What Your Doctor May Not Tell You About(TM): Circumcision

Medically Accurate, But Unacceptably Toxic

While the book provides generally accurate information about the anatomy of the human penis (particularly the foreskin) and does a good job outlining how various pro-circumcision myths originated, I wouldn’t recommend this text to someone just dipping their toe into the subject matter and would urge extreme caution for the more experienced among us. Unfortunately, the book falls into the same ableist and sensationalist traps that most “intactivist” works do.

First, portraying uncircumcised individuals as “intact” is dehumanizing to those who have been circumcised (including survivors of neonatal circumcision). Circumcised individuals are no less “intact” than someone who has had any other part of their body amputated. (And, no, I’ve never heard of someone who hasn’t undergone other types of amputation being described as an “intact” human being. To claim this is a common framing outside of discussions involving circumcision is nonsense.)

The authors really go out of their way to portray survivors of neonatal circumcision (particularly those with the most severe of complications) as “sexual cripples.” (Yes, this is a phrasing actually used in the book.) Not only does this imply survivors are pathetic and broken, but it also implies disability itself is a pathetic and broken state. Why speak of the very people whose welfare one claims to be concerned with in such a negative and condescending light? Just to scare people into agreeing with you? That’s not right.

It’s also disturbing that the book references the work of intactivist Ronald Goldman, who, in the years since this book was published, has spread baseless theories about circumcision causing neurotypical children to become autistic or ADHD on a resource website he runs. Not only are these theories completely false, but they also demonize neurodivergence in precisely the same way anti-vaxxer conspiracy theories involving the neurodivergent do.

Alas, these disturbing attitudes and framings run rampant within the intactivist community, and this book is no exception. It would be nice if someone outside of the intactivist silo could write a similar work that focuses solely on the facts and leaves such emotionally charged and bigoted framings in the gutter where they belong.

To sum up, you might be able to get some useful information out of this book, but there’s an awful lot of toxic garbage to be sifted through to do it. If books like this are our only answer to pro-circumcision propaganda, then we’re really up a creek without a paddle.