Author: Tony

The Case Against “The Case Against Intactivism”

If you’ve read my work here (or on Twitter) for any length of time, you know that I don’t agree (e.g.) with every tactic used to argue for genital integrity. I’m not arrogant enough to assume I’m always correct, but my experience has to inform the means I endorse in pursuit of the necessary, noble goal. Where I think we’re making mistakes, particularly predictably ineffective mistakes, I speak out. I know enough people within the genital integrity movement to know that the principled, decent strategy is the most common.

That said, I’m not willing to paint broadly based on the actions of individuals. This can be either good or bad actions. One person expressing an idiotic excuse for circumcision do not mean everyone who shares a characteristic would defend that excuse. I do this because it’s fair and because I do not want this approach applied to me. It will always be possible to find genital integrity activists who engage in inexcusable behavior, such as anti-Semitism. I can make my case without that, as can most activists. Principles and tactics are associated, but the former exists apart from the latter.

This is why the website The Case Against Intactivism frustrates me so greatly. It is run by blogger “paper0airplane”, who is against routine infant circumcision while lumping any bad behavior by those opposed to circumcision into the “intactivism” category. This is wrong. For example, I spoke out when issue #2 of “Foreskin Man” appeared, long before it made news during the San Francisco ballot initiative in mid-2011. I was not alone. Should we all be blamed for this comic book, or are individual – sometimes egregious – mistakes inevitable in any decentralized movement? The answer is obviously the latter, but paper0airplane consistently writes as if it’s the former. That is what I wish to reject here.

In July paper0airplane posted this:

… My opinion also hasn’t changed. I do not circumcise, I don’t think circumcision is necessary. I also do not approve of the tactics used by intactivists, and were they to change those tactics, I would support them wholeheartedly. Much like the rabid pro-life crowd, intactivists generally resort to appeals to emotion, twisting of facts, offering up studies (that they haven’t even read) claiming they say one thing, when in fact they do not (relying, instead, on the fact that many will not actually read the study, simply providing one counts as support of their argument), sometimes outright lying. That includes setting up studies in such a way as to pre-determine the outcome. These are things that I disagree with, and will continue to disagree with. Since most intactivists, instead of actually reading my site objectively, believe that I am actually pro-circumcision and that my site advocates for circumcision, I’m attacked quite often. …

People who can be classified as intactivists cannot be neatly stuffed into a box labeled “Endorses These Tactics”. I am an intactivist, although what I wrote in 2006 still holds. The term intactivist is cute and descriptive, but because it’s cute, I do not like it. It does little more than give reporters an excuse to fill in stories with details at which typical readers will roll their eyes. That’s not helpful. The term has gained wider acceptance, but it’s still treated in much the same way in many places. And paper0airplane uses it as a convenient stereotype.

So, from that July post, in order:

  • Generally suggests stereotyping. That should be a signal that the critique is shaky. Not necessarily flawed, but evidence is required and should be drawn from and applied to the person(s) using the criticized tactic.
  • Appeals to emotion as a tactic is the least effective approach. Those who use it exclusively need to expand their repertoire. But its use, even exclusively by some, says nothing about intactivism as a whole.
  • I do not twist facts. Grinding this axe with a blunt dismissal of all rather than against the few who deserve it impedes my efforts. If paper0airplane insists on grouping everyone together, prove that I’m the hack caricature with examples. Otherwise, I’m left to assume that paper0airplane is a lazy thinker and writer. (The body of work that assumes any intactivist is all intactivists is evidence of this.)
  • I do not defend studies I know to be flawed. I’ve long held that the “estimated number of deaths” study is flawed¹. Conversely, I’ve also demonstrated that the “circumcision makes no difference to sexual sensitivity/satisfaction” studies are flawed. Should this count as an argument against all proponents of child circumcision or just those who fallaciously treat this issue as settled science based on these flawed studies? There are proponents who are very much lying propagandists. There are also proponents who are sincere and honest but insufficiently informed. I prefer to deal with who is in front of me rather than the worst of everyone I’ve ever encountered.
  • I’ve read enough to know that paper0airplane is opposed to routine infant circumcision. I also know that paper0airplane defends ritual circumcision. I disagree with this because the arguments against non-therapeutic circumcision, both ethical and scientific, apply to males born to religious parents. I do not wish to imply that change will be easy, only that change is necessary, as various reforms throughout history have been necessary. We are not at the pinnacle of balancing religion and rights. (More on this in another post.)

Going back to paper0airplane’s first post, this:

There are many many very reasonable people that label themselves intactivist. They’re nice people are are just as interested in the truth as you or I. Unfortunately, the loudmouths at the front are doing all the damage. They color public perception of what intactivism is. I think we can greatly reduce the number of circumcisions without being total A-Holes or alienating all our circumcising friends and family. Without being bullies. Because that’s what intactivists are represented by. Bullys. To the reasonable people that label themselves intactivist, I beg you! Find another way to label yourself! People will be more likely to listen if you don’t have to carry the intactivist baggage around.

This paragraph demonstrates my point. There are intactivists who use problematic and/or unethical tactics. Again, this is inevitable in any decentralized movement, just as one can easily find examples of the same among circumcision proponents. It’s possible to challenge, refute, and/or discredit “the loudmouths” without dismissing everyone by stereotyping on the behavior of a subset. I wish paper0airplane would make that effort instead of indiscriminately smearing good and bad activists as the same.

¹ While this study is not something I trust or cite, the number of deaths from non-therapeutic child circumcision is objectively non-zero. That is a fact. How many deaths from non-therapeutic genital cutting on a non-consenting minor do we need before we can demonstrate the ethical case against prophylactic child circumcision? The mere risk of one is enough, but one death is certainly too many. I suspect paper0airplane agrees, although that makes the accompanying defense of religious circumcision of children indefensible. Ritual circumcision of minors is no less an affront to human rights than cultural circumcision.

America Participates in Forced Circumcision

An article from the American Association of Clinical Urologists in Urology Times offers a frustrating introduction to the current circumcision controversy:

Legislators, researchers, imams, and rabbis argue whether male circumcision decreases certain diseases, whether a child can or should give consent, or whether religious freedom should trump all of this. Public policy discussions that are taking place throughout the Western world—specifically, the U.S.—have implications for urologists.

Americans are mostly insulated from horror stories around the globe, such as in Indonesia, where religious extremists who practice forced circumcision on men, children, and even pregnant women in attempts at forced religious conversion; or in South Africa, where certain cultures allow for the forced circumcision of boys deemed to be “past the age of initiation.” Female circumcision is now called “female genital mutilation” and is illegal in most of the Western world.

All non-therapeutic genital cutting on a non-consenting individual is “forced circumcision”. That includes every circumcision of a healthy American boy. The issue at hand is force. (e.g. force is force) All the comforting justifications offered in the West for a nonsensical exemption to basic human rights and medical ethics for male child circumcision do not change the violation of forcing this non-therapeutic surgery on those who cannot consent. The foreskin is a normal body part, not an irrelevant “extra bit of skin” that may be removed from a minor (male only, of course) because it might cause some problem some day, no matter how likely, preventable, or treatable. (Worse: the other more bizarre reasons we accept from parents for this surgery.)

The article’s conclusion is frustrating, as well. I understand not wanting to take a stance on which side is right. However, that’s the critical question, especially if more non-therapeutic child circumcisions will be pushed to doctors as law and culture changes. The focus should not be on the possibility that these changes could increase urologists’ liability premiums. It would do that because more complications would occur in doctor-performed circumcisions. That’s simple numbers. But those complications don’t have to happen. When a requested circumcision is not medically indicated and the patient can’t consent, the critical question of which side is right must be addressed. There is an ethical answer. As the article points out, “[c]omplications stemming from circumcision may have lifelong implications for the individual at the other end of the knife, no matter their age.” What does the child want in the absence of need? When he can’t consent, no one should participate in circumcising him.

Argument from Ignorance and/or Hatred

In a letter to the editor of the Standard-Examiner in Ogden, Utah, a reader attempts to make a point about Sharia Law. I’m not going to wade into the political aspect of this. But the reader makes an informative error. He writes:

When girls reach age 12 to 14 they are held down, naked, by usually their mothers or as many men that it takes to hold them down, as they cut their clitoris off. They say this helps to control them. Then the girl’s legs are wrapped together for 40 days so the wound can heal.

I could quibble, but this more or less sets up the issue. FGM is evil. But the reader loses his narrative in the next paragraph. He gets basic facts wrong that contribute to a mistaken distinction that doesn’t exist within the principles he aims to establish. (emphasis added)

They tell the little girls that this will make it more pleasurable for their husband when they get married while being denied any sexual pleasure themselves. This mutilation of the genitals makes it painful to have sex and extremely painful to bare children. Everyone knows that they have to be covered up head to toe and escorted by a male wherever they go, but I wonder if the American people know that it is OK to beat their wives by hand or by stick as needed. Or that they are forced to perform oral sex with their husbands, who have not been circumcised so the penis stinks due to the buildup of urine. If the woman complains the husband cuts off her nose.

The principles he implies are the basics. Females possess the rights to their bodily integrity and autonomy. They should be free from unnecessary harm without their consent. Cutting their healthy genitals violates them. It is bodily harm. They are mutilated.

The problem here is that the same rights exist for males. Non-therapeutic genital cutting on a non-consenting individual, not just the genital mutilation of girls, violates the principles involved, regardless of the extent. The husbands of these women are almost certainly circumcised. Their genitals are not cut to the extent that their wives’ genitals are cut. They are cut, though. I’m not aware of any cultures that cut females that don’t also cut males. (Please correct me if I’m wrong.) In Egypt male circumcision is practiced as a part of Islam.

The reader’s comment that the husbands are not circumcised would be bad enough on its own because it’s inaccurate. The additional “so the penis stinks due to the buildup of urine” is projection. It strives to distinguish forms of non-therapeutic genital cutting with an ignorant dismissal of basic hygiene. It seeks to reiterate a validity and desirability for male circumcision, without regard for the male’s preference. The issue the reader raises but fails to crystallize is the use of force.

Forcing genital mutilation on girls is wrong. Forcing wives to have any form of sex is wrong. That extends to males, as well, if the desire to protect females is to carry complete moral weight. Any system – whether political, cultural, or religious – that permits or encourages the use of force by one citizen against another citizen for any reason other than self-defense is illegitimate. The reader’s core point is correct. He should apply it as a universal to all people, not selectively as an instrument endorsing his own cultural relativism. (He is not unique in this, of course. Commonality doesn’t justify it.)

Zimbabwe Commits to Unethical Infant Circumcision

In July I wrote about Zimbabwe’s plan to focus its “voluntary, adult” circumcision efforts on infants. This wasn’t a surprise because the truth always remains. When public health officials say voluntary or adult, they never mean voluntary or adult. And, as I wrote at the time in response to the claim that their “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.

There’s further evidence on both the low number of volunteers and the predictable efforts to “volunteer” infants. On the former (emphasis added):

Government intends to circumcise one million men between 2013 and 2015. The turnout has been very low in the previous years with only 85 000 circumcised since the inception of the programme. Chances of a man acquiring HIV from an infected partner if circumcised are less than 60 percent.

Instead of the 500,000 men who need to be circumcised, as reported in July, Zimbabwe is 915,000 men short of its goal. Or they intend to circumcise one million newborn “men”. Either way, it would be more prudent to ask why men (i.e. adult males) aren’t volunteering as expected than to violate healthy infants by forcing circumcision on them.

Also, notice the last sentence. In the best interpretation, it’s poor English. In the worst, it’s dangerously wrong. Regardless of the interpretation, men aren’t volunteering. Why? Instead of finding out, or publicly explaining why, public health officials push to impose non-therapeutic circumcision on children.

CHILDREN will soon be circumcised at birth under a national programme to achieve maximum results of the medical procedure, senior health officials have said. Aids and TB Unit director in the Ministry of Health and Child Welfare Dr Owen Mugurungi said Government was planning to start neonatal circumcision as soon as possible.

“We hope between 2013 and 2014 we would start neonatal circumcisions at a national scale,” he said. “It is actually more sustainable than adult circumcisions.”

Of course it’s more sustainable. Infants can’t refuse or fight back when they’re being violated. When public health officials say voluntary or adult, they never mean voluntary or adult. It’s easier.

[Dr Mugurungi] said for every 200 000 babies circumcised, about 1 500 new infections are averted.

Have they discussed the declining return, if their projections prove correct? (There is evidence to the contrary, as circumcised men in Zimbabwe may have a higher rate of HIV infection than intact men.) For every 1,500 fewer infections in their projections, the population-wide transmission rate decreases. Thus, the number of circumcisions needed to prevent each new infection increases. At what point in their flawed lack of ethics does the ethical question finally appear? When does the cost to individuals become too much to impose on them without their consent, allowing Zimbabwe to return to voluntary circumcision?

The answer, of course, is they haven’t and aren’t interested. The willingness to force circumcision on healthy infants is self-fulfilling. Ingrain it in the culture, and suddenly the rational respect for the current health and rights of infant males somehow appears absurd. The United States is evidence of this.

Walter Russell Mead’s Warped View of Circumcision

Commenting on the expected and predictably flawed bill to permit non-therapeutic ritual circumcision of male minors in Germany, Walter Russell Mead describes the situation (emphasis added):

We’ve been on the lookout for something like this happening, since both Germany’s leaders and the parliament have previously voiced opposition to the earlier barbaric court ruling which had the effect of criminalizing a key ritual practice of Judaism and Islam. We leave the last word to Dieter Graumann, the president of the Central Council of Jews in Germany: “It is a clear political signal that Jews and Muslims are still welcome in Germany. We are happy that Jewish commandments and Jewish life are not being pushed into illegality.”

Somehow, the correct version of the world according to Walter Russell Mead is this: Surgically altering the healthy genitals of their children – sons only, of course, of course – is a “basic human freedom” for parents. The effort to protect the rights of those boys to their physical integrity and self-determination – rights their sisters unquestionably possess for their legally-protected prepuces – should be described as “barbaric”.

Walter Russell Mead needs to have a think on a few critical human rights topics and what freedom means.

Too Young To Remember

In an article about an Australian couple arrested for “allegedly organising the illegal circumcision of their one-year-old baby girl in Bali,” this anecdote from Edith Cowan University’s head of medical sciences Moira Sim about patients she has treated is insightful:

She said the women she treated did not see the mutilation of their genitals as an issue because they did not remember having the procedure.

That’s a defense for male circumcision so commonly offered in the United States. Yet, in this anecdote, it’s clear how irrelevant their opinion is as a defense. The violation occurred, and we can easily assume that these women would not feel that way if they hadn’t had their genitals mutilated as children. Ex post facto defenses of non-therapeutic genital cutting offered by the victim, or an assumption that the recipient will develop a specific opinion, can never justify imposing the procedure on a minor.

Adult Circumcision Healing Time

I want to revisit the AAP’s technical report accompanying its revised circumcision policy statement. In the Ethical Issues section, on page 760, this:

… Parents who are considering deferring circumcision should be explicitly informed that circumcision performed later in life has increased risks and costs. Furthermore, deferral of the procedure also requires longer healing time than if performed during the newborn period and requires sexual abstinence during healing. …

This is so often repeated that it’s simply become the accepted truth about voluntary adult circumcision. It should be questioned¹. Does circumcision require a longer healing time in adults than if it’s forced on infants? Evidence suggests this is overblown, at best.

From a 1999 paper by Daniel T. Halperin, PhD and Dr. Robert C. Bailey, “Male circumcision and HIV infection: 10 years and counting”:

By avoiding this issue althogether (sic, medical professionals and public-health authorities may inadvertently be harming the very individuals whom they are trying to help. As increasing numbers of men and boys turn to circumcision as perceived protection from AIDS, many will be exposed to harm by untrained practitioners who use unsafe methods. Yet, contrary to some popular misconceptions, safe and inexpensive male circumcision is routinely performed in developing countries in clinical settings. The procedure is normally performed on an outpatient basis with local anaesthesia, and most men return to light work activities the next day.

From the Brian Morris et al. paper I didn’t like, in the “Absence from work or school” section on Page 10 (pdf):

Unlike the convenience of circumcising a baby that (sic) sleeps most of the time and is a dependent in society, circumcision during productive work or school years will typically require taking time off, although the amount of time off required is typically small. In one study of men circumcised with the Shang Ring device, men took an average of 1.1 days off work; 80% were back at work by day 2, with only 20% requiring more than 2 days, and little disruption to activities or discomfort was reported for the week the ring was in place [121]. Eighteen percent of men in the study reported disruption to their work while the device was present, and 30% had not resumed routine leisure activities by 7 days. In the large Kenyan RCT, only 4% of men required 3 days or more before they could return to normal activities [57]. In a study of childhood MC, median times of 5 days to return to normal activity and 7 to return to school have been reported [182]. This may have been because children are usually more active than adults, thus increasing the chances of injury and so prolonging the healing period.

It’s also interesting that the AAP’s claim is unsourced in the technical report. On what evidence do they claim that adult (i.e. deferred) circumcision requires a longer healing time than infant circumcision? It doesn’t seem to be an accurate statement.

¹ The claim that it costs more should also be questioned. If nothing else, the time value of money must be factored in. The several hundred dollars saved now (that will accumulate) must be compared to the present value of the future cost. The unlikelihood of needing circumcision must also be included. If adult circumcision costs 10x more but is only performed in 8% of males, the net effect is that it’s cheaper. No results from such an analysis would change the sufficient ethical argument against non-therapeutic infant circumcision.

Joya Banerjee Misunderstands Opposition to Circumcision

Amazon.com reviews of Tinderbox: How the West Sparked the AIDS Epidemic and How the World Can Finally Overcome It, by Craig Timberg and Daniel Halperin, PhD, are the subject of a flawed essay by Joya Banerjee, titled “How an anti-circumcision fringe group waged an ideological attack against AIDS scholarship”. I doubt Ms. Banerjee wrote the headline, although it doesn’t much matter because she ues the same silly accusation in her article. After an introduction describing Tinderbox, she writes:

One of the preventive measures discussed in the book, male circumcision, has become an unexpected source of controversy. Anti-circumcision activists have hijacked Amazon.com’s “peer review” comments section, which allows readers to vote on which book reviews are helpful. This system has morphed into a vicious game of character assassination by conspiracy theorists who reject decades’ worth of scientific evidence, showing how easy it is for a concerted crusade to squelch good science.

My first response is to ask if Ms. Banerjee has ever been on the Internet before researching this piece. I mean that only partially in jest. This is how every comments section works, with few exceptions. The primary focus for blame here is probably in the design of Amazon’s peer review system, or at least in anyone placing any significant value on its worth in 2012 as the criterion for buying a book with a controversial topic.

She seems to understand this later in her article, which makes her unfocused back-and-forth attack on opposition to circumcision feel more like an agenda than a critique.

Where does all of this leave us? Two diligent and dedicated authors spent years researching the origin, spread, and potential prevention of AIDS in Africa. Two minutes and a few clicks were all that was required for a passionate extremist group to obfuscate and delegitimize their findings in front of one of their most important and public audiences. Having failed to prove their beliefs through scientific evidence, the intactivists decided to have circumcision, and this entire book, judged in the court of public opinion. Unfortunately for the public, this jury was rigged.

If all it takes is “two minutes and a few clicks”, that’s a flawed system, however inappropriate the action motivation’s may be.

She’s ignorantly inflammatory in her article because she does not appear to understand opposition to circumcision. It is not “extremist” to argue that potential benefits learned through adult volunteers do not negate concern for the ethics of applying that science to healthy, non-consenting individuals (i.e. minors). For some reason she never addresses this aspect of the debate. If she were interested enough to become informed, she could’ve challenged this behavior without misstating the facts about opposition to circumcision.

That said, there is a legitimate problem with this strategy. It’s inappropriate. We can do better. The full set of facts are on our side, and we should always act like it.

But, as problematic as this is, it isn’t as widespread as she declares with her bizarre, broad attack. Most who are against non-therapeutic child circumcision do not engage in this behavior or condone it from those who do. The title states that an “anti-circumcision fringe group” participated in this without naming any group. The group is somehow all “intactivists”. That’s irresponsible, bordering on the same type of unfair maligning she criticizes. She writes later in her article:

Although male circumcision occupies less than 10 percent of the book’s pages, it was enough to spark outrage among a tiny but passionately vocal fringe group, many of whom call themselves “intactivists.” They argue that the procedure is a grave human rights violation and are lobbying to ban the procedure in many countries.

Let me be clear: I do not support what happened on the Amazon page for Tinderbox. I didn’t participate. I don’t recall seeing anything resembling an attempt at an organized tactic. I recognize a couple names among those attached to 1-star reviews, and at least one name attached to a 5-star review, but that’s it. The correct way to state the facts here is that a small group of individuals have done this. It is incorrect, and defies common sense, to suggest that those who engaged in this constitute the entire group of people who oppose circumcision (of healthy children), as Ms. Banerjee’s sloppy accusation does.

Look at the numbers, which are no doubt now influenced further (in both directions) by Ms. Banerjee’s article. Consider this sample of the helpful ratings for one star reviews:

  • 91 of 232
  • 83 of 215
  • 81 of 212
  • 124 of 342
  • 76 of 277
  • 52 of 221
  • 33 of 197

Now consider this sample of the helpful ratings for five star reviews:

  • 114 of 129
  • 104 of 133
  • 111 of 151
  • 131 of 186
  • 73 of 135
  • 76 of 165
  • 101 of 153

They look similar¹, right? That’s not to minimize or dismiss (or legitimize) the gaming of the system. And voting down many of the 1-star reviews is probably appropriate. But it can work both ways. Amazon’s review system allows those who support the book to vote down a 1-star review on the basis of it being a 1-star review, without regard for its content. One seems more likely than the other, of course. Reasonable analysis and criticism must still start with the system, not its users. Where the users are wrong, the problem should be identified without hyperbole.

That last rating is also interesting because it’s the rating on the review left by Ms. Banerjee in June.

…
It’s really too bad that the reviews here have been taken over by an ideological group that shuns science and hard fact. This group has mobilized hundreds of people to write bad reviews and then rate their friend’s bad reviews as helpful.

The reviews (by people who obviously haven’t read the book) are really about their opposition to male circumcision, not about the content of the book at all. Which is pretty nonsensical, seeing as how the majority of legitimate public health institutions (including the World Health Organization and UNAIDS) have accepted that voluntary medical male circumcision prevents HIV by over 60%, and long term data shows it protects by 76%! That’s better than even the flu vaccine- so it’s surprising that these ideological quacks would rather let Africans die from a preventable disease than admit they don’t understand science.

Anyway, READ THE BOOK! There were (sic) always be quacks and naysayers out there (akin to those who still oppose the measles vaccine because they think it causes autism). The racist attacks on the author in these reviews do nothing to bolster their credibility!

I haven’t rated Tinderbox because I haven’t read it. I’ve skimmed it to get a feel for its treatment of circumcision. I have an unfavorable opinion about it based on that, but skimming isn’t enough to rate it.

She has read it. That doesn’t excuse that she engaged in nonsense in her review, as she also does now in her current article. It’s odd to suggest that “hundreds” of people are rating the book down when the number that could be attributed to opponents is obviously under 100. Exactly one 5-star review has more than 100 “unhelpful” ratings, and that one belongs to Professor Brian Morris, who engaged in the same sort of unhelpful ad hominem evidenced in Ms. Banerjee’s article. The math doesn’t add up to this being widespread among all intactivists, unless she honestly believes opposition to circumcision consists of fewer than one hundred people. The population who would do this probably is that small, but she painted opposition with the broadest brush possible, as she inexcusably does in her current Slate article.

It’s also silly to assume one has to shun science and hard fact to oppose non-therapeutic child circumcision. I don’t shun either science or hard fact. My position is that there are probably flaws in the methodology, but I don’t worry about them in my position because the correct position starts with present health and the ethics involved in consent. I assume every potential benefit is real, including reduced female-to-male HIV transmission in high-risk populations with low circumcision rates. But I am not a utilitarian who ignores individual rights, including the rights to bodily integrity/autonomy and self-determination. The right to be free from unwanted – and critically in this case, unnecessary – harm supersedes every potential benefit until the individual can weigh in with his personal preference on which he values more, the benefits or his foreskin. Where public policy or Tinderbox limits itself to voluntary, adult circumcision, I have no issues. The former rarely does, to its great discredit. The latter appears to follow the same pattern. For example, in Note 18 on page 352, Timberg and Halperin write:

… There has also been some confusion caused by mistaken comparisons with “female genital mutilation,” which is a very different type of procedure and can have serious negative medical consequences. …

This ignores the science and hard facts of male circumcision. Non-therapeutic genital cutting on a non-consenting individual is unethical whether it’s forced on a girl or a boy. Gender doesn’t matter here because all people, including male minors, possess the same basic human rights equally. That’s the ethical principle being ignored. That must stop.

Timberg and Halperin mistakenly imply that male circumcision is innocuous. All non-therapeutic genital surgeries have negative medical consequences for the individual that he or she may not want. (e.g. loss of foreskin, severed nerve endings, damage to/loss of frenulum) And some number of males have serious negative medical consequences, including partial or full amputation, as well as death. Perhaps they discuss this in the book. From my review of the indexed circumcision segments, I’m not convinced they take this into account. (During my prior reviews of Halperin’s work, most notably in this two part series on an awful paper to which he attached his name, I’ve seen no evidence that he assigns any weight to these facts.)

Continuing with Note 18 on page 352:

… Further confusing the issue of male circumcision are the protests of a small but vocal community of activists who often call themselves “intactivists” because of their belief that the male genitalia should remain entirely intact. This constituency has launched aggressive campaigns, including one that resulted in getting an initiative on the ballot in San Francisco to ban the performance of any circumcisions on minors in the city. California officials later ruled that cities had no authority over medical proceduress (sic). …

Neither I nor anyone I know believes that the male genitalia should remain entirely intact. That’s too simplistic and unconcerned with hard fact. I believe my gentials should have remained intact because I was healthy and my foreskin belonged to me. I believe every other male child’s healthy penis and foreskin should also remain intact until he may choose for himself, even if he ultimately chooses circumcision. The issue is bodily integrity and autonomy, not opposition to circumcision full stop. The San Francisco ballot initiative would’ve prohibited the performance of any circumcision on healthy, non-consenting minors in the city, not “any circumcisions on minors”. Omitting key words incorrectly frames the discussion and dismisses valid ethical (and scientific) concerns.

It’s also indefensible to engage in ad hominem (i.e. “ideological quacks” who “would rather let Africans die from a preventable disease than admit they don’t understand science”), as Ms. Banerjee does, without understanding the necessary qualifiers. Personally, I think everyone should use condoms because they prevent the transmission of HIV. If the adult male is so inclined, he may also volunteer to undergo circumcision. I don’t want anyone to die from HIV, but I don’t want anyone’s rights violated in a condescending good faith effort to force on him what someone else thinks he should want. If Ms. Banerjee wants to limit the discussion to voluntary adult male circumcision, that’s fine. She fails to explicitly limit the application of the science to the bodies of adult volunteers. From what I’ve read of Tinderbox, Timberg and Halperin fail to do so, as well. They should all recognize that they’re ignoring the ethical distinction between voluntary adult circumcision and non-therapeutic child circumcision.

Since this is indirectly a critique of Tinderbox, consider another footnote, note 18 on page 385.

… Meanwhile, some critics have suggested that male circumcision is similar to “female genital mutilation’ because it allegedly also reduces sexual functioning and pleasure. Unlike male circumcision, however, these practices-particularly the most extreme forms such as infibulation-can pose significant health risks for women. …

They’re repeating their error, treating male circumcision as if it carries an irrelevant risk of serious complications. But circumcision also changes the form of the penis, which changes the function. The mechanics are different. Maybe that’s better, maybe it isn’t. It’s unique to the individual, contrary to the majoritarian argument they’re about to make.

… In the rigorous studies that have investigated male circumcision’s effect on sexual pleasure, (115-28) nearly all men and their female partners report that after men become circumcised sexual pleasure is the same or enhanced, for both partners. During the 2005-2006 Swaziland pilot circumcision program mentioned in chapter 26, many women began saying that after getting circumcised their partners could have sex longer before reaching orgasm. Some of the clinic nurses reported that women would use metaphors such as, “He used to go from here [Mbabane] to Manzini [a city half an hour’s drive away], now he can go all the way to the border.”

Source 123, “Sensation and sexual arousal in circumcised and uncircumcised men”, states:

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

They (unintentionally?) demonstrate as much in their footnote, if only they were interested in the issue. The conclusion is that (voluntary, adult) circumcision doesn’t damage sexual pleasure because it is the same or enhanced for nearly all men and their female partners. So? This dismisses the diminished sexual pleasure for those outside the “nearly all” group. Those individuals matter, and no one should expect them to be mollified because another male is happy with his circumcision.

This approach is also based on “heads I win, tails you lose”. Circumcision is the same or better, and men can have sex longer. What logical reason can we think of that might explain lasting longer? Maybe this is good, but sexual pleasure involves a degree of individual preference. Not all males (or females) will want or need sex to last longer to enjoy it to the maximum extent for themselves.

Ms. Banerjee endorses this flawed argument in her article:

Although tens of thousands of men who were circumcised as adults and were studied in several large-scale clinical trials (and in a Slate series) reported no loss—and in many cases an increase—in sexual pleasure and function, the intactivists claim that male circumcision is equivalent to female genital mutilation, a practice whose purpose is to constrain a woman’s sexuality and impair sexual function. In one of its worst forms, a pre-teen girl’s clitoris and entire external genitalia are cut, scraped, or burned out, which can cause severe pain, infection, life-long incontinence, obstructed labor and delivery, and even death. To be truly equivalent, one would have to cut off a man’s entire penis in order to produce the same effect, rather than a small flap of skin.

First, that Slate series was ridiculous. I refuted it here and here.

Second, the possibility that one person might not like being circumcised as a healthy child exposes the ethical problem that she fails to address. Male circumcision involves control, and can be intended to directly impair sexual function. (It definitively alters sexual function.) Most forms of FGM result in far more harm than a typical circumcision, but civil law recognizes no level of acceptable harm from non-therapeutic female genital cutting, including forms less harmful than male circumcision. One does not have to remove the entire penis to produce the same effect that is legally prohibited for female minors. Male circumcision is not acceptable because FGM is usually worse. Even if the foreskin should be viewed as a “small flap of skin”, it is the male’s small flap of skin. Self-ownership rights do not disappear because possible benefits exist from a non-therapeutic surgical intervention.

Where she challenges the appropriateness of the comments attached to Tinderbox’s Amazon page, Ms. Banerjee is correct. Where she expands that into an indictment of any position against circumcision, she stumbles. There is more to the application of science to healthy individuals, whether adults or minors, than just a limited subset of science and hard fact. No male’s healthy body is a platform for expressing another’s personal preferences and fears, whether those of parents or technocratic public health officials.

¹ Sampled on September 26, 2012, except for the rating on Ms. Banerjee’s review. I updated that today because I kept the link.

Odd AAP Advice on Penile Development and Care

Adding to my post on ethics, I want to continue with the recommendations from the technical report on non-therapeutic male child circumcision issued by the AAP Task Force:

  • Parents are entitled to factually correct, nonbiased information about circumcision that should be provided before conception and early in pregnancy, when parents are most likely to be weighing the option of circumcision of a male child.
  • …
  • Parents of newborn boys should be instructed in the care of the penis, regardless of whether the newborn has been circumcised or not.

Notice the past tense in the second point. Parents should be instructed in the care of the penis before they decide to circumcise. My anecdotal experience suggests some number of parents circumcise in part because they don’t understand how to care for a normal penis. However small this number probably is, if parents shouldn’t be ignorant, the AAP should recommend education before the decision, not after. Some parents may leave their son his choice if they’re educated in how simple and non-scary it is to care for a normal, intact penis.

It should also provide factually correct information. From “Care of the Circumcised Versus Uncircumcised (sic) Penis” (Pg. 763):

Parents of newborn boys should be instructed in the care of the penis at the time of discharge from the newborn hospital stay, regardless of whether they choose circumcision or not. The circumcised penis should be washed gently without any aggressive pulling back of the skin.24 The noncircumcised (sic) penis should be washed with soap and water. Most adhesions present at birth spontaneously resolve by age 2 to 4 months, and the foreskin should not be forcibly retracted. When these adhesions disappear physiologically (which occurs at an individual pace), the foreskin can be easily retracted, and the whole penis washed with soap and water.25

No, they should be instructed about care before discharge. Even if we ignore the obvious point that a circumcision would likely already have been performed by that point, are parents not responsible for any care for their son while in the hospital? Unless a hospital is doing it wrong, they don’t just keep the child until parents are discharged and then say “here you go”.

More importantly, that paragraph contains factually incorrect information. The Task Force states that most adhesions present at birth spontaneously resolve by age 2 to 4 months, which is ridiculous. It’s also unsupported by their source. From footnote 25, Caring for the uncircumcised penis: what parents (and you) need to know by Cynthia J. Camille, FNP, CPNP, Ramsay L. Kuo, MD, and John S. Wiener, MD:

Penile growth, along with intermittent erection, aids in the process that eventually completely separates the prepuce from the glans to form the preputial space (Figure 1). This process begins late in gestation and proceeds at varying rates during childhood; therefore, the age when the prepuce is completely retractable also varies.2,3 Complete retraction past the corona is possible in at least 90% of boys by 5 years of age. In contrast, some boys will not have complete separation of the prepuce circumferentially beyond the corona until accelerated penile growth occurs at puberty.

Even if “90% by age 5” is correct (some evidence at this link suggests it might be an overestimate), that differs significantly from “by age 2 to 4 months”. This is a recipe for incorrect diagnoses of phimosis and forced retraction, leading to unnecessary circumcision for non-existent medical necessity.

If we look at source 24, the AAP’s Caring For Your Son’s Penis, it states:

The Uncircumcised Penis

In the first few months, you should simply clean and bathe your baby’s uncircumcised penis with soap and water, like the rest of the diaper area. Initially, the foreskin is connected by tissue to the glans, or head, of the penis, so you shouldn’t try to retract it. No cleansing of the penis with cotton swabs or antiseptics is necessary, but you should watch your baby urinate occasionally to make sure that the hole in the foreskin is large enough to permit a normal stream. If the stream consistently is no more than a trickle, or if your baby seems to have some discomfort while urinating, consult your pediatrician.

The doctor will tell you when the foreskin has separated and can be retracted safely. This will not be for several months or years, and should never be forced; if you were to force the foreskin to retract before it is ready, you could cause painful bleeding and tears in the skin. After this separation occurs, retract the foreskin occasionally to gently cleanse the end of the penis underneath.

The Task Force provided no obvious evidence to support its “by age 2 to 4 months” claim. Either they didn’t correctly source the claim they made, or they’ve allowed at least one mistake to enter the document. Neither generates much confidence in the overall process.