-
Common lies about circumcision- Part 1
- Dec 8, 2008 at 4:40 PM
- By
- Comments (10) Total Views (515) Everyone can see this journal post.
I had this compilation in two parts, but apparently Cafemom now has a limit in the characters allowed in journal posts. So I find myself unable to edit these posts anymore and I sometimes need to review my links. Because of this, I'm now splitting it in 3 parts.
Hope you find it informational.
1) The AAP doesn't recommend circumcision:
This is actually a convenient interpretation (or rather misinterpretation) of the AAP's actual policy which states: "Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In the case of circumcision, in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child's current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child. To make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision. It is legitimate for parents to take into account cultural, religious, and ethnic traditions, in addition to the medical factors, when making this decision."
Circumcision Policy Statement: American Academy of Pediatrics
So the AAP doesn't recommend routine infant circumcision, which means that all baby boys would be circumcised. However, that's a far cry from not recommending it all. What the AAP actually recommends is that parents make an informed decision based on the pros and cons of the procedure. Simple.
2) No organization in the world recommends circumcision:
Technically true (although again, no organization recommended routine circumcision, all positions are basically the same). However, that changed just today. Both the World Health Organization (WHO) and the United Nations (UNAIDS) have recommended circumcision as a preventative measure against AIDS. Here are some links:
WHO and UNAIDS announce recommendations from expert consultation on male circumcision for HIV prevention
WHO hails circumcision as vital in HIV fight
WHO and UNAIDS: Male Circumcision Recommended to Slow HIV spread
The American Urological Association (AUA) also came out of a more positive position on circumcision stating that "circumcision should be presented as an option for health benefits".
In a fairly recent development, the CDC is recommending that all baby boys be circumcised. Although they're still reviewing the data, it's possible that by the end of this year (2009) an official recommendation will be issued. The CDC is also pushing for Medicaid to start funding elective infant circumcision again and for the AAP to take a more favorable position:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/32537110#32537110 (video)
CDC Considers Promoting 'Universal Circumcision'
3) Circumcision is already illegal in South Africa and Finland
No, not true in the slightest.
In South Africa, President Thabo Mbeki signed a law making it illegal to circumcise anyone under 16 unless performed for religious or medical reasons by a trained practitioner. However, that law never took effect. Furthermore, this president was more famous for his controversial views on AIDS which including denying that HIV is the cause of AIDS. Infant male circumcision is perfectly legal in South Africa.
In Finland, the whole myth that circumcision was illegal began after a court case http://www.hs.fi/english/article/Court+rul...l/1135220958830However, this case wasn't about circumcision at all! The issue was proper consent. Circumcision in Finland, although rare, is perfectly legal.
http://www.circumstitions.com/Finland.html(although this is an anti-circ site, it's accurate information. Just be careful with the "comments" in red)
"The Task Force convened by the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health has concluded that parents should be permitted to consent to circumcision of boys for religious or cultural reasons."
Now, from the original court link:
"Legislation is somewhat vague on the matter, and practice varies in Finland. For instance, a report drafted by the Ministry of Social Affairs and Health in 2004 notes that male circumcision is permitted in all countries."
http://www2.hs.fi/english/archive/news.asp?id=20030324IE5
"Finland currently has no legislation on circumcisions."
"All religious-based circumcisions performed in hospitals are for Muslims. Finland's Jewish community has its own specialists who perform the procedure under hygienic conditions."
Which brings me to a letter from Finland's Chief Rabbi:
http://www.israelforum.com/board/showthrea...6678&page=2
"No, circumcission (sic) is not illegal in Finland and almost 100% of the boys born to a jewish family are circumcised. The circumcissions (sic) are performed in Finland by a Mohel."
The fact is that circumcision is perfectly legal and acceptable everywhere in the world.
4) Circumcision is a human rights violation:
Not true. I agree there are some people that think that circumcision should be a human rights violation and they have every right to feel that way. Still, that doesn't make it a reality. We have accepted organizations that deal with these issues and decide- based on many factors- which activities are acceptable and which violate basic human rights. These organizations have agreed that circumcision IS NOT a human rights violations because of it's a very safe procedure and it carries some medical benefits. This myth usually goes hand in hand with a comparison of male circumcision and Female Genital Mutilation (FGM). However, the two practices are completely different in every single aspect: physical, psychological, emotional, social and religious. They're not comparable in the slightest, but since they're both done is the same general area, and because FGM is a degrading practice and an accepted human rights violation, anti-circumcision activists usually use it to try to put circumcision in a more negative light. Sadly, it does the opposite. By comparing something as traumatic, damaging, dangerous and degrading as FGM with a simple, safe and beneficial procedure demeans the impact of FGM. It's a poor way of treating the women that have been victims of FGM and a way to demean their pain.
Finally, Amnesty International has directly declined to accept male circumcision as a human rights violation 3 times.
Here are some links:
An article from the New England Journal of Medicine
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/3...pe2=tf_ipsecsha
(WARNING! Link contains explicit pictures!)
Here are the responses to this article, including a commentary by the author:
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/332/3/188
"I use the term ``female circumcision'' to acknowledge its cultural importance, the positive perception of this procedure on the part of those who practice it. These characteristics constitute the main similarity of female circumcision to male circumcision. The difference is that, unlike male circumcision, the most commonly described types of female circumcision are anatomically and functionally mutilating."
"[i]From the perspective of public health, female circumcision is much more damaging than male circumcision. The mildest form, clitoridectomy, is anatomically equivalent to amputation of the penis."
"In my extensive clinical experience as a physician in Sudan, and after a careful review of the literature of the past 15 years, I have not found a single case of female circumcision in which only the skin surrounding the clitoris is removed, without damage to the clitoris itself."
http://www.euro.who.int/document/e60522.pdf
"According to Dr. T Turman of WHO headquarters, there is a technical difference between male and female genital mutilation. The removal of the clitoral prepuce (female circumcision) is equivalent to male circumcision and constitutes less than 1% of all female genital mutilations. In young girls this procedure is extremely difficult to perform. In over 95% of cases, the clitoris, the labia minora and (in some cases) the labia majora are excised and the vulva sewn up. The biological equivalent in the male would be partial to almost two-thirds removal of the male sexual organ, including in some cases removal of tissue from the scrotum followed by stitching the remaining tissue."
The WHO in their recent statement (2008) changed the classification of FGM type I and subdivided it in types a and b. Type Ia being the removal of the clitoral hood alone (the only one comparable to male circumcision) and this is what they had to say about it:
"The reason for this change is the common tendency to describe Type I as removal of the prepuce, whereas this has not been documented as a traditional form of female genital mutilation. However, in some countries, medicalized female genital mutilation can include removal of the prepuce only (Type Ia) (Thabet & Thabet, 2003), but this form appears to be relatively rare (Satt et al, 2006). Almost all known forms of female genital mutilation that remove tissue from the clitoris also cut all or part of the clitoral glans itself."
They also explain the terminology of "female genital mutilation" as opposed to "female circumcision" saying that: "This term, [female circumcision] however, draws a parallel with male circumcision and, as a result, creates confusion between these two distinct practices"
"In contrast to female genital mutilation, male circumcision has significant health benefits that outweigh the very low risk of complications when performed by adequately-equipped and well-trained providers in hygienic settings"
5) Only circumcised men get adhesions and meatal stenosis.
Not true. Adhesions are also common in uncircumcised boys and although meatal stenosis is more common in circumcised boys, it's easily preventable and, more importantly, it definitely isn't exclusive to circumcised boys.
Furthermore, you'll probably encounter an argument that says the incidence of meatal stenosis in circumcised males is 10%. Exaggeration. Some studies have shown it can be as low as 0.9% http://www.springerlink.com/content/l62453...cbb58&pi=14
6) 80-90% of the world's population is uncircumcised
A little exaggeration, probably because it sounds like a dramatic number. Although no exact data is available on this, the recent information package by the WHO, UNAIDS and UNICEF roughly estimates that 30% of the world's population is circumcised, which accounts for about 662 million men.
Here's the link: http://www.who.int/entity/hiv/mediacentre/infopack_en_2.pdf
7) Circumcision causes emotional problems
After reading that 662 million men are circumcised... do you honestly believe this myth?
8) Circumcision affects sexuality
No reliable study has proven that circumcision has any effect on sensitivity and overall sexual function. Several have actually shown the contrary:
First, the sensation thing:
Effect of neonatal circumcision on penile neurological sensation
"we demonstrated that circumcision status does not significantly alter the quantitative somatosensory testing results at the glans penis."
Penile sensitivity and sexual satisfaction after circumcision: Are we informing men correctly?
"Penile sensation improved after circumcision in 38% (p = 0.01) but got worse in 18%, with the remainder having no change.... Penile sensitivity had variable outcomes after circumcision."
Sensation and sexual arousal in circumcised and uncircumcised males
"These results do not support the hypothesized penile sensory differences associated with circumcision."
Now, as for function:
Circumcision in Australia: prevalence and effect on sexual health
"Neonatal circumcision... appears not to be associated with significant protective or harmful sexual health outcomes"
Circumcision in the United States: Prevalence, prophylactic effects, and sexual practice
"uncircumcised men appear slightly more likely to experience sexual dysfunctions, especially later in life."
The effect of male circumcision on sexual satisfaction and function,
results from a randomized trial of male circumcision for human
immunodeficiency virus prevention, Rakai, Uganda.
"Adult male circumcision does not adversely affect sexual satisfaction or clinically significant function in men."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11956452?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlusDrugs1
"Circumcision does not appear to have adverse, clinically important effects on male sexual function"
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17314981?ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlusDrugs1
"We found no relationship between childhood circumcision age and overall sexual function"
Finally, a recent study showed that adult circumcision actually increased penile sensitivity:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18761593
"Adult male circumcision was not associated with sexual dysfunction. Circumcised men reported increased penile sensitivity and enhanced ease of reaching orgasm."
9) Any pro-circ is a fetishist:
Clever move, but again a lie. It's a common tactic: when you cannot discredit the message, try to discredit the messenger. However, most people that are in favor of circumcision are in favor of it as a parental choice. They certainly don't think "foreskins for none. Circumcision for all!!" Surely there are people who think this way, but it's the minority. Mostly view circumcision as a valid, positive parental choice, but they view choosing not to circumcise the same way. It's not a matter of circumcision being better/worse than no circumcision. It's a matter of believing it's a choice parents can make or not.
And fetishists come in all shapes and sizes and can have a fixation on pretty much everything under the sun: including foreskins. Oh yes, there is such a thing as a foreskin fetish- or rather a foreskin paraphilia. I'm sure the anti-circumcision activists don't want to be all grouped with these people and the majority of them certainly aren't fetishists. Those of us who advocate responsible parental choice also don't enjoy being compared to a fetishist. Fair is fair.
10) Informed parents will choose not to circumcise
Actually, since information exists to support arguments from both sides, informed parents can make either choice. Choosing to circumcise isn't a result of ignorance, being a "sheep" or stupidity or proof that some parents feel less attached or bonded to their children. Is simply taking the facts, using one's personal experience, values and social surrounding to make a choice that's best for the child.
Furthermore, intactivist can show just as much willingness to "follow the crowd" than those who choose to circumcise. They just follow a different shepherd. Most intactivists will do and believe what their fellow intactivists say, without ever questioning the validity of those opinions.
Sharon
Continued...
Comments:
# 10 is what it really comes down to!!!!!!
Ugh Sharon, give it a rest. When are you going to stop glamorizing circumcision like it's the best thing ever?
And when are you gonna stop spreading these lies and demonizing it as if it's th eworse thing ever?
Really, get off your high horse. You have a right to express your opinion, I have mine. I'm sorry if this posts are making people question what you tell them, but if you have a problem with it, then complain to Cafemom that I don't give it a rest. But don't tell me what I'm allowed to say and do or not. And I'm sorry, but as long as there are people like you spreading lies and misinformation and bullying parents into a choice or attacking perfectly loving parents into thinking they mutilated or damaged their children, I don't have to give it a rest.
Sharon
Great post!!!!
I dunno, soon2bemom...when are you going to start accepting the fact that certain women can make their points with scientific facts, and others have to resort to petty remarks and snippy retorts?
Nice post, Sharon.
GREAT POST!
Nice comeback, Mamma Mia :)
Sharon
Rawk on! I was getting bombarded with the anti-circ'ers on the Newcomers board.
They kept calling it 'mutilation' and 'sexual abuse'.....Glad I have something now to throw back in their faces.
Already a member? Click here to log in
- dhhaj
Message Friend Invite