Spawned by a comment thread on a previous post (mostly on circ/nocirc)

[moominmuppet]

Small structural differences in the brains of men and women may mean nothing; or they may have significance. For the most part, we just don't know. What's important is that women don't cede to men the ability to reason, organize and lead, thanks to our "different" brains. If we do, we'll be marching backwards into history. That's why I'm alarmed to

Comments

[krasota]

I found it interesting at the time of the HIV studies that US media was all "OMG, circ prevents HIV"and other countries' media were more along the lines of "WTF? Are they nuts? These studies are flawed and prejudicial and just plain wacky."

I still say that NOBODY has the right to amputate an infant's foreskin. Period.

[moominmuppet]

I found it interesting at the time of the HIV studies that US media was all "OMG, circ prevents HIV"and other countries' media were more along the lines of "WTF? Are they nuts? These studies are flawed and prejudicial and just plain wacky."

Exactly. I do personally find it hard to believe that normal issues with cognitive dissonance aren't at the heart of the continuing support for circumcision in this country; who wants to believe what they've been practicing as a doctor was wrong, or that what they did to their children was, or that what was done to them might've taken something valuable away?

I still say that NOBODY has the right to amputate an infant's foreskin. Period. I absolutely agree, personally. I was raised in a very anti-circ household, so I grew up with a sense of what was "normal" that I think too few in my generation did. My parents were pretty consistent about their attitudes, too. Even in terms of minor cosmetic modifications, they waited 'til I could consent (I wasn't allowed pierced ears 'til I was 14). I

[krasota]

There's concern that the immense pain it causes to neonates may affect their stress/pain responses for life . . . and not in a good way. :/

[moominmuppet]

*nod* Also very true, and more than enough to counterbalance a hypothetical plasticity argument, even setting aside all the much more serious ethics and autonomy issues involved.

[krasota]

Also, it's worth reading both sides . . . and yes, this is a biased source, but it does point out some issues with the Africa studies:
http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/

[moominmuppet]

yes, this is a biased source, but it does point out some issues with the Africa studies:

Excellent and well-cited list. And that goes to the point I was making earlier; "biased" as in "clearly on one side of the issue" isn't particularly problematic to me, as long as they haven't confused their viewpoint with their data. It's the old "everyone gets their own opinions, but they shouldn't get their own facts" issue. I am certainly very biased on this topic; I have a very strong sense of "right" and "wrong" about the circumcision, but I also do try to present the information available as accurately as I can, and to make my arguments based on what it actually shows.