My thought is that, if you are going to bring it up, trying to introduce the topic as gently as possible and trying to do it in a way that (at least initially) focuses more on the procedure being a cosmetic surgery with questionable research as to medical benefit as opposed to focusing on the potential harm in terms of sexual function and sensitivity loss, since that may result in someone who is circumcised responding by closing down and becoming defensive. Here are bullet points outlining an approach that I might take:
- It’s very interesting how medical bias has influenced pediatrics. For example, up until recently almost everything we know about human anatomy was learned from autopsies of the poor. As a result, doctors used to think that a normal human thymus was significantly smaller in children since malnourished children had stunted thymuses. When doctors began to study SIDS (Studied Infant Death Syndrome) they noticed that the more affluent children in their care that died of SIDS had significantly larger thymuses than shown in the medical textbooks, even though they were perfectly normal. Through the 1920’s and 30’s doctors speculated that SIDS was caused by an enlarged thymus blocking airways and prescribed routine radiation of the thymus in new born children to shrink the thymus. This did nothing to stop SIDS. However, the thymus is right next to the thyroid, which is very sensitive to radiation. It’s believed that thousands of babies died of thyroid cancer, not to mention those who developed thyroid cancer later in life, as a result of this well intention practice. [Login to see the link]
- Using the SIDS / Thymus issues to transition to questioning what cultural and medical bias might impact the decisions doctors and parents make today with the best of intentions. I think stressing that the intentions of the individuals are good is important to prevent someone who may support circumcision from shutting down and becoming defensive.
- Taking cultural bias to ourselves today, contrasting European and American research as a lens to look at circumcision seems like a natural next step. Two studies looking at very similar information may reach wildly different conclusions. [Login to see the link] looked at bacteria in circumcised and intact men and found that intact men had more bacteria which they speculated may decrease the risk of HPV. [Login to see the link] looked at the types of bacteria present on a circumcised penis, intact penis, and in the vagina and concluded that the bacterial bios on a circumcised penis more closely resembled those in the vagina and then speculated that therefore an intact partner was less disruptive to the vagina.
- Highlighting that often times you can tell where a study was produced by it’s findings, with pro circumcision studies often being in America and ones that reach other conclusions often being in Europe.
- Wine might make for an interesting change of topic 🙂 Every so often you find a study on the benefits of drinking wine. Some of these studies may be valid, but many have been called into question in recent years. The type of person who is more likely to drink wine is generally more affluent. More affluence is generally associated with healthier diet, less financial stress, and (in the United States) more comprehensive health coverage. It’s very difficult to separate benefits from drinking wine from benefits of affluence.
- In the United States, one significant factor that determines if an individual is circumcised is if their parents are affluent enough to have comprehensive health insurance that covers the procedure. There are many studies that find correlations between circumcision and certain diseases in the United States. However, how are these studies able to like correlation to causation when the parents of circumcised children are more likely to have some degree of affluence. Affluent mothers are more likely to be able to nurse their children or have a job where they can pump breast milk. Children of affluent parents are more likely to have better diets and themselves grow up to be affluent and have many of the same health benefits associated with drinking wine. In Europe, where there is generally universal health coverage and this socioeconomic correlation to circumcision is not present, these finding can often not be reproduced.
- From there, I would frame circumcision as a cosmetic procedure. Social attitudes towards bodies change and what is considered fashionable today is not indicative of what will be fashionable tomorrow. Framing it as an unnecessary sugary with slight but real risks for no certain benefit is how I would round out that introductory conversation.
I think this is a very gentile approach to introduce the topic of intactivism. A lot of people on line lay it on way too heavy and equate circumcision as equivalent to female circumcision. This overly extreme rhetoric will likely turn off someone who might be circumcised and is perfectly happy with their body. My speculation is that most men either don’t care one way or the other about their circumcision status and if they do care largely prefer their body the only way they’ve known it. Taking someone who’s perfectly happy with their body and framing the conversation in a way that make them question if they are missing something will likely shut them down and prevent them from engaging. Framing it as a cosmetic procedure that was thought to have benefit but that doesn’t seem to any more is far less likely to make someone defensive about their own body. I think adding examples of experimental bias such as Thymus/SIDS studies and wine correlations gives them examples that are unrelated to circumcision that will encourage questioning of what they were told while reinforcing that you are not questioning that they are acting in what they believe to be the best interest of the child. I’ve heard pro-circumcision parents on line reacting to being told that they were committing child abuse and I am certain that interaction only strengthened their resolve to circumcise.
Once you have them receptive to potential medical bias and the lack of a benefit, then I think you can try to gently bring up potential harm. However, be very careful not to do this in a way that may make someone who is circumcised or a female who might prefer circumcised feel defensive. A man who was circumcised likely had no say in the matter. A woman can’t control her sexual preferences any more than anyone else can. I like porn with fake looking boobs. Do I think going through the potential risk of a sugary to get bigger boobs to be a bit silly and not worth it? Yea, I wouldn’t encourage anyone to do it. Is there a contradiction between my liking to look at fake boobs and my thinking the practice of breast implants is unnecessary and silly? No, because the former is something I have no control over and the later is a conscious and deliberate thought.
