You want to know why so many people dismiss the ravings of the anti circumcision fanatics? Just read their latest press release, announcing their intent to demonstrate at this weekend's conference of the American Academy of Pediatrics.
"Intactivists will be protesting what they believe to be an unethical and sexist practice—infant circumcision—at the American Academy of Pediatrics National Conference and Exhibition (AAP NCE, 2009), Washington Convention Center, Washington, DC, October 17-20. . . . Intactivist Dan Strandjord, Chicago, says, “Cutting off the end of a boy’s penis is not what a medical “hero” should do. It is a "villainous" practice, there is no medical reason for it. . . . Demonstrators will be carrying placards satirizing the conference’s cartoon characters of pediatricians as flying super-heroes. It depicts a super-hero protecting a baby boy with the comment: “Real heroes don’t cut babies.” Girls are protected from genital cutting, even a pinprick, by federal law, but boys have no protection. Circumcision is a multi-million dollar income stream for doctors, a source of revenue that is almost doubled in order to repair poorly performed circumcisions."
Well, it will be interesting to see what kind of national news coverage these antics get. The media generally ignores the couple dozen nutcases who show up for their annual penis walk on the U.S. Capitol.
It's pretty much a waste of time to rebut all the lies in this typical anti-circ press release. Circumcision is hardly "villainous" because there are so many medical reasons to do it. And the typical foreskin lover tactic of equating female genital mutilation with male circumcision is getting rather boring. As for docs making money off circs, at $50 or $100 a clip, it's not exactly a money winner.
So let the fanatics march on. It only makes their "cause" seem sillier and sillier.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Damn those radicals!
ReplyDeletehttp://www.argusleader.com/article/20090919/NEWS/909190311/1001/news
Yeah, "intactivists" are such weirdos!
ReplyDeleteIn reply to Hugh7, perhaps weirdos is a bit strong, but many of them certainly have a peculiar style of interaction. A good example of this is saying '"intactivists" are such weirdos!' while linking to an article that neither mentions nor refers in any way (as far as I can tell) to intactivists.
ReplyDeleteSorry, I should have said "raving...fanatical...nutcases".
ReplyDeleteHugh, let me put this as clearly as I can. It doesn't matter what precise language you use. The fundamental problem is still the same: you're linking to articles that neither mention nor refer in any way to intactivists. You do understand that intactivists are the subject here?
ReplyDeleteJake:
ReplyDeleteIt seems to me that we should focus on examining the members of the circumcision lobby to see why they are so interested in the penises of other people.
In response to the last Anonymous poster, what circumcision lobby? If anything, it's the anti-circ foreskin lovers that do the lobbying, demonstrating, blogging, and emailing on this subject. One reason I started this blog was because there are VERY FEW pro-circumcision "lobbyists" for this need procedure. So forgive me for laughing when you suggest that it is the pro-circumcision people who are the lobbyists!! LMAO. As for who is interested in the penises of other people, once again, it is the foreskin lovers who want to dictate to others about penises by keeping parents from doing what is medically sound.
ReplyDeleteJake:
ReplyDeleteThe members of the circumcision lobby are the ones who want to fiddle with little boys' penises. I think this is worthy of investigation.
Dont you have anything better to do, then try and get parents to make a choice that shouldn't be up to them to make. Sure parents make decisions for their children all the time, but nothing to a degree of amputating part of the body for no real medical benefits, without the childs consent.
ReplyDeleteProvoking Debate is from the Midwest, which has the highest incidence of circumcision in the United States. The incidence of circumcision in the Midwest was recently reported by the U.S. Government statistics to be 78 percent, which is far higher than the 24 percent for the state of Washington. Furthermore, Provoking Debate confessed last May to being circumcised. He very clearly originated in a circumcising culture.
ReplyDeleteCircumcision is a traumatic operation. There are many emotional aspects to such an operation that manifest themselves in adult life. One such emotional need is the need to defend the culture of origin and to justify the loss of so much sensation from the penis.
One needs only to read Dr. Goldman's paper at:
http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/goldman1/
to see what is going on here.
Goldman says:
"Long-term psychological effects associated with circumcision can be difficult to establish because the consequences of early trauma are only rarely, and under special circumstances, recognizable to the person who experienced the trauma. However, lack of awareness does not necessarily mean that there has been no impact on thinking, feeling, attitude, behaviour and functioning, which are often closely connected. In this way, an early trauma can alter a whole life, whether or not the trauma is consciously remembered.
"Defending circumcision requires minimizing or dismissing the harm and producing overstated medical claims about protection from future harm. The ongoing denial requires the acceptance of false beliefs and misunderstandings of facts. These psychological factors affect professionals, members of religious groups and parents involved in the practice. Cultural conformity is a major force perpetuating non-religious circumcision, and to a greater degree, religious circumcision. The avoidance of guilt and the reluctance to acknowledge the mistake and all that that implies help to explain the tenacity with which the practice is defended.
"Whatever affects us psychologically also affects us socially. If a trauma is acted out on the next generation, it can alter countless generations until it is recognized and stopped. The potential social consequences of circumcision are profound [21]. There has been no study of these issues perhaps because they are too disturbing to those in societies that do circumcise and of little interest in societies that do not. Close psychological and social examination could threaten personal, cultural and religious beliefs of circumcising societies. Consequently, circumcision has become a political issue in which the feelings of infants are unappreciated and secondary to the feelings of adults, who are emotionally invested in the practice.
To reply to Anon's comments dated October 19, 2009 11:48 AM:
ReplyDeleteCircumcision is a traumatic operation. There are many emotional aspects to such an operation that manifest themselves in adult life. One such emotional need is the need to defend the culture of origin and to justify the loss of so much sensation from the penis.
It's true that circumcision can be traumatic, as can any surgery. For example, if you were to surprise an adult man by circumcising him with a broken beer bottle, you can be fairly confident that he would find the experience traumatic. However, although it can be, it doesn't follow that it is always traumatic.
Although you haven't clearly spelled out the relevance of your comments, your argument appears to be that Provoking Debate was circumcised as an infant, therefore he has suffered some great "trauma", and as a result of this "trauma" he needs to "defend" and "justify" his "loss", so anything he says about circumcision can be oh-so-conveniently ignored. This is, of course - and I'm sorry to be blunt - utter nonsense.
Other than the fact that it's clearly an elaborate form of argumentum ad hominem, an obvious problem with this argument is that it's at odds with Occam's Razor, a principle of scientific thought, which states that if there are two or more explanations for something, the simplest is most likely to be the case. So if explanation (a) is that PD has come to a sincere belief as a result of evidence about circumcision, and explanation (b) is some psychobabble nonsense about subconscious trauma, then in the absence of strong evidence to the contrary we favour explanation (a).
One needs only to read Dr. Goldman's paper at [...] to see what is going on here.
I wouldn't bother - although mildly interesting, it's a very speculative piece that offers what is at best an untested hypothesis.
In reply to Jake:
ReplyDeleteThe vast amount of psychobabble (as you call it) here comes from the unusual remarks made by PD. There's a list of some of them a few posts back. I think that list is fairly convincing that PD is damaged in some way - though maybe not by circumcision - that has caused him to write such vituperative and almost violent remarks about people with foreskins and about people who are against circumcision of minors. His justification - that he's providing an alternative slant to the anti-circumcision crowd - just doesn't wash, because that kind of inflammatory talk can't be taken seriously by anybody, pro- or anti-circumcision.
Lots of things that are true are at odds with "Occam's Razor," especially in the realm of psychology, where notions of parsimony simply don't hold. Using "Occam's Razor" has no justification here, but it does look clever. I'm not buying it.
As for trauma, the point is that circumcision can be traumatic long after is has happened, and your attempt to redefine the trauma as only immediate harm is silly. The proof for that is in the loudness of the anti-circumcision crowd, who are described in turns as a minority, and then as a dangerous movement about to overturn routine circumcision, much less mandatory circumcision. Clearly these people are traumatized. PD's response - to throw gas on the fire - is just bizarre.
Jake:
ReplyDelete"It doesn't matter what precise language you use."
The words "raving" "fanatical" and "nutcases" were used by PD.
"The fundamental problem is still the same: you're linking to articles that neither mention nor refer in any way to intactivists."
No, what they do is underline the case for intactivism: the urge to circumcise is irrational - those cases are the face behind the mask.
"if you were to surprise an adult man by circumcising him with a broken beer bottle"
- that actually happened in Queensland in 1996. One John Neal did it "to make a man of" Irwin Brookdale. Another case in point.
The striking thing is that unlike those people, Intactivists do nothing but talk, and talk about nothing but leaving babies alone - i.e. about doing nothing. It's more a subject for a Seinfeld episode than a case for calling us "raving" "fanatical" and "nutcases".
If you have any reservations about the wording of the press release, Intact America's open letter to the AAP in Monday's Washington Post is a model of moderation.
To reply to Hugh7:
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't matter what precise language you use."
The words "raving" "fanatical" and "nutcases" were used by PD.
Okay. As I said, it doesn't matter.
"The fundamental problem is still the same: you're linking to articles that neither mention nor refer in any way to intactivists."
No, what they do is underline the case for intactivism: the urge to circumcise is irrational - those cases are the face behind the mask.
Are you suggesting that there would be no case for circumcision if a man did not get it into his head that he could perform a DIY circumcision of a four-year old boy using a razor blade? With respect, that's utter nonsense: intactivists oppose circumcision performed by trained, competent surgeons in sterile conditions.
The only reason, I'd suggest, why you're linking to these articles is to try to distract people from the subject under discussion.
"if you were to surprise an adult man by circumcising him with a broken beer bottle"
- that actually happened in Queensland in 1996. One John Neal did it "to make a man of" Irwin Brookdale. Another case in point.
I'd forgotten the names, but I do recall reading news reports about it.
The striking thing is that unlike those people, Intactivists
Um, could you please explain why it's meaningful to contrast intactivists with those who conduct DIY surgery? I mean, it does seem rather contrived.
Intactivists do nothing but talk, and talk about nothing but leaving babies alone - i.e. about doing nothing. It's more a subject for a Seinfeld episode than a case for calling us "raving" "fanatical" and "nutcases".
There are many ways of talking, Hugh. You can talk calmly and rationally, or you can talk hysterically. You can use rational, scientific arguments in support of your position, or you can substitute emotive, inflammatory language. You can stick to the subject, or change it whenever it seems unfavourable to your position. And so on.
If you have any reservations about the wording of the press release, Intact America's open letter to the AAP in Monday's Washington Post is a model of moderation.
Analysis here.
The anti-circs are so predictable. Every argument they attempt to make against someone who sees the value of circumcision comes back to the penile status of the pro-circ individual. It is because of our alleged psychological impairment and mutilation that we do not agree with the foreskin lovers. WTF. Can't we have a rational debate on this subject without such psychobabble bullshit?
ReplyDeletePD:
ReplyDeleteOne cannot have a rational debate about male non-therapeutic circumcision without discussing the circumcision status of the circumcision lobby because circumcision status is the driving force behind the efforts to promote the circumcision of others. You are Jake are the two obviously circumcised individuals and members of the circumcision lobby here.
Circumcision culture and status drives the efforts of men and to some extent women from circumcising cultures to find medical excuses to promote circumcision such as prevention of cancer, UTI, and other diseases. When one examines the authors of papers that claim prophylactic benefits to male circumcision one almost invariably finds a circumcised male doctor.
Your personal circumcision status undoubtedly is behind your attempts to justify male circumcision and your attempts to ridicule the "intactivists."
To respond to Anon's comments dated October 20, 2009 1:56 PM:
ReplyDeleteOne cannot have a rational debate about male non-therapeutic circumcision without discussing the circumcision status of the circumcision lobby because circumcision status is the driving force behind the efforts to promote the circumcision of others.
Tell me, do you intend to supply any evidence for this claim?
Jake wrote:
ReplyDeleteAnalysis [of Intact America's open letter to the AAP in Monday's Washington Post] here.
Deconstruction of Jake's analysis here.
I am uncircumcised and support universal circumcision.
ReplyDeleteAm I damaged Anon?
To respond to Hugh:
ReplyDeleteDeconstruction of Jake's analysis here.
Analysed here.
An accurate summary of Jake Waskett's position in this blog, and everywhere, is as follows.
ReplyDelete1) parental choice trumps all other considerations. Jake does not support mandatory circumcision, but he ethusiastically defends it. He bristles when people say he is an advocate.
2) since there's no evidence of sexual damage that Jake accepts, and only 'net' benefit - which he insists is zero or positive - matters to him, there is no argument involving sexual damage or ethics that will sway him. That fact that some boys have severe injuries, or suffer death, simply doesn't matter to Jake. Only the sum, which he has calculated to have a zero or positive benefit, matters.
3) That some men do not like the fact that sexual tissue was amputated from them without their consent does not matter. In fact, in his discussion in Wikipedia he taunts such men. I guess it's only fair, since he receives a fair amount of abuse too. Jake says he was circumcised out of choice as an adult, but for Jake there is absolutely no conflict here.
4) HIV studies in Africa are the ultimate medical reason to promote circumcion. Even though these studies were conducted where HIV affects as much as 25% of the population, he knows the studies apply everywhere, without confounders, even to places where circumcision is rare and HIV rates are lower than in circumcising countries. Next to parental choice, HIV is the main reason Jake likes circumcision. To Jake, the word "prevent" doesn't have the usual meaning. It means, instead, to diminish, or slow down. Thus, circumcision prevents HIV, cancer, etc.
Jake writes:
ReplyDeleteTell me, do you intend to supply any evidence for this claim?
Jake:
We have you. No further evidence is necessary
Someone above talked about how the members of the circumcision lobby are the ones who want to fiddle with little boys' penises and how this is worthy of investigation.
ReplyDeleteIf that's what you're insinuating, then pediatricians should be seen child molesters because they examine the genitals of little boys and little girls.
I'm amazed why some people who are against circumcision would bother to stick around here, since this is all pro circumcision.
Jake said...
ReplyDeleteTo respond to Hugh:
Deconstruction of Jake's analysis here.
Analysed here.
Rebutted here
And, in turn, that was rebutted here.
ReplyDeletePlease find me a human rights movement that wasn't mocked as extremist, loony, etc. by the defenders of the status quo and reactionaries. Abolitionists, suffragettes, black civil rights advocates, gay-lesbian-transsexual activists...all mocked and derided in their day as too vocal, too extreme, even though society came along with them in the end.
ReplyDeleteAnd "Provoking Debate" for someone who claims to be an academic you come across as an extraordinarily shallow one-sided polemicist (did you write "LMAO" in your dissertation?). Any pretence of debate on your part is an utter sham and I find advocacy of mandatory circumcision to be a shocking affront to basic human rights.
Please find me a human rights movement that wasn't mocked as extremist, loony, etc. by the defenders of the status quo and reactionaries. Abolitionists, suffragettes, black civil rights advocates, gay-lesbian-transsexual activists...all mocked and derided in their day as too vocal, too extreme, even though society came along with them in the end.
ReplyDeletePerhaps, but unfortunately that isn't a very helpful observation. You see, even if members of all human rights movements are mocked as extremist loonies, the logic isn't reversible: the fact that a group of people may be mocked does not make them a legitimate human rights movement. They may just be a bunch of extremist loonies (or somewhere in between).
So while I must congratulate you on your attempt to establish by implication an equivalence between the anti-circumcision movement and legitimate human rights lobbyists, there do seem to be some serious logical hurdles to overcome.
Jake said:
ReplyDeleteAnd, in turn, that was rebutted here.
Which is answered here.
And that, in turn, here.
ReplyDeleteThis link is to a search that will continue to present Tony's latest crushing rebuttal of Jake here at the top of the page as "Science requires ethics #x".
ReplyDeleteThis link is to a search that will continue to present Tony's latest crushing rebuttal of Jake here at the top of the page as "Science requires ethics #x".
ReplyDeleteAs of this time, there's no sign of a response to my latest piece. So it is perplexing that you are able to describe a nonexistent blog post as a "crushing rebuttal". Perhaps in future you'd be kind enough to indicate whether you've checked whether an article or paper exists? That might help people to judge how much weight to give your assessment of it. ;-)
As a woman I am seriously offended by the movement to prevent penises from being circumcised. They are defending filth, yes, filth! The foreskin is a sewer, said a doc in New Mexico, and she/he is right. It gives germs a place to hide. If a maximum amount of skin is amputated from the penis at birth, sanitation is strongly facilitated. It is appropriate that males have no say in being submitted to circumcision!
ReplyDelete"It's degrading to think of women being penetrated by something so dirty. The foreskin gives germs a place to hide. Trim it off, voila! Cleanliness, which is after all, next to godliness (no wonder God, who is a SHE, ordered all males circumcised!)"
DeleteHell is eternal!!!
I am looking for someone to do an expose' on a custom. I am a nurse in newborn nursery. The pain that sweet tiny baby boys go through during a circumcision horrifies me. It is surgery without anesthesia. It is 10 minutes of pure hell. The pain is so horrendous that many babies go into shock immediately. They just stare and make gurgly noises. They are the lucky ones. The others remain perfectly aware of the pain that goes on and on. Their piercing screams haunt me.
ReplyDeleteIn history, the earliest surgery was done without anesthesia. Just tie them down and do it quick. Some people were willing to have surgery once. But I've read that people refused to endure surgery a second time - even if it meant death. They knew how severe the pain was, and decided they would rather die than endure that pain a second time.
How can intelligent, educated people not realize that a scalpel causes a horrendous, sharp, excruciating pain that no human being should ever have to endure. Tell me how a custom can be so strong that it overpowers intelligence and common sense.
The pain of circumcision wouldn't be quite as bad if the foreskin was fully developed at birth. But it is still adhered to the glans [ head of the penis ] and does not separate naturally for several years. Mother Nature may be slow, but it produces an exquisitely sensitive sexual organ.
The first step of a circumcision is to rip the adhered foreskin off the glans using a metal probe. But the two skins are still fused as one. And patches of skin are ripped off the glans in the process. I see the glans of these tiny penises with skin missing and the tissue exposed every day. The pain is supposed to be comparable to having a metal probe forced under your fingernail and ripping it back and forth until the fingernail comes off. Imagine the pain! It is now recommended that a pain block be used. But it is not a law. So only a few babies get it.
So why do we do it? Because it is what we are used to. A custom. Explain that to a baby that is enduring a pain that no human being should ever have to endure!
There are many other reasons not to circumcise. It is removing the best skin of the penis. The foreskin contains approx. 20,000 specialized nerves that enhance sexual pleasure. The skin remaining is crude and has only a fraction of the sensation. The foreskin is NOT extra skin. It is there so that the penis can get longer during an erection. It is designed to unfold and stretch out, allowing the penis to grow. In the process, the foreskin is pulled off the glans. The glans is then uncovered and now the intact penis looks the same as a circumcised penis. They end up looking the same during an erection. But the intact penis is larger and has more sensation.
Over the years, doctors have invented excuses for circumcision and the public latches onto them. These excuses are false and misleading. There is no reason good enough to inflict such sharp, excruciating pain on someone you love. To forever decrease his sexual pleasure. To amputate the best, most sensitive part of his penis. To violate his human rights.
As I watch parents hug and kiss their new babies. Then insist that their babies endure a pain that is comparable to a fingernail being ripped off with a metal probe. And then a scalpel cuts - with no anesthesia. I want to scream, "Do you love your baby, or hate him?"
There are many organizations that would help you with an expose'. They are easy to find on the internet. Please help! Babies are weak. This custom is strong.