the only necessary argument against routine infant circumcision

I have been working for some time on a comprehensive argument against routine infant circumcision, which (as it is indeed comprehensive, or an attempt at such) is taking a long time. It includes, among other things, a look at how the very limited medical benefits that are argued by circumcision advocates are unsupportable by medical evidence (in the case of the already vanishingly rare case of penile cancer), insufficient in sub-Saharan Africa (which, epidemiologically speaking, is unique when it comes to HIV and AIDS), and irrelevant in America and the developed world (where the demographic populations that contract HIV and AIDS, if we aren't being PC, combined with what types of transmission are reduced in risk make the public health benefits of circumcision nil). I hope to publish the post sometime this month.

But I feel like I can't wait to point out the only argument that ultimately matters: individuals have the right to control their own bodies in a free society. No other arguments are necessary, and no convincing needs to take place, if we believe in personal choice and individual sovereignty.

Consider Adam Serwer.

I wrote a couple of weeks ago about what I thought were the ridiculous comparisons between male circumcision as practiced by Jews and Muslims in the U.S. and genital mutilation as practiced elsewhere. While I didn't say this at the time, at least one of the major backers of San Francisco's proposed ban on circumcision turned out to be clearly motivated by anti-Semitism, having created a comic featuring a superhero named "Foreskin Man" and a supervillain named "Monster Mohel." San Francisco is going to vote on the ban in November, but proponents failed to get a similar measure on the ballot in Santa Monica. Frankly, the ban would make more sense if its proponents were all motivated by anti-Semitism, since otherwise I'm not really sure someone would have such strong feelings about this in the first place, but I assume some people just have odd priorities.

I can't pick on Serwer too much, because this is the elementary argument, such as it is, for people in favor of routine infant circumcision: I personally cannot understand resistance to circumcision, therefore there is no reasonable argument against it. It seems odd to Serwer (that's exactly what he says, after all) that people could resist circumcision, so therefore, there is no rational reason that they might, except for hatred of Jews. And the same breezy, showily disrespectful attitude towards those who care about this issue that Serwer takes is the attitude that people looking to enforce the American norm of circumcision adopt everywhere in this debate. Skepticism towards routine circumcision isn't merely wrong, it is unspeakable enough to deny the elementary extension of a discourse of respect.

In a free society, individuals are free to make their own choices. And they should particularly be free to make their own choices about their bodies. Any adult man is fully free to go get a circumcision if he wants one. (The fact that none do, outside of the coercion involved in religious conversion in order to get married, should tell you something.) Men who were circumcised as infants are denied that right. One position in this debate increases human autonomy and human liberty, and one restricts it. To oppose routine infant circumcision, you don't need to be convinced by the arguments against circumcision! You only need to recognize the right of the individual to make his own choice and to have sovereign control over his own body. That is the very bedrock of a free society: that people of vastly different values and ideas can coexist and recognize the right of others to make their own decisions. I don't need to understand the reasons that others make the decisions that they do. I only have to respect their right to a decision making process that is their own.

The anti-Semitism canard is an obvious instance of borrowing the power of accusations of anti-Semitism to push an unrelated political point. Yes, I'm sure there are people involved with the anti-circumcision effort that are anti-Semitic, just like I am sure that there are people in favor of reforming Wall Street because they want to attack Jewish bankers. So what? If that is the whole of your argument, then we are truly in "Hitler was a vegetarian" territory here. The idea that opposing circumcision must be a product of anti-Semitism is ludicrous. Circumcision is practiced by Muslims. It is practiced in many central Asian cultures and has been for centuries. It is practiced by many cultures in sub-Saharan Africa and has been for centuries. It is practiced in Pacific Island and Australian aboriginal cultures and has been for centuries. Maybe most importantly for this debate, millions of gentiles in America are circumcised. If your interest is in hating Jews, this is an awfully broad target to be shooting at. It's like demonstrating anti-Semitism by arguing against monotheism, like attacking orthodox Jews by arguing against the fedora, like insulting Judaism by arguing against wearing robes in religious practice. The attack is so broad-- it hits so many more non-Jews than Jews-- that the accusation is absurd.

Look, I try to have equanimity as an atheist. But God is not real, and religious practice strikes me as an anachronism. It doesn't really matter, though, that I think that. People can practice their religion all they want, as long as they are not trampling the rights of others in doing so. That is a settled question in this democracy. Your religion does not permit you to force your daughter to wear a headscarf-- and a headscarf, at least, can be removed. Few things are odder to me than the spectacle of atheist liberals arguing to continue a strange religious ceremony that is forced upon people who are completely unable to resist or understand it, and which has permanently altering consequences.

I defy anyone to rationally argue that circumcision persists for reasons other than tradition and the inertia of history. And it is enforced, ultimately, because here in America, it is the norm. It's uncircumcised kids who are made to feel weird in America, and it's the constant assertion that nobody could or should care about whether they are circumcised that is the orthodoxy.

Belief in individual sovereignty over the body is incompatible with infant circumcision. If you want your child to be circumcised, wait until he is old enough to understand the procedure and the choice, present the evidence, and let him choose. If he says no, he can always change his mind. Making the decision to circumcise in his infancy ensures that he will never have a choice at all.

Update: Yes, of course, the "Monster Mohel" guy is an odious individual with a clear history of disqualifying attitudes. I am not and would never defend him or similar rhetoric. Bad people sometimes hold correct views for wrong reasons.