Equality Now in Genital Reshaping: Brian Earp's Search for Moral Consistency

Is Physical Alteration a Sufficient Reason to Prohibit Ritual Infant Circumcision?

European culture and thought have long disfavored ritual child circumcision, which is obligatory to Jews and Muslims. Much opposition to this practice hinges on the notion that it represents an unwarranted unconsented physical assault on the child. This article takes issue with that conclusion. Furthermore, even if one were to grant this conclusion, the offense is not of sufficient magnitude to warrant government action to halt the practice. On the other hand, suppression of ritual child circumcision may represent an attack against cultures and societies in which circumcision is practiced.

Male or female genital cutting: why 'health benefits' are morally irrelevant

The WHO, American Academy of Pediatrics and other Western medical bodies currently maintain that all medically unnecessary female genital cutting of minors is categorically a human rights violation, while either tolerating or actively endorsing medically unnecessary male genital cutting of minors, especially in the form of penile circumcision. Given that some forms of female genital cutting, such as ritual pricking or nicking of the clitoral hood, are less severe than penile circumcision, yet are often performed within the same families for similar (eg, religious) reasons, it may seem that there is an unjust double standard. Against this view, it is sometimes claimed that while female genital cutting has 'no health benefits', male genital cutting has at least some. Is that really the case? And if it is the case, can it justify the disparate treatment of children with different sex characteristics when it comes to protecting their genital integrity? I argue that, even if one accepts the health claims that are sometimes raised in this context, they cannot justify such disparate treatment. Rather, children of all sexes and genders have an equal right to (future) bodily autonomy. This includes the right to decide whether their own 'private' anatomy should be exposed to surgical risk, much less permanently altered, for reasons they themselves endorse when they are sufficiently mature.

False beliefs predict increased circumcision satisfaction in a sample of US American men

Critics of non-therapeutic male and female childhood genital cutting claim that such cutting is harmful. It is therefore puzzling that 'circumcised' women and men do not typically regard themselves as having been harmed by the cutting, notwithstanding the loss of sensitive, prima facie valuable tissue. For female genital cutting (FGC), a commonly proposed solution to this puzzle is that women who had part(s) of their vulvae removed before sexual debut 'do not know what they are missing' and may 'justify' their genitally-altered state by adopting false beliefs about the benefits of FGC, while simultaneously stigmatising unmodified genitalia as unattractive or unclean. Might a similar phenomenon apply to neonatally circumcised men? In this survey of 999 US American men, greater endorsement of false beliefs concerning circumcision and penile anatomy predicted greater satisfaction with being circumcised, while among genitally intact men, the opposite trend occurred: greater endorsement of false beliefs predicted less satisfaction with being genitally intact. These findings provide tentative support for the hypothesis that the lack-of-harm reported by many circumcised men, like the lack-of-harm reported by their female counterparts in societies that practice FGC, may be related to holding inaccurate beliefs concerning unaltered genitalia and the consequences of childhood genital modification.