Circumcision: The Last Acceptable Human Rights Violation? [EDITORIAL]

In the United States, male circumcision is a deeply ingrained practice, often performed on newborns without their consent. This procedure, while culturally normalized, raises significant ethical and human rights concerns.

Prevalence and Cultural Norms

Historically, circumcision rates in the U.S. have been high. In 1965, approximately 85% of male newborns were circumcised. However, this number has steadily declined over the past half-century.

Despite the decline, circumcision remains a common practice, often justified by perceived health benefits or cultural traditions.

 

Health Benefits: A Critical Examination

Proponents of circumcision cite potential health benefits, such as reduced risks of urinary tract infections, penile cancer, and certain sexually transmitted infections. However, these benefits are often marginal and can be achieved through less invasive means. For instance, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) acknowledges that while the health benefits of newborn circumcision outweigh the risks, the benefits are not great enough to recommend universal newborn circumcision.

 

Similarly, the Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP) states: "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."

 

Ethical Concerns and Bodily Autonomy

Performing circumcision on infants who cannot consent raises significant ethical issues. The procedure is irreversible and alters the body permanently, infringing upon an individual's right to bodily autonomy. Critics argue that non-therapeutic circumcision of minors is a violation of human rights, comparable to other forms of non-consensual bodily alterations.

Regional Variations and Socioeconomic Factors

Circumcision rates in the U.S. vary significantly by region and are influenced by socioeconomic factors. States in the Midwest, such as Michigan, have higher circumcision rates, often exceeding 80%. In contrast, Western states like California and Oregon report rates below 25%.

These disparities are influenced by cultural norms, access to healthcare, and insurance coverage. For example, in states where Medicaid does not cover circumcision, rates are significantly lower.

 

Global Perspectives

Internationally, several countries have re-evaluated the practice of routine infant circumcision. In Australia and New Zealand, the RACP does not recommend routine infant circumcision, citing insufficient evidence of significant health benefits.

In Europe, countries like Denmark and the Netherlands have expressed opposition to non-therapeutic circumcision of minors, emphasizing the importance of bodily integrity and autonomy.

 

Personal Reflection

As someone circumcised as an infant, I endured significant discomfort and hypersensitivity in the glans (head) of my penis. For years, I believed something was wrong with me—that my body was somehow defective. It wasn’t until college, while studying anatomy and physiology, that I pieced it together: the persistent dampness and irritation I felt were a direct result of the glans being exposed without the natural protection of the foreskin. The foreskin, much like the clitoris’s hood, is designed to shield and protect this highly sensitive area.

Many men reading this will make the same connection for the first time.

Circumcision is performed long before we develop body awareness, leaving us to adapt to its consequences without fully understanding them. At best, we adjust; at worst, we endure lifelong complications. What’s more insidious is how we normalize the discomfort. We forget how aggravating overstimulation can be, but we never stop feeling it. Instead, we quietly accept it as “normal.” Dead zones of sensation on the penis become “standard” because ejaculation is still possible, and we convince ourselves that the pleasure we experience is enough. But it’s not.

Science has shown us that the foreskin isn’t “extra skin.” It’s a vital part of male anatomy, containing specialized nerves and lubrication glands that contribute significantly to sexual sensation and function.

As a boy, I always knew my bodily autonomy mattered less. When I expressed discomfort about my experience, people dismissed me—some even claimed I felt this way because I’m gay, as though my sexuality invalidated my bodily experience. Despite these dismissals, I’ve held on to a quiet certainty: my body was violated.

This Men’s Health Month, I feel compelled to finally say the words out loud: male circumcision is genital mutilation. Like the female kind, it permanently alters the body without consent and often under the guise of tradition, hygiene, or misplaced medical benefit.

It’s time to stop the routine practice of circumcision on anyone under the age of 18, except in cases where religion dictates it. I recognize that my American perspective on autonomy doesn’t override all cultural norms, but I firmly believe that anyone making this decision must have a compelling and justified reason for violating another’s body. Male circumcision deserves the same scrutiny, protection, and advocacy we extend to other forms of genital cutting.

Conclusion

While male circumcision is a longstanding practice in the United States, it is essential to critically examine its ethical implications, health benefits, and the rights of individuals to bodily autonomy. As societal norms evolve, so too should our approach to practices that permanently alter the human body without consent.