Are Circumcision Advocates Psychologically Damaged?

Bereft of medical evidence -- now that the most recent scientific studies point to the health benefits of male circumcision -- the anti-circ crowd has taken to accusing those of us who promote a foreskin-free society as being psychologically "damaged" because of our circumcisions.

You've heard the whacky argument. The first premise is that everyone who promotes circumcision is circumcised. Now how the foreskin lovers know this is beyond me. Maybe there's an assumption that all American doctors and researchers are circumcised (clearly debatable), but it's not likely that our European counterparts are circumcised. Unless they are Muslim or Jewish (ah, yes, the Islamic/Zionist plot), foreign scientists are more likely to be uncircumcised than cut.

Moreover, the assumption is insulting to anyone who believes in the scientific method. The fact that one is circumcised ought not to lead to a biased result in an ethical evidence-based study, any more than the fact that one is uncircumcised should prejudice the results. Scientists follow the evidence -- not make things up because of their penile status.

The broader attack by the FLs ("foreskin lovers") is that the reason most males (at least in the USA) are pro-circumcision is that they have "never come to terms" with their own cut state. Circumcised males are, supposedly, deeply resentful of their clean-cut penis, so they "take it out" by wanting to circumcise everyone else. What a crock of BS! But read the comments posted by some of the FLs on my blog, and you will know this is what they believe.

Once again, the resort to ad hominem attacks on those who want a healthier society, healthier males, and healthier females through universal male circumcision only demonstrates, once again, how desperate the FLs have become. They are losing the debate on the merits of the argument, so they are doing what good debaters do. But it won't work -- not this time.