If anything, it's "ageist", but it's not a bad thing. I'm betting that they would feel the same way about vasectomy's for men under 30. Any responsible physician would be reluctant to make permanent changes to a person's body when they were that young.

I wonder if you would trot out that same argument for barring young transsexuals from surgery, because trans-phobic conservatives certainly do that. After all how can society 'allow' people to make poor choices when they're young, especially "permanent changes to a person's body"? Their wise elders know so much more. In fact if those kids just read the Bible more...

Left meets Right and we are all less free.

I'm circumcised, my son is circumcised, and I don't feel the slightest bit guilty/oppressed about it. I'd do it again in a second. I also cut his hair, trim his nails and other various things which make it easier to keep him clean and germ free.

And I often make decisions on his behalf without consulting his opinion first. He's 2-years-old and I'm his father, so I'd say that's pretty normal as well.

1. The fact you do not feel bad about something is never a justification, moral or legal, to infringe the rights of another person.

2. You begin by talking about circumcision and then switch to hair, nails, etc. which only shows your unwillingness to confront the fundamnetal differences between irrevocable removal of healthy, functional human tissue (i.e. surgical amputation) and routine removal of dead cells (i.e. grooming).

3. You refer to making your son "germ free," indicating an astounding ignorance of biology.

May you do feel a bit "guilty/oppressed" deep down or you wouldn't need to justify the supposedly self-evident justifications for your actions to a group of strangers.

"@Victoria

Get a penis since birth and then get back to me...

-- Jonathan"

Get a clue, be able to formulate a substantive response to my points instead of a childish non sequitur and then get back to me...

[My having a penis or not has nothing to do with the validity of the points I raised.]

"I entered the Covenant of Abraham when I was 8 days old. Thank G_d."

Slavishly following an archaic religious blood ritual (not mention afraid to write GOD), yeah, you're real "LeftWing," a progressive model for us all.

"All you anti-circ lunatics, read up on the history of Chanukah."

You mean how the violent religious fanatic Maccabees murdered their fellow Jews (who had picked up crazy heathen notions like 'reason' from Hellenistic influences) for not obeying their fundamentalist brand of religious dogma? In fact I think they killed uncircumsized Jews as part of their 'revolt.'

"The people who are vociferously anti-circumcision are an annoying pack of twisted, obsessed freaks. Don;t you people have better things to create polemical mythologies about?" --Mr. Pillhouse

Yeah, what's wrong with us loony, bleeding-heart liberals...concern for children's rights, including self-determination about their bodily integrity? WTF? Gosh, I guess some of us will just get twisted and obsessed about anything...

"Funny how tolerant the Left can be."

Yeah LeftWingPharisee, how dare I not tolerate the amputation of a healthy, functional part of a defenceless child's genitals? You sound like one of those right-wing homophobes, who lambast liberals for not 'tolerating' their hate.

"And if you outlaw it, we'll go underground, just like in the good ole USSR."

Wow, you are an absolute religious fundmentalist. Do you want to bring back animal sacrifice, slavery, stoning, polygamy and all of the other Biblical practices in the vein of circumcision?

"Get over it. Find something else to obsess over."

The day I "get over" my concern for children's rights would be the day I become as morally blind as you. If god does exist, I'm willing to stake my soul that mutilating a child will be considered the sin, not my 'obsession' about ending it.

"bodies will be modified only for self-expression, not because people are dissatisfied with their bodies." -jebldmm

Firstly how is living as the opposite sex not a form of "self-expression", perhaps the apotheosis thereof?

"That said... I believe that in a few hundred years, when we understand the human mind completely, they will look back at gender reassignment surgery as a barbaric practice."

"understand the human mind completely"??? Wow, talk about hubris...anyway, transsexuals choose to have the surgery performed on them in free societies. Anyone who can be convinced by a doctor to have invasive cosmetic surgery on their genitals was pretty much doomed from the start in my estimation. Maybe some transsexuals do make mistakes, but mature people who value freedom accept that no potentiality of conduct cannot be abused or pursued in error. C'est la vie.

"People who are unhappy with their bodies will be treated so that they can be happy with who they are instead of undergoing radical surgery to change their appearance." -jebldmm

For people who don't accept that we are just self-replicating strands of DNA (as Eric Idle sang) what is more threatening to our sense of self? Changing the finite, temporal physical body through surgery or altering our transcendent mind through psychiatric drugs with potentially permanent consequences for our (for lack of a better term) spiritual development?

Of course through out this I am writing to a woman who wrote that "anything voiced anonymously by anyone...is to be regarded automatically as a lie or without rational substance." A week later am I am still stunned by the ignorance and close-mindedness of that statement.

Still, this was a wonderful piece by Ms. Lloyd which should remind people of the value of Broadsheet.

prefers freedom of expression.

Notice that Ms. Price like most of the Salonista crowd only thinks of this as something "likely to fail" or as an "unenforceable" measure rather than a grotesque attempt to censor free expression which should fail and in fact ought never even be contemplated in a free, liberal society to begin with.