The fact that circumcision of unconsenting infants is legal is insane to me.

When my son was born (in the USA) there was an employee of the hospital who mounted an aggressive effort to have this done (doing these amputations was her job). Finally I made her go away by saying "It's his body and he can choose for himself when he is a legal adult".

Her disturbing response: "But if you let him choose he will say no."

I'll be the first to admit that I don't know enough about circumcision to hold any kind of firm opinion on the matter. That said, my understanding has been that circumcision isn't just a religious practice, there are practical reasons too, namely hygiene.

There's plenty of examples where we do what's "best" for kids without their consent. Vaccines for example. So I don't really buy this "their body" argument, although I respect the merits.

> there are practical reasons too, namely hygiene.

That's not a valid reason to have it done.

It's easy to keep yourself clean and I've never once heard of anyone getting sores because they failed to wash for an extended period of time.

The health/hygiene argument has been thoroughly dismantled. That argument is akin to saying that we should remove people's teeth so that they don't have to deal with cavities. The only time there is a difference in hygiene between a circumcised and uncircumcised penis is if they both go unwashed for an extended period of time. I also don't buy these utilitarian arguments. If someone wants to trade the benefits of an uncircumcised penis for those of a circumcised penis, they can make that permanent decision for themselves.

While I generally agree with you and wouldn't circumcise any child, data seems to support that circumcision reduces transmission of some STIs

> Three randomized clinical trials showed that adult male circumcision significantly reduced the risk for HIV acquisition among heterosexual males by 51%–60% (95% confidence interval 16%–76%) over time. These trials also found that medically performed adult circumcision significantly reduced the risk of men acquiring two common sexually transmitted infections (STIs), including genital ulcer disease (GUD) prevalence by 47% and incidence by 48% and high-risk (i.e. oncogenic) types of human papilloma virus (HR-HPV) prevalence by 23%–47%.

It also seems to reduce the risk of UTIs

> Male circumcision has been shown to reduce the risk of urinary tract infections inmales aged 0–1 years by 90%, in males aged 1–16 years by 85%, and in males >16 years by 71%.

This data is from a report from the CDC https://stacks.cdc.gov/view/cdc/58456

Sure, it reduces STI transmission rates, because the mucous membrane (the inside of the foreskin) gets cut off, and the exposed glans also becomes keratinized due to years of abrasion against the underwear. No mucous membranes = lower chance for pathogens to enter the body.

Now, whether these would worth the tradeoff with reduced sensitivity, surgical risks (e.g. reduced sexual function due to tight scar formation), the psychological trauma for the infant, etc. is another question.

Look, I agree with you. I don't think we should mess with anyone's genitals without their consent. I'm just pointing out that there's data to support the health concerns.

Let's take it a step further. We can reduce STI transmission to zero if we remove all of everyone's genitals.

Look, I agree with you. I don't think we should mess with anyone's genitals without their consent. I'm just pointing out that there's data to support the health concerns.

Obviously there's some trade off here, and I don't think it's worth it to circumcise anyone without their consent or medical necessity.

Exactly. Also, we can 100% eliminate nail fungus and ingrown nails (it can cause serious infections!) if we surgically remove the nail root of infants. It's a super simple surgery, and modern men has no use for nails anyway!

Cultural mores are a powerful thing. Honestly the sheer amount of cultural cognitive dissonance around the practice was seriously eye-opening on the subject of human irrationality.

For instance, my mother is aghast at the prospect of clipping a dog's ears or docking it's tail. And yet, when it came to the birth of her sons the same sense of ethics never registered about circumcision.

I agree that it's one of the best litmus tests we have regarding moral critical thinking.

The difficulty in banning it is very much political. You would get massive backlash from Jewish groups, you'd probably get accused of being anti-semitic. Also, not to get too cynical, but my perception is that issues affecting men/males are given less importance.

It's a tradeoff between the equal protection clause (FGM is banned, so there is an argument there) and religious freedom. The former should hold more weight as religious freedom doesn't extend to imposing religious beliefs onto others.

> Also, not to get too cynical, but my perception is that issues affecting men/males are given less importance.

Circumcision, and perhaps female breast cancer, aside: the accumulated evidence is pretty strongly in the opposite direction. There have been quite a few studies on the topic over the last 30 years, with little improvement.

Yes, given that the evidence in support of it being cleaner is not only slim, but has been shown to suffer from extreme methodological errors, the resulting situation is that of cultural or religious genital mutilation.

And I should add that even if it were shown to be 'cleaner' (as far as the reduction of the chance to contract STD's), I would not find that compelling enough to cut off the most nerve dense part of the penis before the person is able to consent.

I wouldn't need to wash my hands if you chopped them off.

You can restore a foreskin to some extent, an early form of this was practiced in the 8th century BC.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreskin_restoration

As bad as male circumcision can be, female circumcision is next level terrible. A Google points Wikipedia to an entry for “Female Genital Mutilation” which seems appropriate.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_genital_mutilation

"It is estimated that more than 200 million girls and women alive today have undergone female genital mutilation in the countries where the practice is concentrated. Furthermore, there are an estimated 3 million girls at risk of undergoing female genital mutilation every year." - https://www.who.int/teams/sexual-and-reproductive-health-and...

"In 2010, the World Health Organization (WHO) estimated 30% of adult males worldwide (aged 15+) are circumcised, with about two-thirds of those being Muslims" - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevalence_of_circumcision

While female genital mutilation is far more horrific, male genital mutilation is far more common. Both should be ended and the movements should be combined.

I actually make this my single largest political issue and the fact that most people laugh at this idea is evidence for the shockingly bad ethical systems that most individuals have.

If only there were more people like you 30+ years ago...

Appreciate this, but the discussion is about male circumcision.

I will point out that people typically avoid anything that has even a remote chance of harming their genitalia, especially when it's as voodoo-seeming as the bioelectric systems here.