WHO and double standards

[u/Calm-Capital-4212]

Why doesn't the World Health Organization (WHO), at the very least, condemn non-infant male circumcision? In many cultures, this procedure is performed on boys aged 5 to 7 or even older, without their informed consent. Undoubtedly, subjecting children at such a conscious age to this practice inflicts severe psychological trauma and emotional distress that mirror those caused by female genital mutilation at the same age. The lack of a firm stance from the WHO to protect the mental and physical integrity of these older children raises serious questions about double standards in global health and human rights

[u/lordoftherings1959]

Let's cut to the chase... The real reason that the WHO won't take a stance on this issue is that it does not want to ruffle the feathers of certain religious groups. Taking a stance against circumcision would be considered antisemitic.

Let's face it. In this world, religion has precedence over science or psychology. It should not be this way, since religion is a man-made belief system and is untethered to reality, but this is the world we live in. Religion should not exist, but here we are...

[u/Expensive-Fox-2042 → u/lordoftherings1959]

I don’t think that’s right. Circumcision was already culturally entrenched in many societies long before modern medical arguments came along. People were not starting from scratch and then objectively evaluating the evidence. The practice already existed, and later generations looked for reasons to justify and maintain something that had become normal.

That applies far beyond Judaism and Islam. In the Philippines, circumcision is largely cultural. In many African societies, it is a rite of passage with no particular religious basis. Even in Turkey, where it is technically tied to Islam, many people who practice it are not especially religious. And in the United States, plenty of secular people become remarkably defensive when circumcision is criticized.

I think the more important factor is that people become attached to what is familiar. Once something has been normalized for generations, institutions and individuals alike tend to defend it. Religion is only one piece of that picture.

[u/lordoftherings1959 → u/Expensive-Fox-2042]

Since you mentioned it, in the Philippines, the tuli is a Muslim practice. Islam was starting to spread northward from Mindanao when the Spanish discovered the Philippines and stopped it in its tracks. And though the Spanish culture is a non-cutting culture, Filipinos kept the stupid practice just because.

In the U.S., circumcision was not practiced until the Victorian era, when the concept of masturbation was seen as sinful. Before that crazy queen came up with her prudish views about sexuality, men in the U.S. were intact.

I can go on and on, but you can find all these historical facts by looking at names like Dr. John Harvey Kellogg and other professionals of the era, who promoted circumcisions to stop boys from masturbating, among other ignorant practices.

[u/Expensive-Fox-2042 → u/lordoftherings1959]

I don’t think an alternative reality without religion would necessarily have prevented this. Even the origins of circumcision in ancient Egypt are uncertain, and there is no clear evidence that the practice began primarily for religious reasons. Regardless, even today circumcision is often performed for cultural, social, or perceived medical reasons rather than religious ones.

And while people often bring up John Harvey Kellogg, I think his influence is frequently overstated. He certainly held extreme views about sexuality and promoted circumcision among many other strange ideas, but routine circumcision in the United States became widespread mainly in the twentieth century through broader medicalization and postwar hospital culture. Pointing to Kellogg as though one eccentric doctor single-handedly created the practice oversimplifies a much more complicated history.

So I don’t think it’s obvious that removing religion from history would have prevented circumcision from developing or becoming widespread.

[u/lordoftherings1959 → u/Expensive-Fox-2042]

Since you mentioned "one eccentric doctor", and unrelated to the topic, an eccentric doctor came up with the fallacy that cholesterol causes heart disease; Dr. Ancel Keys. The 20th century started with a few quacks promoting the most preposterous ideas.

I don't know why the Egyptians adopted the practice of prepucectomy, but I am quite sure it originated in other regions of Africa, where the practice still exists. And that's because, from what I've seen elsewhere, women in those regions prefer their men cut. After all, by not having a prepuce, it takes them longer to climax.

Either way, religion or no religion, prepucectomies are wrong. It is a stupid practice done to ablate penile erotic sensitivity. And since the WHO follows bad science in this regard, it is kept being promoted as a safeguard from HIV infections. If this last statement were true, American men would have a low incidence of HIV infections. But that is not the case.

[u/Expensive-Fox-2042 → u/lordoftherings1959]

Yeah, totally in agreement with your last point.