Shouldn't it be the choice of the person involved though? It's *their* body.

Scandinavians believe very strongly in children's rights, and many of them seem to feel that these outweigh parental choice when it comes to genital surgery. Most Scandinavian doctors seem to believe that there is a clear cut against male circumcision. Even very minor forms of female genital cutting are banned, regardless of whether the parents believe it in an appropriate choice for medical or religious reasons.

From the Hastings Center report "Seven Things to Know about Female Genital Surgeries in Africa":
1. Research by gynecologists and others has demonstrated that a high percentage of women who have had genital surgery have rich sexual lives, including desire, arousal, orgasm, and satisfaction, and their frequency of sexual activity is not reduced.

Very minor forms of FGC are common in places like Egypt, Malysia and Brunei. In the US, the AAP's Bioethics committee changed its policy on female cutting in 2010 saying "It might be more effective if federal and state laws enabled pediatricians to reach out to families by offering a ritual [clitoral] nick as a possible compromise to avoid greater harm."
They were forced to retract this about six weeks later. Dr Diekema, the chair of the committee said "We're talking about something far less extensive than the removal of foreskin in a male".

Professor Morris is a well-known proponent of male circumcision, but he isn't a urologist, pediatrician, or even a medical doctor. This is what some national medical organizations say about male circumcision:

Canadian Paediatric Society
"Recommendation: Circumcision of newborns should not be routinely performed."

Royal Australasian College of Physicians
"After reviewing the currently available evidence, the RACP believes that the frequency of diseases modifiable by circumcision, the level of protection offered by circumcision and the complication rates of circumcision do not warrant routine infant circumcision in Australia and New Zealand."
(almost all the men responsible for this statement will be circumcised themselves, as the male circumcision rate in Australia in 1950 was about 90%. "Routine" circumcision is now *banned* in public hospitals in Australia all states except one.)

British Medical Association
"to circumcise for therapeutic reasons where medical research has shown other techniques to be at least as effective and less invasive would be unethical and inappropriate."

The Royal Dutch Medical Association
"The official viewpoint of KNMG and other related medical/scientific organisations is that non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors is a violation of children's rights to autonomy and physical integrity."

I'm not playing dumb at all. Cutting parts off children's genitals is a very hard practice for people to understand if it's rare in their country, and many European medical organizations believe that male circumcision is also harmful to boys. Some forms of female genital cutting are a lot less invasive than the usual forms of male circumcision, and the people who promote them also claim that FGC is harmless or even that it has medical benefits. Even a pinprick on a girl's genitals is banned in most western countries though.

No-one complained when female circumcision was made illegal, even though some people regard it as their religious right or duty to cut their daughters.

It's illegal to cut off a girl's prepuce, or to make any incision on a girl's genitals, even if no tissue is removed. Even a pinprick is banned. Why don't boys get the same protection? Everyone should be able to decide for themselves whether or not they want parts of their genitals cut off. It's *their* body.

It's not just gay and lesbian travelers that will be put off by Uganda's backwards attitudes to homosexuality, and who in their right mind would view genital mutilation as a tourist attraction?

Very very sad.

Sorrells (2007)
"Circumcision ablates the most sensitive parts of the penis."

Kim and Pang 2006 (255 men circumcised as adults)
"About 6% answered that their sex lives improved, while 20% reported a worse sex life after circumcision."

Frisch 2011
"Conclusions Circumcision was associated with frequent orgasm difficulties in Danish men and with a range of frequent sexual difficulties in women, notably orgasm difficulties, dyspareunia and a sense of incomplete sexual needs fulfilment."

Bronselaer et al, 2013
"For the glans penis, circumcised men reported decreased sexual pleasure and lower orgasm intensity"

Bauer, Kriebel, 2013 (pubmed 23656698)
"For studies including boys born after 1995, there was a strong correlation between country-level (n = 9) autism/ASD prevalence in males and a country's circumcision rate (r = 0.98). A very similar pattern was seen among U.S. states and when comparing the 3 main racial/ethnic groups in the U.S."

Female circumcision has been going on for thousands of years too, but hasn't died out.

Some forms of female circumcision involve the removal of the tiniest speck of tissue (tinyurl zahras-circumcision) or just an incision with no tissue removed at all. Some forms of male circumcision result in the deaths of over 100 people each year in just one province of South Africa (google "ulwaluko" for graphic pictures).

Genesis 17 also says to circumcise male slaves, but no-one defends slavery any more. The New Testament is also strongly against circumcision. 90% of Christians worldwide don't circumcise.

The WHO's promotion of male circumcision is truly bizarre.

From a USAID report:
"There appears no clear pattern of association between male circumcision and HIV prevalence—in 8 of 18 countries with data, HIV prevalence is lower among circumcised men, while in the remaining 10 countries it is higher."

It seems highly unrealistic to expect that there will be no risk compensation. The South African National Communication Survey on HIV/AIDS, 2009 found that 15% of adults across age groups "believe that circumcised men do not need to use condoms".

It is unclear if circumcised men are more likely to infect women. The only ever randomized controlled trial into male-to-female transmission showed a 54% higher rate in the group where the men had been circumcised:

ABC (Abstinence, Being faithful, and especially Condoms) is the way forward. Promoting genital surgery seems likely to cost African lives rather than save them.

Europeans don't circumcise, South Americans don't circumcise, Australians and New Zealanders used to circumcise but stopped, and less than half of North Americans circumcise. Why should Africans circumcise?

Recent news from Botswana:
"There is an upsurge of cases of people who got infected with HIV following circumcision."

and from Zimbabwe:
"SOME circumcised men are contracting HIV and Aids after ditching the use of condoms, under a misguided belief that male circumcision (MC) would prevent them from getting infected"

and from Kenya:
"Push for male circumcision in Nyanza fails to reduce infections"