Any parent whose had their son circumcised will immediately take a defensive position if you start to list the ethical and medical implications that contraindicate this unnecessary surgery - and you really can't blame them for doing so!
Any discussion about the ethics of circumcision leaves that parent feeling like you're personally attacking the decision they've made.
They circumcised their son because they thought it was the best decision for him - as loving, responsible (but ultimately ill-informed) parents. However, when you start discussing circumcision, it invariably leaves those same parents feel like you're accusing them of mutilating their child, being terrible parents and scarring him both mentally and physically for life.
Which is why we'll never have a decent discussion about why circumcision is wrong - and that means this disgusting 'routine procedure' will probably continue well into the future.
But even totally understanding why parents don't want to talk about circumcision - because it hints that they made a poor parenting decision - still doesn't excuse articles like this:
Circumcision: cut the crapIn this badly written article, Nancy McDermott neatly marginalizes all adult males who feel that their parent's decision to circumcise them at birth was the wrong one.
by Nancy McDermott
‘Intactivists’ who claim that being circumcised abused their human rights, and ruined their sex lives, should get a grip. Full story here.
They should 'cut the crap' she argues - and stop trying to prevent other children from suffering the same fate they did (even if, twenty years from now, they'll end up equally enraged by the ill-informed decision their parents made by permanently altering their genitals.)
McDermott rattles off the tired, ignorant mantra of the pro-circumcision lobby, but neatly sidesteps the facts that undermine her argument. After all, tackling the issue is not what this article's meant to be about.
As a mother, she just wants to make herself feel better about the decision she made - and offer similar reassurance to the thousands of parents left wondering if they made the right decision when they lopped off perfectly healthy flesh from their children's genitals.
Nancy McDermott's article isn't completely worthless, though. It shows that parents are listening, even if they don't like what they hear. All the noise about the ethical implications of routine circumcision seems to be finally getting through.
Desperate, pitiful articles like hers offer evidence that more and more parents are beginning to question the social norms that left their children incomplete - and that means the disgusting practice of routine infant circumcision might have a shelf life.