Letters to the Editor
Xlp Thlplylp
Published Letters: 124 Editor's Choice: 2
-
Against genital terrorism
[Read the article: Male circumcision no help to women?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]All persons have a right to uninterrupted sexual development. Women have a right to their own bodies if and only if men do.
The fact that involuntary circumcision is controversial, meaning that substantial numbers of equally-informed, impartial rational persons disagree whether it is an unjustified violation of moral rules means that it cannot be a strongly justified violation of moral rules. Amputating a limb to save a life is strongly justified: virtually no impartial rational person would consider amputating a limb to save a live an unjustified violation of moral rules (it violates do not cause pain, do not disable, etc).
Circumcision is not in this category--the very best argument in its favor leaves it in the position of a weakly justified violation of moral rules. Consequently, it is not morally wrong to punish involuntary circumcision.
-
Here's a mild position
[Read the article: Male circumcision no help to women?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]The controversy surrounding routine infant circumcision means that it is not a strongly justified violation of moral rules. An example of a strongly justified violation of moral rules is amputating a limb to save a life. This violates "do not disable" and "do not cause pain" but there are virtually no equally-informed, impartial rational persons who would want to publicly disallow amputations that save lives.
An example of a weakly justified violation of moral rules is civil disobedience. This is controversial: it violates the moral duty to obey the law, and it may be punished. Anyone who engages in civil disobedience understands that they can themselves arrested, and that it is not morally wrong for them to have to face consequences for an act of disobedience.
Routine infant circumcision is controversial--it is false that only a few fanatics oppose the procedure, and that the vocal minority of universal circumcision advocates effectively constitute the overwhelming majority of equally informed, impartial rational persons. Because of the controversy surrounding routine infant circumcision, it is somewhat like civil disobedience in that it is not morally impermissible to punish the violation of moral rules that it violates (do not cause pain, do not diminish pleasure, do not disable, do not limit freedom, and so on).
There is a difference about the source of the controversy: the moral controversy may concern the class of beings protected by morality. Morality itself cannot decide that: this is often an ideological matter, and has to be decided in the legal and political system. Animal rights and abortion fall into this category; routine infant circumcision might be one of these cases. If the disagreement is ideological (for males it always is appropriate unless there are medical contraindications, but for females it is never appropriate; or it must be done for religious reasons), then the matter has to be transferred to the legal and political system for resolution.
But the source of the controversy doesn't eliminate the controversy: it makes it considerably more difficult to claim that persons opposed to routine circumcision are necessarily a marginal fringe of fanatics. On the contrary, the controversy weakens the claim of circumcision proponents that the procedure is strongly justified, and that it may be performed without any moral compunction whatsoever.
-
Interesting that the discusion is framed from the perspective of women
[Read the article: Male circumcision no help to women?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Men are essentially third parties to the amputation of their foreskins, the severing of the frenar artery, the removal of 20,000 specialized stretch receptors, and half of their penile skin.
Their rights to uninterrupted sexual development isn't a consideration: the important consideration is how this affects women.
The fact that female circumcision has also been shown to reduce HIV infection among women is buried or not believed. In any case it doesn't matter, because of who counts as the worthy recipient of violence.
I stopped speaking with my brother and sister-in-law after they had their son circumcised. The procedure left him with an inconspicuous (buried) penis. The attitude is that what's done is done. But I hold them responsible.
-
One feminist nails it
[Read the article: Male circumcision no help to women?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]"It would be inconsistent to support circ in infant boys (and girls), and also a woman's right to choose."
Precisely. I've had feminists tell me that involuntary circumcision is something that men do to men, and women do to women--leave women out of it. It's better to adopt a case by case approach: hold those responsible who are, and determine who is and who isn't delighted that they were restrained in a circumstraint when they were most vulnerable.
According to my statistical studies of data from the National Health and Social Life Survey of Laumann, et al, there is a .4 standard deviation difference in the distribution of circumcised versus uncircumcised males, and this is pretty much stable across various measures.
Circumcision shifts the entire distribution of length and breadth to the left compared with intact men.
Circumcised males are more likely to avoid sex than uncircumcised males; this effect increases with age. Circumcised men are more likely to masturbate than uncircumcised men: the statistics make rubbish of an old Victorian claim.
Anyone who looks at the epidemiological data can see how slim the latest claims about the efficacy of the procedure are. The numbers are affected with what statisticians call "the law of small numbers": the fraction of people who do get infected is too small to be meaningful, and for "ethical" considerations, the studies are stopped--though they neglect to mention that the decision to terminate the study happens when the numbers gratify the confirmation bias of the experimenter.
Usually advocates of universal circumcision in Africa (I'm surprised hardly anyone raises the question of racism) pepper their claims with the standard United Nations anti-male sentiment: that predatory male sexual behavior is responsible. However, in a recent study, published in the Public Libary of Science by John Talbot, the number of commercial sex workers per capita was the statistically relevant factor: when this is included, the effect of circumcision is nullified.
-
A clarification
[Read the article: Male circumcision no help to women?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I should say that Talbot's study showed that the relevant factor in the prevalence of AIDS in Africa was the number of commercial sex workers per capita, and that circumcision status is statistically irrelevant when this factor is included. The point of the study was to identify reasons for the pandemic in Africa, compared with other countries.