Via Christian Munthe on Twitter, I came across a thought-provoking blog post by Brian D. Earp on the latest AAP (American Academy of Pediatrics) report on circumcision. The post is very critical of the report's failure to outright condemn the practice of circumcision, which is what a neutral, evidence-based analysis should conclude.
I realize that circumcision is a highly sensitive topic, in particular after the recent circumcision ban in Germany. It may well be that I am not sufficiently sensitive to the relevant political and cultural implications, but I don’t quite see in which ways male genital mutilation would be so fundamentally different from the (thank God!) widely condemned practice of female genital mutilation, still common in some parts of Africa, [UPDATE] from a physiological point of view. (This is not to deny the fundamental cultural, political differences between the male and female cases.) [END UPDATE] (But there is good news: female genital mutilation seems to be decreasing significantly!)
I invite readers to comment on the Practical Ethics blog post here; it seems to be a debate worth having.
FINAL UPDATE: Here is a follow-up post on the topic, where I elaborate further on the similarities between male and female cases in light of the fruitful discussion ensued from this post.