“Assumptions that men circumcised in childhood are satisfied with or suffer no adverse effects from circumcision have no scientific foundation”
By Ian Dunt: Any debate which touches on religion or gender quickly gets dragged into the culture war. So when the news broke on Sunday that Iceland was considering banning male circumcision, you could already sense the identity-politics battlelines forming. Islamophobes would love to weaponise the issue, as they do Halal food, to exploit crude religious divisions and present Islam as fundamentally barbarbaric. Men’s rights activists, whose strange combination of aggression and theatrical vulnerability leads them to claim every offence against women as somehow akin to one against men, could use it to pretend that male and female circumcision were comparable, which they most manifestly are not. On the other side, Jewish and Muslim groups are genuinely outraged by the idea this tradition could ever be banned. Skirting the issue It’s likely that if it were, they would just travel abroad to have it done. And the procedure itself seems basically harmless. Men rarely complain about it. It doesn’t prevent or hinder sexual pleasure, as female genital mutilation does. It may even have some health benefits, by making it harder to transmit sexually transmitted diseases.