Circumcision: A Thought Experiment

There have been lots of interesting comments on my circumcision piece here and at the various other places it's been posted, and I'm working on a longer reply.

But for now, I'd like to throw out what you might call a Gedankenexperiment, although I'm no Einstein.

It's as follows:

1. Many German commentators on the circumcision decision call male circumcision 'mutilation' or 'assault' or 'a barbaric custom that permanently deforms'. I hardly have to provide links, do I?
2. Yet, the parents of the Muslim boy in question voluntarily had their own son mutilated and deformed.
3. Any parent who insists on having their own child be deformed and mutilated by means of a criminal assault is incapable of acting in their own child's best interests and should have their parental rights terminated -- right? Imagine a parent who, for instance, encouraged their young child to participate in knife fights, or who threw their child down a hill to 'toughen them up'. At the very least, there should be a thorough investigation into their fitness to raise all of their children.
4. Yet there has been no attempt to track down the parents of this 4-year-old Muslim boy and investigate their fitness as parents. Nor has there been a nationwide policy of questioning the parental fitness of Muslim and Jewish parents who have their male children circumcised.

The Gedankenexperiment is simple: why is this so?

Answer in comments, if you're inclined. My proposed answers are below the fold:

Point One: As the graph above shows, most Germans were hardly concerned about male circumcision before the court judgment. So it's not as if there were a thriving, mainstream movement in Germany to ban male circumcision before this judgment. Most of the people now claiming to be outraged about this brutal practice never even gave it a thought before 2012.

It seem as there might be something other than actual concern for these boys' penises behind the outrage of circumcision opponents, doesn't it? The charitable assumption would be that the exaggerated outrage hides a generalized secularist bias that views all religious customs with contempt. The less charitable assumption is that lots of this hyperventilating outrage is actually a pretext for anti-Islamic and/or anti-Semitic sentiments.

Point Two: The thought experiment shows that most of the overheated rhetoric about mutilation is just that: rhetoric. If people really thought that having your male child circumcised were equivalent to a knife-fight, there would be a massive movement to investigate parents who engage in the practice and get them to change their ways or face losing their children.

Yet almost nobody is saying this in Germany. That's because, deep down, even the most convinced (newly-minted) opponent of male circumcision knows, deep down, that circumcision is different from child abuse, and that most parents who have their boys circumcised are probably perfectly fit parents in other respects. They understand that although they themselves might not have their own children circumcised, it's a well-accepted tradition throughout the world, and therefore is not obviously irrational or dangerous.

As in most human affairs, actions (i.e. not calling for the parental rights of parents to 'mutilate' and 'deform' their kids to be suspended) speak louder than words. Or put another way, revealed preferences are much more reliable than stated preferences. And the revealed preferences show that most circumcision opponents don't take their rhetoric seriously.

Comments

[noram]

It is also possible, however, that the Google Trends chart overstates the public's involvement in the controversy.

We know from Jost Müller-Neuhof's article in Tagesspiegel that the Cologne judgment might have attracted no attention at all if not for a carefully orchestrated media campaign.

And it is true that the number of relevant comments on Internet message boards went through the roof soon afterward. However, consider the possibility that the majority of comments in this blizzard were penned by a relatively small number of enormously determined and prolific individuals using a variety of pseudonyms and practically typing around the clock.

The German Bundestag maintains an "e-petitions" website where anyone can launch a petition and ask others for support. Once a quorum of 50,000 signatures is reached, the Petitions Committee ordinarily will put the petition on its agenda.

However, two anti-circumcision petitions -- #1 and #2 -- both fell far, far short of the quorum.

By contrast, a petition of interest to only a narrow interest group -- petition to preserve tax-exempt status for privately run ballet and music schools -- easily vaulted over the 50,000 signatures barrier.

[blockhead]

Ney: Maybe, but in order to outlaw circumcision it will not be enough to propose a simple law and get it through the Bundestag. You will first have to change the Grundgesetz, for which you will need a supermajority in German parliament (both houses). I could be wrong but I don't think you can get there in less than 30 years.

[Ney]

Circumcision of minors will be abolished, sooner or later. So much heated argument about something that's inevitable.

[Andrew]

Just to clarify: The post tried to make a clear distinction between (1) people who have long been opposed in principle to circumcision and make cogent arguments about the practice; and (2) Those people who only seem to have developed an opinion after the court judgment but now claim to be outraged at this awful practice.

The post is about people in the second category, which I tried to make clear by emphasizing their use of strong, outraged language by putting it in italics. Nobody seems to be disputing that there are literally millions of Germans in the second category, as even the most cursory glance at comments sections to newspaper articles (those sewers of human judgment) make clear.

As for people who have long opposed circumcision -- whether practiced by Jews, Muslims, or Christians -- on medical or psychological grounds, I see no reason to distrust their motives.

Oh, and @ben: Worst. Troll. Ever.

[CMBoulanger]

What's really interesting is the tone of the comments here and elsewhere. Often, three things are confounded that need to be kept apart: the debate on the medical "pro's and con's" of circumcision (which has an empirical "truth" aspect), the moral/ethical meaning of what the medical record (which doesn't, it's basically a value judgement contingent on cultural and personal backgrounds) and the legal issue, whether the state is allowed to criminalize doctors which perform circumcision in a technically correct way (de lege artis).

Andrew analyzes the phenomenon of the sudden (and a bit inexplicable) surge of interest and zeal that has sprung up after the cologne decision. And while I also think that the picture he paints is a bit one-sided (there are many people who speak out against circumcision in a matter-of-factly way, which by the way, no-one denies), I am also struck by how aggressive people are. Maybe Freudian analyses would be in order.

[Zaungast]

Andrew, what you did here is an analysis of public opinion on this topic. I agree with much of it hands down, although I doubt that the "outrage" is really that deeply felt or sustainable. The legal question, of course, is something different.

One reason I like that court decision is that it both qualifies circumcision as bodily harm, but at the same time makes it clear that it is NOT the equivalent of knife-fights and disqualifies the outrage by assuming "unvermeidbaren Verbotsirrtum" in favor of the physician.
Btw, as I'm not really into circumcision, I find it the best achievement of this decision to have another helpful and incontrovertible example of this legal motive for future reference.

I can very well identify with this statement:
I'm not opposed to circumcision, and I agree that for such a long tradition with little risk of bad effects on future health, it's credible that intelligent people don't think of it as a crime - so no outrage is required.
Nevertheless, I'm also convinced that the boy's right to bodily integrity rules out that operation unless permitted by another law.
Unlike the court, I think that neither the boy's nor the parents' religions freedom is relevant to this question.

Coming soon:
The baby ear piercing case.

[Dan Richter]

Interesting detail for the Google result: In Brandenburg, nobody seems to care. (Or nobody knows how to use Google.)

[ben]

Andrew, I really liked your blog but nowadays I see more and more polemic rants from "people interested in STEM careers have probably never watched a music video with interest in their lives" to the piece of garbage above. Your post is an insult to your intelligence and discussing it would be an insult to your readers' - my regards to those who plucked it apart anyway. I don't know what's nagging at you but I hope you'll figure it out and make it stop.

[noram]

It's not an either-or, there are numerous categories. I'm going to list some of them by order of how frequently they are encountered. My personal opinion only (not based on cite-able statistics), I don't care whether anyone likes it or not.

(1) Raging, insanely hateful Jew-haters (mostly) and Muslim-haters (less often). Found: all over the Internet, but not only. Pseudonymous commenters on message boards, but increasingly sign their full names to their screeds. 20 percent of Germans (some say only 15, some say more) fall into this category. The circumcision controversy has helped to legitimize what was formerly considered Nazi hate speech and encouraged creeps to come out of the closet. As yet, they are still cautious to openly declare themselves antisemites but if it walks, talks and quacks like a duck... See the first and second comments below this article. The first comment points fingers (without evidence) at a Muslim perpetrator and then vehemently objects to 20 percent of Germans being considered antisemitic (1,031 likes). The second simply says, "Why? I am one of the 20 percent" (161 likes).

(2) Militant atheists. Would like to get rid of baptism, too, and outlaw all religious activity except for private thoughts, but for now are happy to go after low-hanging fruit. (Holm Putzke [sic LOL...])

(3) Well-intentioned people who have gotten caught up in the whirlwind and frequently rely on false or misleading information as fed to them by the media and the Internet.

(4) People with a financial interest. See my examination of one such example on Verfassungsblog. This goes also for German physician lobbies, always eager to latch onto a chance to polish up their image (tarnished due to scandals such as organ transplant corruption) with the German public.

(5) Attention-seekers and power-hungry people. Frequently heard spouting misinformation originally coming from (6) below. Example: Prof. Reinhard Merkel.

(6) Seriously disturbed people. Here is one example. This individual imagines that the removal of his foreskin has doomed him to a life of loneliness and pain. In the U.S., so-called intactivists run dozens of websites promoting their views. One of them, with zero academic credentials, published a laughable "study" purporting to show that more than 100 boys are killed by circumcision in the U.S. annually. See (5) above; Prof. Merkel is still retailing these lies and no-one calls him on them.

I would put commenter "Jens" in category (3). He complains about a "false dichotomy" but then introduces one himself, asking "whether circumcision is doing harm to children or not". The correct question of course is trivalent and includes benefits. In light of the American Academy of Pediatric's exhaustive review of the evidence, there are very good reasons not to ignore these benefits.

[Jens]

Of course circumcision is different from child abuse. But does that mean you can't debate whether it is ok or maybe not ok?

There is a false dichotomy underlying your post, Andrew. You seem to want to put people into two camps: in the one camp, there are those against it who (according to you) necessarily have to say "circumcision is mutilation" and equivalent to a criminal assault, and in the other camp there are those fully endorsing it as justified by parental rights.

To me, this dichotomy prohibits any fruitful discussion on the issue. There is also space for opinions in between, I think. To allow a sensible discussion on this issue, it should be ok to ask whether circumcision is doing harm to children or not. The answer, which should be based on scientific evidence, does not have to be that it is either child abuse (and thus per se illegal) or it isn't (and thus per se legal). For, instance, a result could also be that it is declared legal, but with conditions. Such conditions could be (a) only a certified physician is allowed to perform the circumcision or (b) parents wishing to have their son circumcised would be required by law to sign a piece of paper that they have been informed about the potential risks and about the permanent harm caused (provided, of course, that such harm has been proven).

Finally, to your point one which I find a bit hypocrite: yes, there is no mainstream movement against circumcision, and yes, most people don't give a s*** about it. But why does that mean they can't have an opinion about it and voice it? Are you only entitled to an opinion when you can prove that you have done everything to implement it? To say "no massive movement, ergo outrage not credible" is just not a convincing way of dealing with differing opinions.

[Christian Buggedei]

Thomas put things quite well already, but I would like to add one thing: Often enough, male
circumcision opponents do realize that they are up against a deeply rooted religious custom. That is why we don't question the relative fitness of the parents - these do honestly believe they are doing the right thing for their kids.

So I wouldn't call the practice babaric, but certainly unneccessary and outdated.

[Thomas]

I don’t care for the outraged ones. As far as I can make out they are just Wutbürgers that jump on any topic, be it killing seals, catching dolphins along with tunas, silly train stations, anything.
I agree that a certain portion of the outragers who are not simply Hobby-Wutbürgers have anti-religious motives.

But the fact that idiots get outraged doesn't disqualify the topic or makes it irrelevant, does it?

>there would be a massive movement to investigate parents
No, there probably wouldn't.
Parents that send their boys into a Schlagende Verbindung aren't investigated, neither are those that encourage their sons to become a soldier or any other highly dangerous job. Apparently it is OK for boys to be toughened up and one can't start too early to do so.

> it's a well-accepted tradition throughout the world, and therefore is not obviously irrational or dangerous

Non-sequitur.
I would argue that all religious behaviour is irrational at least to a certain extent.
And the level of "danger" depends on what kind of amateur is performing the circumcision.
And even if you don’t want to call it "dangerous", there are definite indications that the practice is at least harmful: http://www.deutschepsychotherapeutenvereinigung.de/fileadmin/main/g-datei-download/News/2012/Brief_BMJ_-_Beschneidung.pdf

And that is the point AFAIC: You harm a child for religious reasons. You don’t mutilate or any other hyperventilating word, but you harm.
Is it OK to harm a child to what extent ever for no very good reason other than "God says so"?
I find it very difficult to answer that question with "yes".

As a side note: as far as I know the circumcision of girls is prohibited in any form, even the symbolic versions where no knife gets even near the girls bodies.
Gegenfrage: Why do girls get protected in such a rigorous way while people saying that boys need as much protection get sneered at?