There are plenty of pro-circumcision "information resources." In this blog, I present what they leave out.
Genital mutilation, whether it be wrapped in culture, religion or “research” is still genital mutilation.
It is mistaken, the belief that the right amount of “science” can be used to legitimize the deliberate violation of basic human rights.
It seems like removing the PROSTATE would be the "best" way of completely preventing prostate cancer. Only in consenting adults would that be even remotely appropriate though.
I mean, this is ridiculous. Any reasonable person can deduce or even think a little bit and see that there is no relation between circumcision and prostate cancer. Do they really think people are stupid enough to even believe blindly this kind of pseudo-news-science?This is just another tactic that uses fear as a form to scare people and make them believe through "science" that genital mutilation on non-consenting persons is legitimate violating basic human rights.We've seen these scare tactics used in the past: circumcision -prevents- masturbation, epilepsy, nervousness, idiocy, etc, etc, etc. Today it's HIV/AIDS and prostate cancer. Give me a break! How many more lies are these people going to say to justify a surgery that is not necessary?
Joseph Brownstein.He has a BA in "Creative Writing, Biology/Public Health". That's an interesting, but unsurprising combination.In any case, the pro-circumcision tactic has really always been Death by a Thousand Cuts; the pro-circumcision lobby is quick to say that indeed no individual "advantage" is worth circumcision, but "taken together" the "overall advantage" permits and even demands the forced circumcision of completely healthy boys. Moreover, this tactic hedges against the debunking of even multiple justifications, as there is always a handful of other "advantages" waiting to be proffered.I think the message that intactivists need to hammer home is this: Regardless of any benefit touted, the forskin is a proportionally huge, protective, sexually pleasing swath of normal male genital tissue, and the forcible destruction of this tissue is a violation of human rights. People understand this for girls (as we all know, even a pin prick of just the labia is frowned upon as genital mutilation, even though things like labiaplasty and hoodectomy are considered valid surgeries for a woman to elect for herself), and as a result, nobody would even consider ANY combination of potential medical benefits as justification for female circumcision.The question we need to keep asking: Why is it illegal to make a pin prick on a girl, yet perfectly acceptable to throw a celebratory party for stripping the penis of half its shaft tissue via vivisection (and then sucking on the bloodied phallus, no less)? We need to start saying this ALL THE TIME. People can't escape the pin prick argument.
It seems circumcision advocates have struck the following covert contract; that with enough "research" and "studies," it is possible to justify genital mutilation. This seems to only work exclusively for boys however; no one seems interested in finding any "benefits" for girls. There would never be enough "benefits" that would ever justify even the "ritual nick" the AAP proposed not so long ago.Nobody actually cares about the "science" or "research" as much as they care about framing circumcision in it. The more, the better. But this will also fail soon, as we keep pointing out that science cannot be used to justify the deliberate violation of the most basic of human rights.We always have to ask, with so much "research" and so many "studies," why is it "researchers" and "scientists" haven't been able to advance past circumcision? With so much knowledge we've supposedly acquired through "science" and "research," why can't they seem to find a better way to achieve the "benefits" circumcision is supposed to afford its subjects? The irony of the "myriad benefits" argument is that it falls apart upon examination. Of course one has to look at the "overall advantage," because once you start analyzing each "benefit" individually, you realize it's all speculative "benefits" based on shoddy science. A bunch of speculative "benefits" based on shoddy "studies" do not an "overall benefit" make.There are studies that outline the sensitivity of the penis, and that show that the most sensitive parts on the penis are on the foreskin, and that they are more sensitive than even the most sensitive part on the circumcised penis. But you know what? I think sensitivity and sexual response are secondary. First and foremost, is there a medical necessity?The standard of care for therapeutic surgery requires the medical benefits of the surgery to far outweigh the medical risks and harms, or for the surgery to correct a congenital abnormality. Unnecessarily invasive procedures should not be used where alternative, less invasive techniques, are equally efficient and available. It is unethical and inappropriate to perform surgery for therapeutic reasons where medical research has shown there to be other techniques to be at least as effective and less invasive. I think the bottom line will always be this:Genital mutilation, whether it be wrapped in culture, religion or “research” is still genital mutilation.It is mistaken, the belief that the right amount of “science” can be used to legitimize the deliberate violation of basic human rights.If one steps back, one will realize that circumcision advocates going on and on about "benefits" are merely chasing their own tails; they're trying to prove that fish need bicycles. It is illogical, irrational, unscientific, the idea of necessitating the deliberate destruction of normal, healthy body parts.Without medical or clinical necessity, doctors have absolutely no business performing surgery on healthy, non-consenting minors, let alone be giving parents any kind of a "choice."
Thanks for creating this blog. Great job!
Again, the sexual genital mutilators bark up the cancer-tree. The other times, after controlling for age, wealth, education, the correlation disappeared.By the way, you sound antiscience. Science is good, but this is not science:Any science-literate person knows that if one datamines enough, one will find spurious correlations. One must look at the totality of data. In science, this is called cherry-picking.These sexual genital mutilators take advantage of the lack of critical thinking and science-literacy. If we would require passing a class in critical thinking and passing a class in science-literacy, these frauds could not fool the American people. Unfortunately, we have religious people opposing such standards:Too many Americans are flat/young-Earth Geocentric creationists. If these people would have their way, which they unfortunately often do, especially, but not limited to, red states, schools would teach neither science nor critical thinking, but young/flat-Earth Geocentric creationism instead.To a scientifically literate critical thinker, this reeks of datamining for spurious correlations. This is obvious cherry-picking.