Opinion: 'A painless, lifesaving surgery'

Her email address is at the bottom of the article. Many MANN regulars are glad to have Barbara writing as she frequently does on topics that are either directly related to MRA issues or tangentially so, but not all people will agree on all matters. Those who view male circumcision the way many MRAs do, you have her address. But, be polite, as always. Remember that not all MRAs will agree on all matters-- and we are MRAs.

Go ahead and contact her, she is already well entrenched in her ideological stand. Facts won't make a difference, she will pick and choose what suits her own ideology.

She has already stated in a previous article that she equates circumcision to cosmetic surgery.

She may be anti-feminist but she is also pro-feminine privilege and pro-jew.

Something has definitely changed at the National Post and with Barbara Kay's columns.

I emailed her the following:

Barbara, I often like your work, but on circumcision, you are very wrong. I respond to some of your points below.

First, WHO is the organization that flat-out lies about DV stats by citing only crime surveys, and then downplays male DV victims by ignoring the overwhelming independent date. Obviously feminist-biased and not reliable on any gender issue.

In any event, the HIV studies are not "irrefutable" and especially not "uncontested." Lots of research contradicts the findings, which you can see here. www.circumstitions.com/HIV.html#bailey E.g., a recent study in Africa found no association beteen HIV rates and circumcision. www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0015552?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+plosone%2FPLoSONE+%28PLoS+ONE+Alerts%3A+New+Articles%29

Another study looked more closely at AIDS in Africa found the number of infected prostitutes was a much stronger predictor of AIDS than circumcision and concluded that condoms are a much better preventative tool than circumcision because circumcision only prolongs the inevitable if men have unprotected sex with infected prostitutes. http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=74521

Widely respected Dr. Dean Edell in the U.S. called the African/HIV conclusions "silly" and warned, "it will backfire." He recognized the gender double standards, the loss of sensation in the penis, how condoms and education are the solution, and how the U.S. has the highest rate of circumcision in the West and also the highest rate of HIV while European men don't circumcise and have lower HIV rates. www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlsUg0sdAtE

There is also research showing female circumcision also reduces the changes of contracting HIV. Stallings, R. Y., and E. Karugendo. “Female Circumcision and HIV Infection in Tanzania: For Better or for Worse?” Abstract of paper given at Third International AIDS Society Conference on HIV Pathogenesis and Treatment. Rio de Janeiro, July 25–27, 2005. But even the least intrusive form of female circumcision is illegal to perform on an infant girl.

Male circumcision is gynecologically equivalent to the removal of the clitoral hood, one of three forms of female circumcision all of which are illegal. Darby, R. and Svoboda, J. S., ‘A rose by any other name?; rethinking the similarities and differences betwee...n male and female genital cutting,’ Medical Anthropology Quarterly (2007), V. 21, Issue 3, pp. 301-323.

The Royal Dutch Medical Association recently declared that male circumcision is an infringement of a child's rights to bodily integrity and personal autonomy, that its risks are underplayed, and that to reject all forms of forced female genital cutting while allowing forced male genital cutting is ethically inconsistent. It also analyzes the flawed distinctions made between female genital mutilation and non therapeutic male circumcision, and it finds that "there is growing concern regarding complications, both minor and serious, which can occur as a result of circumcising a child," from bleeding, infection, meatal stenosis (urethral stricture) and panic attacks to the risk of death. In relation to long term sexual damage, the paper points out that the foreskin is an important erotogenic structure, and that the history of its removal is, "rooted in the desire to control male sexuality" www.norm-uk.org/news.html?action=showitem&item=1306

Both the Australian College of Physicians and the British Columbia College of Physicians and Surgeons have recently come out against routine infant male circumcision and the latter addressed the human rights violations involved as well.
www.smh.com.au/national/letters/no-evidence-to-support-routine-circumcision-20090911-fkna.html
www.cpsbc.ca/files/u6/Circumcision-Infant-Male.pdf

A recent study using fine-touch medical instruments for the first time ever to study the sensation on the penis found circumcision removes the most sensitive part of the penis and that an intact penis is much more sensitive than a circumcised penis. Sorrells, Snyder, et al., “Fine-touch pressure thresholds in the adult penis,” British Journal of Urology International, v. 99, issue 4, p. 864, April 2007. www.livescience.com/health/070615_penis_sensitivity.html
The full study is posted at www.nocirc.org/touch-test/bju_6685.pdf Prior studies – which had mixed results – were unreliable because they were based upon self-reports of men who were either circumcised as adults for medical purposes or were circumcised as children and could not compare the difference. One of the study’s authors, Dr. Robert Van Howe, explains that the male foreskin is concentrated with high-sensory nerve endings that are only found in our eyelids, lips and fingertips. The foreskin has many other roles as well, such as acting as a buffer and lubricant. A subsequent study in China confirmed the same thing. Yang DM, Lin H, Zhang B, Guo W. [Circumcision affects glans penis vibration perception threshold]. Zhonghua Nan Ke Xue 2008; 14: 328-30, Dept. of Urology, the First Hospital Affiliated to Guangzhou Medical College, Guangzhou,Guangdong 510120, China.

BARBARA RESPONDS:

Happy to check out any study that is controlled, randomized and has been peer-reviewed, published in a reputable journal and so forth. I pay no attention to medical bodies as they are very ideological on many issues (in fact on ein Quebec just came out strongly for euthanasia). On DV the WHO would not be my body of choice for pronouncements since it is not a medical issue. I do believe the Africa studies met all the standards for a reliable scientific study. I am not saying the prepuce has no nerves or is not sensitive, only saying that if circumcised men had issues about the quality of their sex lives, they would have done something about it at some point during these 5000 years. Jewish men like sex same as any other men and in all my life I have never heard of or seen evidence of (heterosexual) Jewish men having issues with it. "Mutilated" people usually know they are mutilated. I call circumcision a modification and except for the differences in the sexual details I mentioned, I have never heard of anything to make me think it is harmful at all. Barb

MARC RESPONDS:

Then please do check them out, because I provided the links and they are certainly peer-reviewed reputable journals, unless you consider the British Journal of Urology International, or the Medical Anthropolgy Quarterly, to not be reputable. See for yourself.

As for Jewish men objecting to circumcision, that makes little sense because people who were circumcized as children cannot possible tell the difference in sexual pleasure. The studies using fine-touch nerve endings, both in the U.S. and China, found it removes the most sensitive part of the penis. And in fact a number of Jews are objecting to circumcision and forming the alternative ritual Bris Shalom. http://www.jewsagainstcircumcision.org/ Obviously that doesn't prove anything but it shows a growing movement in the Jewish community recognizing that male circumcision is wrong.

If it's clearly so undeniably harmless why is the Royal Dutch Medical Association stating "there is growing concern regarding complications, both minor and serious, which can occur as a result of circumcising a child," from bleeding, infection, meatal stenosis (urethral stricture) and panic attacks to the risk of death. In relation to long term sexual damage, the paper points out that the foreskin is an important erotogenic structure, and that the history of its removal is, "rooted in the desire to control male sexuality"
www.norm-uk.org/news.html?action=showitem&item=1306

Please do some research before coming to clearly pre-determined conclusions.

BARBARA RESPONDS

Most people would consider the WHO research, since it is a primary source, as well as the African study. I am an op ed journalist, not a scientist, and it is not exactly an outré opinion to hold. You make it sound as if I am endorsing "cupping" as an alternative to aspirin for bringing down fever. As I said, I am sure the WHO has read all the studies - that is their job - and supposedly their reports represent a meta-study of the studies. I found their report to be very even-handed; it recognized many of the facts you adduce, evaluated them and set them against the obvious benefits. The Jews against circumcision remind me in their discourse very much of the Jews against Israel "apartheid" - i.e. Jews who for one reason or another are unhappy about being Jews and looking for a good reason to blame their personal unhappiness on,even though it has nothing to do with that.

MARC RESPONDS

If the WHO likes to cite feminist data on DV and ignore the overwhelming independent data on DV, then they're clearly not trustworthy on gender issues to me. I'm also curious whether the WHO examined the human rights aspect the way the British and Australian medical associations did.

Very bad analogy re the Jewish group. This is a group that recognizes a ritual to be wrong, just like groups in Mexico who recognize that cock fighting is wrong. That's part of cultural evolution. To compare them to a self-loathing group is just pure nonsense.

Anyway, again, I provided you with peer reviewed journals controverting the position you said is uncontroverted. I think it was journalistically irresponsible of you to say that, whether you're a scientist or not.

BARBARA RESPONDS

You are comparing circumcision to cockfighting and Jews to the kind of Mexicans who attend cockfights? Sorry - you really pushed the wrong button there. I will consider wider reading for the next time but do not insult my intelligence with crap like that again.

MARC RESPONDS

[At this point I'm astonished at how Barbara argues EXACTLY like a feminist, avoiding the issue of the peer-reviwed research and her presumptions of "uncontroverted," and instead taking an analogy and misstating it as though it was a comparison of every aspect of the analogy, which it isn't, then getting reactive like a feminist does.]

It's your argument that's crap. Saying that they loath their own culture just because they speak out against something they consider wrong is pure stupidity. People speak out against wrongs in their own culture all the time, it doesn't mean they hate their own culture. Are members of certain African tribes loathing their own culture when they speak out against female circumcision including the removal of the clitoral hood? Oh no, that's different, right? Were they loathing their culture when Jews starting speaking out against animal sacrifices? It doesn't matter how major or minor the wrong, when people speak out against the wrong it doesn't mean they're hating their own culture. These Jews even created a replacement ritual for circumcision out of respect for their own culture, not out of hating it.

Not just journalistically irresponsible, but reactive and a bit idiotic it seems.