Trying to compare FGC/M to male circumcision hinders the goal, which should be an accurate analysis of male circumcision. Society has already assessed the ethics against FGC/M. No one wants to re-open or challenge that when using the valid, limited comparison of the two interventions.

The blogger, Lindsay Marie, finishes her introduction with more fence-sitting than her post demonstrates before moving into the comparison:

How they’re similar:
For one, they’re both called circumcision (this isn’t entirely accurate… I’ll get to that in a bit). For another, both involve cutting off a part of the person’s genitals.

Basically, yes. I wouldn’t start with the name, though. It’s semantically inaccurate for females, but it’s hardly a point to compare the two acts. They can both be mutilation while calling one mutilation and the other anything else. A consensus on nomenclature tells us something without proving anything on its own.

I would start with the principle, which she gets almost complete. Non-therapeutic genital cutting on a non-consenting individual is more accurate for what we’re describing. That applies to both females and males. There is no reasonable way to make a gendered distinction on that principle. The distinctions, which exist in practice, are relevant to punishment rather than prohibition.

She incorrectly moves on to differences at this point. As I argued, I think this results from comparing female genital cutting to male circumcision. It’s too easy to start with the most common forms, which are unfortunately also the more extreme forms. Again, that matters, but for the comparison, the validity of state intervention on male circumcision is the question for the comparison. Is there a comparison to be made between male circumcision and what the state prohibits with respect to female genital cutting? There is.

(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), whoever knowingly circumcises, excises, or infibulates the whole or any part of the labia majora or labia minora or clitoris of another person who has not attained the age of 18 years …

Any cutting, even that equal to (i.e. hoodectomy) or less destructive than male circumcision, is illegal. Those forms exist, although they are not the common forms. They are illegal. The comparison works on that limited scale, and points to other legal questions about the right to physical integrity and equal protection.

There’s also the comparison based on the WHO fact sheet for FGM (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.
…

… It is nearly always carried out on minors and is a violation of the rights of children. The practice also violates a person’s rights to health, security and physical integrity, the right to be free from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, and the right to life when the procedure results in death.

There is no reason to exclude males from that protection of rights, even though FGC/M is almost always more physically damaging, and to a significant degree. Males suffer injury in every case, and worse in some cases, including extremes such as amputation and death. The implicated rights are the same.

There are differences, of course. I’ve acknowledged them here, to some extent, but I’ll reiterate that most female genital cutting is more extensive, with more extreme and lasting consequences. It is evil and should be eradicated as much as possible.

With that stated, she continues (language warning):

How they’re different:
In every other fucking way. Male circumcision is practiced widely in developed countries as a way of preventing specific health issues in both men and women. Male circumcision is usually performed by a trained professional (almost always a doctor, but some religious parents ask a trained Rabbi to perform the procedure) in a sterile medical setting with the latest tools and effective healing techniques to eliminate infections and reduce pain. Male circumcision is performed on days-old infants who will not remember or even realize what happened and almost always with anesthetics to reduce pain. Pardon the comparison, but breeders clip dog tails at the same age and in a similar way, and zoo keepers clip bird wings at the same age and in a similar way. I don’t agree with clipping dog tails, but if it’s going to happen it might as well happen when they’re too young to realize.

First, I don’t want to put too much emphasis on widely, but it’s confusing. If it should be attached to “as a way of”, which is how I read it upon a second pass, I disagree because most circumcision is cultural. The science is a pretty way of making people feel better about doing something indefensible they wish to do for their own subjective reasons. If widely is meant to describe “in developed countries”, that’s inaccurate. It’s widely practiced in the United States and Israel. It’s been widely practiced at some point in the past in the UK, Australia, and Canada.

To the point, where it is intended as a prophylactic, it is practiced as an attempt to prevent specific, unlikely health issues. Statistics show that most circumcisions in the developed world prevent nothing for most males because most males will not develop a foreskin-related problem. When they do, it’s usually associated with some other corresponding behavior. (e.g. Does he get HIV because he has a foreskin or because he didn’t wear a condom?) People get incorrectly impressed by the relative risk differences between intact and circumcised when the absolute risk of foreskin-related issues is small. Even the most dedicated propagandist, Prof. Brian Morris, only claims that the risk of a foreskin-related issue requiring some form of medical attention (i.e. not just circumcision) within the male’s lifetime is 1 in 2 or 1 in 3, depending on where he’s writing. (I will not provide links to his propaganda. Use Google.) Imposing the most invasive solution on a healthy individual is unethical.

As for the sterile operating theater with modern techniques and equipment, I’m unconvinced. As her post makes clear later, she wouldn’t support female genital cutting conducted in a similar setting. That’s the correct stance, but if it’s not support for one, it isn’t support for the other. As the WHO’s fact sheet states, “more than 18% of all FGM is performed by health care providers, and this trend is increasing.” Defending it for male circumcision will likely lead to further justification from proponents of female genital cutting because they’ve modernized a cultural ritual.

The “he won’t remember it” defense is also not compelling. We wouldn’t be any more convinced that a little female genital cutting would be okay if inflicted on girls too young to remember it. We must judge the act on its own. Would we excuse a punch to the face of a child who won’t remember it? It is unlikely to leave a permanent alteration. Corporal punishment for children even has a biblical basis. At some point, the rights of the individual must matter more than peripheral arguments.

With male circumcision, it’s not “going to happen”, as her defense of “too young to remember” implies, unless we take the validity of parental choice as a given. I don’t. There is a risk, as with all normal body parts, male or female. But the chance of needing circumcision are very low. Most males left with their choice never need or choose circumcision. The “he won’t remember it” defense requires an assumption that he will either need or choose circumcision eventually. If it merely assumes he wants circumcision but will be too afraid of the pain, then he values not experiencing pain more than he values being circumcised. There is no reason to assume an infant thinks differently. This is related to female genital cutting more than it may seem. Like father, like son, so like mother, like daughter?

Next, she links to a comment on Reddit that discusses the issue of intent.

… One of the best explanations for the difference between male circumcision and female genital mutilation comes from a user called superdillin:

I think the intent and damage differences between male and female genital mutilation does need to be pointed out. What we do to our baby boys, often with no medical reason, is bad. Very bad and we should stop. BUT, what was done to OP’s girlfriend was done to take away her sexuality, and to control her. It has put her life at risk at worst, and at best has taken away her most sexual pleasure organ, and it was done with the intention of her becoming a breeding cow to be used for a man’s needs for the rest of her life.

What we do to our boys is due to misinformation about health and hygiene, combined with unhealthy aesthetic expectations and tradition. What some cultures do to their girls is deliberate, controlling, life-threatening and inherently sexist. [Her emphases.]

I agree with that, which differs somewhat from the blogger’s post. And I’ve already acknowledged the damage differences in the most common forms. Beyond that experience of the mutilated women described in the Reddit thread, there is evidence that some mutilated females retain some ability to orgasm, which just suggests that the issues and how they relate are more complicated than the idea that male circumcision somehow isn’t bad because female genital cutting is usually worse. (That evidence changes nothing on the ethical question. FGC/M remains evil.)

It is not clear that the intent for each exist as polar opposites. The motivations can have certain similarities. For FGC/M a (possibly overwhelming) majority of the cutting seems to be motivated in the way the West perceives. Sometimes it’s more complicated. But even with the best intentions, which apply to almost every male circumcision, they still aren’t enough. The act matters first. Non-therapeutic genital cutting on a non-consenting individual is wrong. We can’t get past that, ethically, so everything else is important but irrelevant to the validity of prohibiting unnecessary surgery on a child, regardless of gender.

The first key fact in the WHO’s fact sheet states that FGM “includes procedures that intentionally alter or cause injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons.” (See footnote¹.) The intent that matters is the intent to act, not the intent to act for good or bad reasons. “Good” and “bad” are subjective, to some extent, anyway. Do the parents intend to alter the child’s normal, healthy genitals? Yes. It’s about the act and the objective harm that results.

Back to the word circumcision: I’ve noticed an increase in groups publicly opposed to male circumcision (part of this was seen during our recent Gay Pride parade), and some argue that male circumcision should be called male genital mutilation, to more closely align itself with female genital mutilation. Although circumcision in both sexes involves the cutting of the genitals, and both procedures can be unnecessary at best, only female circumcision can actually be called butchering because of how it’s performed and what its purpose is. It’s called “circumcision” to make it seem more acceptable and to hide what it really is. (Hell, even the Wikipedia page for female circumcision is titled “female genital mutilation.”)

I don’t believe use of the term male genital mutilation is primarily meant to more closely align the two. It does that, but the intent is to stop pretending that circumcision is so innocuous that it should remain a parental choice for the parents’ subjective, preferred reasons. Some forms of female genital cutting don’t reasonably constitute “butchering”, yet we still outlaw those forms. When does the individual who will live with the modified genitals get to offer input on whether it constitutes mutilation?

From this brief interview with Sister Fa (Fatou Diatta), a musician from Senegal who is a victim of genital mutilation.

Rebellion is in the words. You are dealing with issues such as forced marriage, female genital mutilation. How important is this for you?
“It’s more than important. But my struggle is not against Female Genital Mutilation (FGM, ed.). Me, I do not even use the word “mutilation,” because mutilate means cutting with the intention to hurt. I say ‘cutting’. I’m campaigning so that people would know that it is important that we can educate a child without going through certain practices that may harm his/her health. I’ve been a victim of this practice and I know its effect. It hurts.”

Again, this is so much more complicated than the world so many imagine we live in. The word mutilation is definitionally accurate for both genders, tied to outcome, regardless of parental intent. Whether to use the term or not is a marketing question, not an applicability question.

I wouldn’t publicly advocate one way or the other for male circumcision because there are benefits and consequences of the procedure that must be taken into consideration. I can, however, speak from the only experience I have, which is as a woman who has had sex with both circumcised and uncircumcised men. My experience taught me that male sexual pleasure has absolutely nothing to do with having been circumcised as an infant and that my own sexual pleasure had nothing to do with whether or not my partner was circumcised. However, if asked my opinion I might point out that even the cleanest of males can be less hygienic and more likely to spread a disease or infection with their foreskin intact, which from a female standpoint is a huge concern since an infection inside the vagina can be much worse than a topical penile infection. It seems to me like male circumcision has more benefits for a male’s sexual partner than for the male himself.

Perhaps, but that isn’t a defense for circumcising children. It’s a defense for encouraging and empowering women to stand up for themselves in sexual relationships and to choose their sexual partners and practices consciously. Ask the male to shower. Refuse to have sex if he won’t wear a condom. It’s also a defense for voluntary adult male circumcision.

I truly believe, when performed by a surgeon or urologist in a hospital with the proper tools, that male circumcision should be an option and that parents of sons should educate themselves on whether or not to do the procedure. But I also believe that even if female circumcision were to be performed in the exact same situations as male circumcision (on infants, by medical professionals in a sterile setting) that it would be genital mutilation. The intent automatically makes it wrong and the way a female’s body is designed opens the poor girl up to dozens of complications, many of which are life threatening. Male circumcision and female genital mutilation are not the same thing.

She’s wrong. Intent matters, but outcome matters first and most. An individual’s healthy body is permanently altered without the individual’s consent. The invasive act violates the individual’s right to physical integrity (and right to self-determination). In that core analysis, female genital cutting/mutilation and male circumcision are the same. They are both indefensible.

¹ Non-therapeutic “medical” male circumcision is a misnomer. It’s medicalized circumcision, which merely indicates that it’s performed in a modern, sterile operating theater. That is condemnable in its limited focus, but it is not enough to render the non-therapeutic surgery ethical. The patient’s consent is also necessary. The pursuit of possible benefits (i.e. reduce risk of UTIs or female-to-male HIV transmission in high risk populations) is speculative and may not be necessary for – or desired by – the individual himself. There are all sorts of interventions we could perform that might reduce the risk of some future malady. Society does not open those up to parental choice because they’re also harmful. They’re ethically wrong. Circumcision is the same.

Reverse the Approach

We’ve all encountered the steadfast refusal to consider that male and female genital cutting are comparable and can both be mutilation. The standard closed reaction consists of something along the lines of “the entire penis would be removed” if male and female genital cutting were really the same thing. For example, in response to a brilliant piece by Catherine Bennett in The Guardian, this:

FGM is NOT the equivalent of male circumcision, as an examination of the etymology of the latter word would make clea: O tempora, O mores! An appropriate synonym for FGM might be ‘excision’ or indeed ‘amputation’, were it not for the fact that infibulation is often carried out as well.

The male equivalent of FGM would be a penectomy, followed by a deliberate attempt to make the wound heal with an unnatural form and function.

Bennett might well have a strong personal belief that male circumcision should be left to the particular male to decide, once he is old enough to make an informed choice, and I might well agree; but she has erred grievously in introducing any mention of FGM in her article, thus making it possible for others to draw a preposterous parallel.

Apart from the ludicrous belief that circumcision doesn’t automatically make the penis heal with “an unnatural form and function”, which is not improved by the commenter’s flawed attempt to distinguish deliberate on parental intent, this commenter assumes his answer that there is no valid comparison. He’s wrong, of course. But the explanation for why never occurred to me before. I now think it’s clear.

Opponents of both forms compare male genital cutting to female genital cutting (i.e. mutilation). Opponents of that comparison perceive that we’re comparing female genital cutting to male genital cutting. We start with a different source and target for the comparison. We don’t start with the same gender, so opponents of the comparison think our claim is larger than it is.

We start with male circumcision. Even setting aside the obvious principle (non-therapeutic genital cutting on a non-consenting individual is wrong), removing the male prepuce (i.e. foreskin) is anatomically the same as removing the female prepuce (i.e. clitoral hood). There is a comparison to be made. Society rejects all non-therapeutic genital cutting on female minors, including cutting analogous to male circumcision (and that which is unarguably less damaging). That’s the physical comparison to pair with the principled rights discussion. It is correct.

Instead, notice the approach within the commenter’s words. He starts with female genital cutting/mutilation to then make the comparison to male genital cutting. When doing that, it’s very easy – and understandable – to focus on the more extreme versions of female genital mutilation. When doing that, the commenter’s dismay is easier to understand, and perhaps, to counter. If you start with the worst, yes, the physical comparison does not work, even though the principled comparison always will. But this perpetuates an ignorance to what male circumcision is and how it compares physically to an outlawed form of female genital cutting.

As Ms. Bennett shows in her essay, based on the WHO’s FGM fact sheet (c.f. my genital mutilation fact sheet):

The extent of this cutting, which “has no health benefits”, involves removal of “healthy and normal female genital tissue” and is associated with ideas about “unclean” sexual parts, is immaterial. “It is nearly always carried out on minors and is a violation of the rights of children. The practice also violates a person’s rights to health, security and physical integrity, the right to be free from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, and the right to life when the procedure results in death.”

That applies equally to male genital cutting. The rights involved are human rights, not female rights. Violates the rights to health, security, and physical integrity? That’s the Cologne ruling. The right to life when the procedure results in death? Unless someone wants to argue that male genital cutting never results in death, it’s inexcusable to pretend this doesn’t apply to males in the way that it obviously applies to females.

The commenter includes one more paragraph that further demonstrates my point here, and also cements my belief that opponents of the comparison believe the comparison legitimizes female genital cutting in the way they seem to believe everyone accepts – or should accept – male circumcision as innocuous, at worst. People who get frothy at the comparison think we’re trying to state that FGM is acceptable. That makes no sense, but there’s no other way to interpret this:

Shame on Bennett, for the barbarous torture and irredeemable loss of function she has helped to continue to be inflicted on young girls.

If you argue against female genital cutting, but also argue against male genital cutting for the same reasons, you encourage (and possibly support) the mutilation of females? That makes no sense. Everyone making the comparison, at least in the West, states that all non-therapeutic female genital cutting on non-consenting individuals is an unethical mutilation, including those forms that are physically analogous to – or less damaging than – male circumcision. To be clearer: FGM is evil. That point shouldn’t be in doubt. Anyone who reads the comparison otherwise should take a moment to question their conclusion and what they’re implying. The temptation is to see it as a cynical, dishonest ploy to discredit opposition to male circumcision, but it more logically flows from the misguided approach to the comparison I explained above.

The key is to figure out how to improve communication. Those with differing viewpoints on the comparison are talking past each other rather than to each other. As much as the burden of proof should be on those defending non-therapeutic interventions, reality doesn’t work that way. The onus is on us to demonstrate that our view is correct. If we figure out how to make the comparison clear, we have a chance to be more effective.

Always Ignoring Voluntary and Adult

As always, when public health officials discuss voluntary, adult male circumcision, they never mean voluntary or adult. Never:

ZIMBABWE is planning to expand its circumcision campaign to include newly-born babies as part of the country’s fight against the spread of HIV and AIDS, a senior health ministry official has confirmed.

The ministry’s AIDS and TB unit co-ordinator, Getrude Ncube, said a pilot project targeting babies between one and 28 days old would be launched before year end with the full programme likely to be rolled out in 2014.

They dress it up in nonsense.

“Although circumcising neonates will not have an immediate an impact, results will show in 20 years’ time. Our sole aim is to try and reduce new HIV infections.”

No, the sole aim is to implement circumcision. They believe their intentions are noble, a fact I do not doubt. But if their sole aim is to try to reduce new infections, they’d focus limited medical resources on those currently at risk of sexual transmission. They’re not, unless we stupidly assume all males aged 15 to 49 in Zimbabwe have been circumcised. Instead, they’re shifting to males who can’t consent. They still have 500,000 males to circumcise before 2015 to reach their target. The target is what matters, not the individuals being targeted.

Reading the Cologne Court’s Words

Since the recent ruling against non-therapeutic child circumcision by the Cologne district court, many have spoken out against it and claimed various and potentially extreme results that will flow from it. Some of these complaints are legitimate. As I previously wrote, there are issues offered by proponents of ritual child circumcision that deserve to be taken seriously. Asking people to let go of something they intensely value is asking them to bear costs, even if it should be clear that avoiding objective harm to the child must be stressed more. (That post is coming.)

Still, what I haven’t seen yet is the opposite view. I haven’t seen a single example of someone who supports legally-protected ritual child circumcision accurately acknowledge the court’s ruling as it was written, rather than using a selective reading, to defend the practice. (If someone has seen an example of a proper acknowledgement, please link it in the comments.) The closest I’ve seen comes from Chief Rabbi Lord Sacks, but he only built and defeated a straw man. Near his conclusion, he wrote:

That is what the court in Cologne has done. It has declared that circumcision is an assault on the rights of the child since it is performed without his consent. It ignored the fact that if this is true, teaching children to speak German, sending them to school and vaccinating them against illness are all assaults against the rights of the child since they are done without consent. The court’s judgement was tendentious, foolish and has set a dangerous precedent.

The issue of consent is only part of the court’s ruling. The child’s lack of consent factored because of what was being done to him. The court evaluated the act first. From an English translation of the ruling, found here:

… since the parents’ right to religious upbringing of their children, when weighed against the right of the child to physical integrity and to self-determination, has no priority, and consequently their consent to the circumcision conflicts with the child’s best interests. …

Circumcision violates the child’s (right to) physical integrity. Consequently, parental consent conflicts with the child’s rights, including his right to consent or to refuse. Contrary to Chief Rabbi Lord Sacks’ statement, the court did not imply parenting is now illegal. It made the necessary distinction to limit the ruling to non-therapeutic child circumcision.

… There was consent by the parents, but this was not capable of justifying the commission of the elements of bodily harm.

And:

… The parents’ fundamental rights under Article 4 (1), 6 (2) of the Basic Law (Grundgesetz, GG) in turn are limited by the fundamental right of the child to physical integrity and self-determination under Article 2 (1) and (2) sentence 1 GG. …

There are two rights involved. The right to physical integrity and the right to self-determination (i.e. consent). A complete attempt at a rebuttal requires acknowledging both.

An insufficient response such as that by Chief Rabbi Lord Sacks is not unique. Consider:

Muslim leaders joined the Jewish groups in their condemnation of the ruling. Ali Demir, chairman of the Islamic Religious Community in Germany, described circumcision as “a harmless procedure that has thousands of years of tradition and a high symbolic value.

There are also Christian (and probably secular) advocates who mistakenly defend circumcision as a parental right based on, but not limited to, their religious freedom. However, they all ignore, minimize, or fail to understand that circumcision, like all surgery, is not physically harmless to the child.

As the court stated, “the child’s body is permanently and irreparably changed by the circumcision.” Harm and its link to consent are the issues. Circumcision¹ inflicts harm, despite the presumed good intentions of parents. Only the individual directly affected can evaluate whether or not this objective physical harm is good, bad, or neutral for himself, permanently. Only he can decide whether or not he consents to this intrusion on his physical integrity. That is what the court ruled, not the convenient straw men floating around as a defense against the equal rights of children.

¹ Here I refer only to ritual and non-ritual non-therapeutic circumcision. Proxy consent for therapeutic circumcision requires further analysis and can be justified, although it also inflicts harm.