I learned what male genital cutting was in high school in health class. The teacher handed out mimeographed copies of pages from a textbook that had crude illustrations. He did this by mistake and hurriedly told us to ignore them, but the cat was out of the bag. Once I knew what it was, I began to think about it. I finally understood why other boys I knew over the years, particularly when I lived in England in the late 1960s with my family, looked different. A couple of years later, while one of my aunts visited, a news story came on the television about male genital cutting. She spoke up about how it could not be done to her firstborn son at birth because of complications following his birth, and that they never saw the need for it later. She had a second son years later, and he was left intact. I remember how pained my father looked when she related that to us. My mother was absent from the conversation, leaving the impression that she was behind it for my brother and me. As I grew older, I came to deeply resent what was done to me.

I wondered why and checked out the books on pregnancy and newborn care. In most, there were a few sentences or a paragraph or two dedicated to the topic. Dr. Spock promoted it in the early editions of his famous book. It was the standard banalities about cleanliness, alleged lower risks of infection, venereal diseases and cancer. It was a minor procedure and painless, as newborns could not localize pain. Thus, it was better to do it in infancy as he might need it later in life, and it would be a significant operation with risks of complications and pain. Essentially, it was normal and a part of being born–just something that was done. He would never miss what he never had. It was posed as a decision for the parents, who were left to judge what was in the best interest of the boy. Against that narrative, I found a few books that condemned it unequivocally or admitted that there was no indication for it. For those books that stated there was no indication, rather than concluding it should be left alone, they continued, “If your boy is to be [genitally cut], it will require aftercare, but should heal quickly.”

It was during my university years in the early 1980s that I discovered a copy of “Circumcision: An American Health Fallacy” by Edward Wallerstein in the university library. He published the book in 1980, and it proved to be a good read. I learned, among other things, that Dr. Spock, in subsequent editions of his book, recanted and condemned male genital cutting, saying, “Had I known better, I would have left their little penises alone.” Also, outside of North America and the Islamic world, boys are born and left to grow up whole and suffer none of the problems listed in the narratives I found in the books on pregnancy and newborn care. The student culture at university when I was a student was rooted in raunchy, ribald humour. Dick jokes featured prominently, and crude jokes about the male prepuce were common. I might find an appreciative audience when I raised the topic among other young men I roomed with in a university residence. What I found instead was a pervasive and stunning ignorance, as well as an unwillingness to consider the issue. The consensus was, “It’s not harmful, it’s normal, it’s only extra skin, it doesn’t make you less of a man, it was done for us, not to us, with only the best of intentions. In response to the evidence that most of the men walking the Earth are happily whole and not suffering, the responses were that other countries did not know better or did not have the resources to cut boys and that cut men were no worse off for it. I would have it done to my son.”

In the decades following my early advocacy, I found that ignorant attitudes prevail, particularly in the United States. The American Academy of Pediatrics vacillates on the issue, releasing policy positions that pose it as a decision for parents to make regarding the best interest of their newborn sons. It is worth noting that the American Academy of Pediatrics is not an academic body. It is a professional association that promotes the business interests of its membership. Also, it is typically OB/GYNs who pitch it to new parents. What does an OB/GYN know about men’s sexual health? How many men are referred to Gynecologists for their sexual health? Also, aside from the AAP, there is not one pediatric medical association in the world that recommends involuntary male genital cutting on newborn boys. Scientific research showed that the male prepuce is the most heavily innervated and vascularized part of the penis. It is there for a reason. It is not “extra skin.” Again, despite the evidence that refuted the claims of the banalities listed above, now the narrative is that “It’s a parenting decision, and no one, least of all the state, is going to tell me what I can and cannot do to my son’s body.” No matter how much evidence you marshal and present, the ignorant deny it and move the goalposts.

Worse still, the courts, legislatures, and human rights associations typically refuse to address it. As it concerns the health, welfare, and rights of men and boys, somehow, no one cares. To its credit, the Canadian government delisted the procedure from public health insurance, meaning that if parents want it, they must find a private practitioner who will perform it in exchange for payment. Sadly, there is still a demand, though the majority of boys born in Canada are currently left whole. I can only hope that common sense and people will finally acknowledge that everyone, male and female, has the right to the integrity and security of their person. Given my personal experience with the issue, I remain exsanguinated and sanguine at the same time. I cannot undo the harm I suffered, but I can strive to see that succeeding generations of boys are spared.

Posted by Geoffrey