I’m genuinely curious.
Is it more important to put the ‘we’re actually doing something’ face on intactivism by posting circ rates as 32.5%? Or is it more important to be truthful and admit that they’re actually higher? A good example of this is fine touch sensitivity and penile cancer. Being intact raises the risk of penile cancer, but penile cancer is so rare that circumcision for it makes no sense. However, when it comes to a study about fine touch sensitivity, even though the actual difference is negligible, intactivists show misleading charts that make it seem as though intact penises are miles more ‘sexually sensitive’. Just as in the cancer argument, the actual difference at which point a man can simply sense the least amount of pressure on his penis, the difference between circumcised and intact is small, so small that it makes no sense not to circumcise based on this. So why use that to try to prove a point? It doesn’t really work.
Again, why not focus on the argument about how unnecessary it is to routinely circumcise all or a majority of boys in the US for supposed ‘prophylaxis’ reasons? These arguments are much better. I do understand that intactivists want it to appear as though there are mountains of evidence in favor of the foreskin and against circumcision and nothing good about circumcision, but in all honesty, the publicly available information does not indicate this. Most of it pretty shaky. Have evidence that supports your claim, make sure you’re 100% familiar with that evidence, or don’t bring it up. It’s very annoying to have the same links and arguments regurgitated at me by people who don’t understand them. I’m sure that’s true for parents researching circumcision as well. Add in the bullying and generally unpleasant disposition, and that is not a formula that’s going to encourage change.
The Case Against Intactivism 
May 25th, 2012 at 2:35 am
“32% circ rate…”
The CDC never released the scientific paper making that claim, and so it has died. The hospital discharge survey dataset confirms that the RIC rate in USA maternity wards has been around 55% for a decade.
“100+ babies dying from circ annually in the US…”
This is an estimate by Dan Bollinger grounded in strong assumptions and a dubious methodology. The American and Canadian press report 1-2 deaths a year. There is reason to suspect that hospitals conceal some RIC deaths in order to avoid exposure to liability in tort.
“96% of circs done without anesthetic,…”
Too high; agreed. But a lot of circs are still done in the 20th century way, sans anesthesia, and that is utterly unconscionable.
“… 90% of men in the world are intact, etc.”
The highest figure I have seen is 85%. This figure is of little import. What matters is the rate of RIC in industrial economies. And the bald truth is that RIC is practiced only in the USA, Canada and Australia.
May 25th, 2012 at 6:40 am
The claim of the 32% circ rate has not died in all corners of the interwebs. Unless you can make a claim for what 100% of 100% of intactivists say, then that doesn’t work. Since I’m actually highlighting a group of people who engage in reckless tactics, and not all intactivists (which I’ve acknowledged on this blog), I’m not trying to make a claim for all intactivists. You are.
I agree with you about Dan Bollinger’s poor methodology, but that man is a prolific and fairly popular voice in the anti-circumcision movement.
Too high, agreed…BUT. Well, Myrick, I’m not looking for your approval. What is your number? How many are ‘a lot’? Most parents seem to be reporting the use of anesthetic.
If the percentage of men circumcised in the world is of little import, perhaps you can tell your cohorts, so they’ll stop trying to ‘peer pressure’ others by using that erroneous figure.
April 19th, 2012 at 1:33 am
I know this blog isn’t going to win you any points with most intactivists, but I just wanted to say I agree with much of what you’re saying.
I often see intactivists make claims that can easily be refuted (32% circ rate, 100+ babies dying from circ annually in the US, 96% of circs done without anesthetic, 90% of men in the world are intact, etc.). I always cringe when I read these things but am reluctant to correct people. If you dare object to any such claims, you’re accused of being a pro circ masquerading as an intactivist. There have been times I have wanted to totally remove myself from the anti circumcision movement due to all the hostility and misinformation, but I don’t because it can also be a great place of refuge.
I don’t think the anti-circumcision crowd is deliberately being dishonest. It’s just that people tend to repeat what they hear. Just because an intactivist says something doesn’t make it true. If we hope to be taken seriously, we need to make sure the information we present is scientifically sound and not blindly accept every statement opposing circumcision as truth.
This is an emotional topic, and people tend to get very passionate about something they view as a human rights violation. The way you’re presenting your case is kind of combative, and most intactivists will probably be turned off by your tone, which is a shame because you are trying to spread some valuable information. I say this because your blog was linked by an anti circumcision community, and the response was overwhelming negative. People don’t want to be labeled as bullies or liars right off the bat…
For the record, I am adamantly opposed to RIC. I have a 7 month old intact son, and I fought tooth and nail to keep him the way he was born. And yes, if he decides he wants to be circumcised as an adult, I will gladly pay for it. His body = his choice, not his body = whatever choice I think is best.
Apologies if this is incoherent, as it’s after 2:00 AM, I have a baby, and am very tired.
March 11th, 2012 at 9:23 am
What’s really sad about this is that you need to be convinced that circumcision is wrong. Yes, there are plenty of links we can provide against cutting an infant, but you will no doubt have problems with them all. You are so brainwashed, you have to convince yourself that we’re wrong to make yourself feel better. You use penile cancer in your argument? Well, the AMA has finally admitted that circumcision doesn’t prevent it? So now which straw are you going to grasp?
http://www.cancer.org/Cancer/PenileCancer/DetailedGuide/penile-cancer-prevention
May 24th, 2012 at 6:46 pm
This just shows you haven’t read my blog, Judith. I don’t need to be convinced circumcision is wrong. Not at all. But you obviously need to be convinced that the tact you’re taking is wrong, and I find that sad.
February 2nd, 2012 at 11:26 am
It doesn’t matter how many people believe what. It doesn’t matter what diseases or syndromes or side-effects are more or less likely one way or the other. It doesn’t matter how many adults are happy or sad about what was or wasn’t done to their body. It doesn’t matter what words people use to refer to or to exalt or to condemn the practice. The only fact that matters is that routine child genital cutting is medically unnecessary and therefore violates the ethical principle of the child’s fundamental human right to autonomy. Autonomy is the only question and the only answer in this debate; everything else is side-show.
May 24th, 2012 at 6:48 pm
I get what you’re saying and I don’t entirely disagree – however, and there is a big however. To change cultural perception is the only way to end the practice, and it cannot be done via attacking and misrepresentation.
December 17th, 2011 at 7:01 pm
I actually laughed out loud reading this. You’re cutting the tree you’re sitting on with almost every argument you’re making (which makes me think you’re probably just trolling).
You do know that intactivists only take issue with infant genital cutting, right? I don’t care what people decide to do with their bodies – it is none of my business. If someone consents to having part of his genitals amputated, that is fair game and I take no issue with it.
I myself, for instance, did not have that option. I resent the physician who performed the superfluous amputation on me almost every day. The fact that I will never have the opportunity to experience what it is like to have the penis I was intended to have irks me to no end.
December 17th, 2011 at 9:17 pm
No, intactivists don’t take issue only with infant genital cutting. Some of them (quite a few in my experience, but I’m willing to admit it’s limited) seem quite horrified with any circumcision in general. Your opinion does not intactivism make.
December 19th, 2011 at 2:55 am
As you even acknowledged, you’re grasping for straws.
Find me an intactivist organization advocating for a complete ban of the procedure, and I’ll find you at least ten-fold that many advocating for ending the procedure only on infants as a routine procedure. The real issue is that infants are too young to deny consent to the procedure, and many of them – like me – are forced to grow up resenting the fact that we have to live with beta genitalia for the rest of our lives. This is what intactivists believe. Hasty generalizations on your end will only continue to erode your credibility.