Category: Stupidity

Opposition to Circumcision and Anti-Semitism

Ken at Popehat has a post today on the proposal in San Francisco to prohibit non-therapeutic male child circumcision. Specifically, he addresses propaganda materials created by individuals associated with MGM Bill, including its founder, Matthew Hess. The charge is that these materials, including a comic book series and trading cards, are anti-Semitic. I’d like to challenge what Ken wrote about it. I can’t, though, because I agree that the materials are anti-Semitic and despicable.

I, and others, have worked behind the scenes to counter this sort of nonsense whenever it’s popped up, including the original release of these materials from Mr. Hess. This will unavoidably appear, since infant circumcision involves religion and not everyone involved in a movement will have the sense to reject the wrong, unethical approach. As I’ve read in a few smart places recently, any movement like this will have its anti-religion fringe, but that should not tar the entire movement. There is a principled approach against circumcision that is easily stated and powerful in a way that anti-Semitism can never be. The words of the proposal are straight-forward. As Ken wrote, “there are many arguments to be made against circumcision that do not depend on denigration of religion.” We should make them, and only them. Those who do shouldn’t be tainted by those who don’t.

So, yes, I’ve encountered anti-Semitism. I do not stand for it when I encounter it, although the only evidence is what I’ve written here. Being a loosely organized movement, at best, chastisement is the only way to counter disagreement on the means of achieving the necessary goal. I prefer to challenge it behind the scenes where possible to educate rather than embarrass. Unfortunately, this example won’t go away, despite behind-the-scenes efforts. And now it threatens to undo any progress principled activists have made. I am furious and powerless, a frustrating combination.

My only hope is that people will not heed this one sentence from Ken, my only objection to his post. He writes: “I hope that it comes to represent the anti-circumcision campaign in San Francisco.” It may. It probably will. But it shouldn’t. There is already too little thinking involved in most decisions to circumcise. We shouldn’t encourage less.

Some Debates Don’t Have Two Sides

Yesterday in the Los Angeles Times Op-Ed section, Cato policy analyst David Rittgers wrote about the renewed discussion of waterboarding and whether or not it’s torture.

The successful raid on Osama bin Laden’s safe house in Pakistan has reinvigorated debate over the role that “enhanced interrogation techniques” have played in fighting Al Qaeda. No one is switching sides, which has turned the argument into a theological one between two sets of true believers. Each views the other as heretics.

Get over it. The whole of the debate is pointless posturing. There is no way to prove or disprove the real worth of America’s experiment with waterboarding and coercive techniques. More important, enhanced interrogation isn’t coming back.

I agree that what is now happening is posturing. I disagree that it’s pointless. In the same way I wanted to know in the middle of the Bush Administration, I want to know now who supports the use of torture. Those people should be exposed as quickly and as completely as possible so that they’re removed or kept away from public office. If they wish to expose themselves, so much better.

Link via Cato @ Liberty.

Bob Barr Is Anti-Liberty

I voted for Bob Barr as the Libertarian (rather than libertarian) candidate in 2008. My vote was symbolic, since I couldn’t support either major party candidate. I knew it was a “waste” then, since it wouldn’t amount to anything. I didn’t know I was the idiot. Today, I am ashamed of that vote.

From Barr’s blog at the Atlanta Journal-Constitution, here’s his post on the San Francisco ballot initiative that would prohibit non-therapeutic genital cutting on male minors in the city:

San Francisco, a city that has long been a safe-haven for the liberal elite, …

At least he declares upfront that he wishes to engage in ad hominem rather than logical debate.

… has been on a ban-happy kick of late. But the City by the Bay may have gone a bridge too far with its latest proposed ban . . . on circumcisions!

Don’t think, be OUTRAGED!

After a silly bit about the Happy Meal ban, because banning a food product is somehow no more appalling than banning an unnecessary surgical procedure forced on children, he picks up his mockery:

Now the city may be moving toward an agenda of “genital justice.”

Regardless of whether the city’s Grand Pooh Bahs can defend with a straight face the proposed ban on clipping a baby boy’s foreskin, San Franciscans do appear to be serious about the matter.

San Francisco’s “Grand Pooh Bahs” had nothing to do with this, as his next paragraph demonstrates. It was a ballot initiative led by a private citizen. If it had been proposed to the city council, it would’ve been tossed in the trash can with the same unthinking concern Barr shows here.

The Associated Press reports that local activists have gathered enough valid signatures to place an anti-circumcision referendum on the November ballot. What these activists call “genital mutilation,” would be banned for male children, absent meeting the almost-impossible, “medical necessity” exemption provided for in the referendum. There is no religious exemption. Anyone violating the ban would be charged with a “misdemeanor offense punishable by a fine of up to $1,000 or up to one year in jail.”

The fact that the exemption is “almost-impossible” to meet demonstrates why Barr is wrong on this. It is permanent, body-altering surgery on a healthy person who can’t consent to the modification’s harms or risks involved. California law already prohibits non-therapeutic genital cutting on female minors. What do the Grand Pooh Bahs of California think of that? What does Bob Barr think of that? Is that “genital mutilation,” or is it genital mutilation? Can only female genitals be “cut up or alter[ed] radically so as to make imperfect”? Barr offers no explanation for why male circumcision is Teh Awesome, just that those liberal elites – center square on the Conservative Bullshit Argument Bingo board – support it. Obviously Barr called every one of those who signed the petition to confirm that they’re liberals and couldn’t possibly argue from any defensible or logical position against non-therapeutic male child circumcision.

Barr concludes:

San Francisco clearly has jumped the shark with this proposal. Even some residents who normally would likely shrug off extreme left-wing campaigns mounted by various activist groups, probably are wondering if things are going a bit too far with this one. They are right to question this proposal. It is about as far off the “Bizarro Scale” as you can get; at least, that is, until we see what San Franciscans come up with next year.

That’s it. He doesn’t include a single word about why parents should be able to continue forcing genital cutting on their healthy sons. There is no argument here. This so-called libertarian doesn’t even attempt the flawed argument in favor of parental “liberty”. The only conclusion is that Bob Barr is not motivated by liberty.

Update: I’ve rethought the title to this post. It was originally “Bob Barr is Unethical and Anti-Liberty.” His mockery within his blog post demonstrates that he does not understand, but it’s something different to state that he is unethical. Hence, my revision.

I’ll Find Somewhere Else to Honor Thomas Jefferson

It’s difficult to remain optimistic when reading sentences like this, from the DC District Court’s decision in Oberwetter v. Hilliard (pdf):

In creating and maintaining the Jefferson Memorial in particular, the government has dedicated a space with a solemn commemorative purpose that is incompatible with the full range of free expression that is permitted in public forums.

…

… It would be strange indeed to hold that the government may not favor its own expression inside the Jefferson Memorial, which was built by the government for the precise purpose of promoting a particular viewpoint about Jefferson.

Not being an attorney, I can’t offer a qualified on the legal arguments. I followed the reasoning of the decision well enough. While I’d love to pick at the accepted meanings and justifications used in the text, I’m sure it’s “correct”. But defending the power to restrict the First Amendment to honor it is not good policy. We should all be embarrassed that all the little pieces along our history could lead us to viewing this as acceptable.

Put differently, fuck that bastard version of the Constitution, assuming that First Amendment still protects any speech. I assume it does, since it’s not as if I’m criticizing something sacred, like a politican.

Both links via Radley Balko.

Barbara Kay Is Mistaken on Circumcision.

I’ve read many bizarre, irrational rants advocating for non-therapeutic child circumcision. This recent opinion piece by Barbara Kay in Canada’s National Post is the worst drivel of that sort I’ve encountered. (It’s a response to a counter opinion piece by Jackson Doughart.)

She begins:

In 1970, some 97% of American males, and about 70% of Canadian males were circumcised. Those numbers have fallen dramatically, thanks in large part to ardent activism by anti-circumcision “rights” groups.

Jackson Doughart believes that the Canadian government should pass legislation that would prevent religious leaders and health-care legislators from performing or authorizing the ritual circumcisions of newborn children. He bases his argument on two often-adduced moral grounds: that the circumcision of infants violates their human rights, because they cannot give informed consent to the procedure, and that male circumcision is a “mutilation,” comparable to female genital mutilation (FGM), already outlawed.

Non-therapeutic genital cutting on a non-consenting individual is morally and ethically wrong. It violates the individual’s human rights (e.g. right to be free from harm), regardless of the individual’s gender or the subjective reasons provided for the surgery. It would be no less ethical to cut off healthy, functioning fingers or ear lobes than to cut off a healthy, functioning foreskin.

To her second point, there are forms of FGM that are less invasive than male circumcision and performed for many of the same non-therapeutic reasons. Yet, these forms of FGM are still illegal. We recognize that they violate the child’s rights because they cause unnecessary harm.

Before addressing Mr. Doughart’s moral concerns, I stipulate to set aside any religious argument for our debate. I can assure Mr. Doughart that Jews, myself included, would unequivocally renounce the ritual of male circumcision if scientists provide a causal link between circumcision and increased risk for morbidity. But after 5,000 years of what is essentially a massive controlled study of Jewish and Muslim men, from which no negative effects can be ascribed to male circumcision, that is unlikely to happen.

She establishes a ridiculous straw man in an attempt to demonstrate that, religious argument aside, child circumcision is moral. It’s unfortunately all too easy to prove that circumcision increases the risk for morbidity, but that’s not the proper argument. There’s far more to the ethical question than her implication that it’s obviously good and unassailable if it doesn’t kill the patient. And the 5,000 year “controlled study” of Jewish and Muslim “men” really involves children who become men. There’s an important difference there beyond the obvious issue of consent since circumcision of an infant is subtly different from circumcision of an adult.

Carrying the straw man to its illogical conclusion, she writes:

Conversely, Mr. Doughart should stipulate to endorse male circumcision if it can be shown to decrease the risk for morbidity. Which it can.

She’s ignored the ethical argument of rights, apparently because putting quotes around a word proves it doesn’t apply. Somehow. But she’s also dismissed the concept of ethics. To her, any intervention is ethical if it decreases the risk of morbidity. In her misguided view, it doesn’t matter if the person wants it or is ever likely to need that intervention. If it can decrease some risk, it’s automatically ethical.

That’s ridiculous, of course. Should we begin studying female genital cutting to determine whether or not it reduces some risk, no matter how small the absolute risk is? What about removal of breast buds from infants? If SCIENCE! trumps any ethical concern, as Kay expects the reader to accept, then there is no intervention on children that can be considered irrational or offensive if it reduces the risk of morbidity in some way. To Kay, science and the application of science (i.e. medical ethics) are the same. They are not the same.

The World Health Organization (WHO) recommends male circumcision on the basis of irrefutable evidence that it dramatically lowers the rate of HIV, not just in men, but in women and children (according to one British researcher, “The foreskin of the penis is a magnet for HIV.”)

With the availability of Google, it’s not difficult to learn what WHO recommends. Its recommendation isn’t what Kay states it is:

… WHO/UNAIDS recommendations emphasize that male circumcision should be considered an efficacious intervention for HIV prevention in countries and regions with heterosexual epidemics, high HIV and low male circumcision prevalence. …

That statement does not describe the United States or Canada. Ignoring that – to the point of calling the finding a “miracle” in the next paragraph – is egregious. I’d be curious to understand why she and her editor made this inexcusable mistake, but regardless of the reason, she’s wrong. Its actions show that it ignores ethics, like Kay, but WHO does not recommend male circumcision, full stop.

Yet Mr. Doughart shrugs off this miracle, claiming there are “far better ways” to eliminate HIV, like “educating youth about sexual health and condom use.” Actually, both have been tried. They don’t work in significant numbers (although sexual-fidelity campaigns have been effective: is Mr. Doughart on board for those?).

There are (at least) two problems with this. First, the studies in Africa were not long-term. We do not know if the percentage of HIV infections among circumcised males will eventually match the percentage among intact males. There are portions of Africa where circumcised males have higher HIV infection rates. It’s reasonable to suggest that males engaging in unprotected sex with HIV-positive women over a long-enough period will become HIV-positive, that circumcision can’t prevent HIV. Or they could wear condoms…

Second, the ethical problems with non-therapeutic circumcision of non-consenting individuals isn’t resolved by studies on groups of people. The individual is an individual, with his own preferences and possible actions. “Most” males may not use condoms, but any male might. The preferences of an individual who never engages in risky sexual behavior should not be ignored because some number of his peers engage in risky sexual behavior.

Passing to the moral realm, the argument of “informed consent” is easily demolished by the fact that we routinely vaccinate our children against disease without their consent for their own good. Even before we knew of the HIV connection, amongst those circumcising their sons, health and hygiene were always the reason. STDs are much more common in uncircumcised men, and circumcision causes a 12-fold reduction in the incidence of urinary tract infections. Complications from circumcisions performed by experienced surgeons and mohels are as rare as those springing from dental procedures or vaccinations: that’s to say, statistically negligible.

Vaccinations are a red herring. They protect against diseases by activating the body’s natural immune response. Circ
umcision amputates healthy skin on the theory that it might cause problems. (Worth noting: The link between circumcision and reduced risk of female-to-male HIV transmission is not fully understood.) This comparison ignores the likelihood of problems or the means by which the individual becomes sick. An individual can get measles by doing nothing more than venturing into his community. Becoming HIV-positive requires a bit more active behavior, and specifically with one’s penis. Preventing such infections is easy, and the method is known. Proxy consent for circumcision can’t be sufficiently compared to proxy consent for vaccinations.

As for the rest, earlier in her essay, Kay said there were no negative effects from circumcision. Now she’s acknowledging that there are, in fact, complications. That’s relevant to her mistaken belief that only increased morbidity matters. She should also prove that such complications are “statistically negligible.” (Are they negligible to the males who receive those circumcision complications?)

Kay is also engaging in the common tactic of presenting relative risk rather than absolute risk. For UTIs, the relative risk is impressive in the absence of critical thinking. She neglects to mention that this benefit only exists for the first year of life. The absolute risk of a UTI, however, is not as impressive. It’s only 1% for intact males, which is less than the 3% risk of UTIs for females in the first year of life. For the majority of those in the 1%, treatments less invasive than circumcision will be sufficient to resolve the infection.

On to the pernicious myth that male circumcision, a 30-second procedure, is a “mutilation” and the obscene canard that it is the equivalent of sexist FGM. FGM is a horribly protracted and painful cutting of girls under terrifying circumstances, with the specific intention of eliminating the capacity for sexual pleasure, and rightly considered a criminal action. According to UNICEF, at least 100 million women have been genitally mutilated. Compared to their uncut peers, these women are 69% more likely to hemorrhage after childbirth, and up to 55% more likely to deliver a dead or mortally ill baby. For every 100 deliveries, the WHO estimates FGM kills one or two more children.

Not all FGM is “sexist” in the way Kay implies, since it’s perpetuated and carried out by women. Nor is all FGM performed with the “specific intention of eliminating the capacity for sexual pleasure.” This is the most common result, but we don’t look at intent when criminalizing this in the Western world. The federal anti-FGM act in the United States explicitly excludes any parental intent. The act is separate from why it’s performed. Parents who cite reasons similar to what society permits for male circumcision are given no more credence than those who intend to inflict the vilest outcomes. The act itself, rather than intent, is the sole criteria. The same must be true for boys.

“Mutilation” is a disgusting word to apply to the excision of a non-essential bacteria trap, nearly painless and instantly forgotten (those who claim otherwise are fantasizing; no credible study demonstrates lasting effects). Unlike ordinary circumcised men, FGM victims know they have been mutilated in the real sense of the word. Feminists constantly remind us that men have all the power. If true, how is it that after so many thousands of years — coincidentally up to the advent of the sexual revolution and the privileging of erotic freedom over ethical mating — so many millions of intelligent and even powerful Jewish and Muslim males never spoke up about their alleged victimhood?

Non-therapeutic genital cutting on a non-consenting individual is mutilation. Among the definitions of mutilate is this: To make imperfect by excising or altering parts. Kay just described circumcision as excision. She is wrong to maintain this disconnect between her accurate word and her inaccurate understanding.

Beyond that, calling the foreskin non-essential ignores the individual. It’s absurd. Anything that doesn’t kill the individual can be considered non-essential. The term has no relevance to proxy consent for non-therapeutic genital cutting. A male may value and prefer what she considers non-essential on his body. Her belief that the opinion of a male’s parents’ matters with regard to what is non-essential on his body is wrong. Each person is the arbiter for himself. As long as the individual is healthy, removing any normal body parts is unethical.

Calling the foreskin a “bacteria trap” is no more accurate than calling the vagina a bacteria trap. Bathing is quite easy in our society. Surgically excising a child’s foreskin is an abdication of parental responsibility, not a prudent response.

The ability to make a procedure painless does not render it ethical. The ability to “forget” the surgery assumes that the child’s experience during the procedure and healing are irrelevant. That is a monstrous view. And the implicit “you can’t miss what you never had” argument is equally ridiculous. Circumcision removes the male’s foreskin, not his brain. The male is capable of knowing that he has been mutilated, even in the typical scenario where his mutilation is less severe than a female victim’s.

The obvious reason why so many men, including but not limited to Jewish and Muslim males, never speak up is because they were circumcised as children. They incorrectly perceive circumcision as normal, rather than common. And, from my discussions with other men, there is a very strong defense mechanism against seeing themselves as harmed. (This same response can be seen among victims of female genital cutting, some of whom don’t view themselves as victims.) Our world is more complicated than this imaginary world Kay conjured up.

The responses of these millions of men is irrelevant to the ethical question involving individuals. Kay ignores this. What the individual prefers for himself is what matters for non-therapeutic surgery. If he does not want non-therapeutic genital cutting, he is correct for himself. The rights Kay incorrectly dismisses belong to the individual, not to the majority opinion within his society. If any right belongs to the majority, it is meaningless. Stating that most males don’t care about being circumcised is not a defense for forcing it on any individual male.

On the point about “erotic freedom over ethical mating”, it’s a strange non-sequitur that ties into her last paragraph. So far, she’s propped up her indefensible argument with ignorance, straw men, and selective fact-checking. She ends with ad hominem:

Set aside the rights-based rhetoric. It’s about sex: Circumcised men have greater pre-orgasmic endurance; non-circumcision permits more frequent ejaculations. What matters most to the anti-circumcision activists is their diminished pleasure with frequently changing sexual partners, as befits an era where the number of conquests is a more common metric of romantic success than long-term relationships. Our legislators have better things to worry about than this.

On par with calling the foreskin a “bacteria trap”, stating that circumcision imparts “greater pre-orgasmic endurance” is propaganda. She is saying that circumcised males take longer to reach orgasm, which she expects us to grasp as “good”. She’s making a value judgment that endurance is objectively better. It isn’t because she’s unavoidably declares that sex is changed by circumcision. Again, all individual tastes and preferences are subjective. Some males will value “pre-orgasmic endurance.” Some will not. Each is right for himself, so imposing it on all is unethical.

Instead of attempting to prove that the subjectiv
e is objective, she states that males against non-therapeutic child circumcision merely want to have lots of promiscuous sex with as many people as possible. She presented no evidence to suggest what activists prefer or what circumcised males would do if left intact. Her smear attempt is embarrassingly stupid.

However, it’s worth exploring the implicit sentiment in her ad hominem attack. “Ethical mating” is supposed to be better than “erotic freedom” in some objective, provable manner to Kay. Since circumcision allegedly promotes “ethical mating”, circumcision is allegedly good. But what she’s saying is that circumcision can and should be used by parents as a tool to control male sexuality. She rightly denounced sexism that attempts to excuse female genital mutilation, so why does she endorse sexism to excuse male genital mutilation?

Krugman’s Tale of Inaccurate Caricatures

Last week, Paul Krugman did his hacktastic best to suggest that the two competing sides of government philosophy are the far right and the center. He paints himself as part of the caring center, of course, opposed to the meanies on the right who inevitably despise anyone lesser. It’s all kinds of ad hominem fun, and concludes with this bit about how we need to end the heated political rhetoric that’s apparently only been happening since President Obama’s election in 2008:

It’s not enough to appeal to the better angels of our nature. We need to have leaders of both parties — or Mr. Obama alone if necessary — declare that both violence and any language hinting at the acceptability of violence are out of bounds. We all want reconciliation, but the road to that goal begins with an agreement that our differences will be settled by the rule of law.

Or Mr. Obama alone if necessary? President Obama can do nothing constitutionally to end such not-new rhetoric. Krugman’s point is silly and makes me think of this:

That seems about right.

Hanna Rosin Is Still Mistaken on Circumcision. Uh Oh.

Yesterday, the New York Times ran an article about a recent study (on a semi-related topic) that suggests the U.S. infant male circumcision rate fell to 32.5% for 2009. This has been floating around for a few weeks. Frankly, I don’t believe it, as much as I’d like it to be true. When the data are fully analyzed, we’ll either see the rate climb or the exclusions will reveal circumcisions that weren’t counted but must logically be assumed (e.g. ritual). I’m aware of my culture’s insanity.

This story has, predictably, brought out the usual folks and their BUT TEH AIDS!!!!1 rhetoric. For example, a year after showing her ignorance and bias¹ for circumcision, Hanna Rosin returns to prove that she’s still willfully ignorant.

The New York Times reports today on new findings that circumcision rates have declined precipitously in the United States, from 56 percent in 2006 to 32.5 percent last year. That’s a phenomenal decline in just three years. …

No kidding. It’s so phenomenal that, were she ever willing to break out her critical thinking skills, she might focus her blog entry on that point. Instead, she regurgitates the same incorrect, irrelevant propaganda.

… The story quotes doctors saying that of course no one in the profession should ever tell a parent to circumcise their child and the Centers for Disease Control declines to comment because they never do on this issue, even though they know full well that the drop in circumcisions is a potentially serious public health problem. …

That quote is this:

“No one is going to tell a parent, ‘You have to circumcise your child.’ That would be foolish,” Dr. [Michael] Brady said. “The key thing physicians should be doing is providing information on both risks and benefits and allow the parent to make the best decision.”

Any doctor who agrees with that is an unethical coward. The key thing physicians should be doing is rejecting the offensive parental request to surgically alter healthy children boys.

As for what they “know full well,” this from the New York Times article:

Some 80 percent of American men are circumcised, one of the highest rates in the developed world. Yet even advocates of circumcision acknowledge that an aggressive circumcision drive in the United States would be unlikely to have a drastic impact on H.I.V. rates here, since the procedure does not seem to protect those at greatest risk, men who have sex with men.

Context matters, a caveat Rosin ignores.

Continuing:

… But circumcision has become like abortion these days, where allying yourself with the Mengele doctors who mutilate infant boys risks bringing a horde protesters to your office door.

Doctors (and non-doctors) who circumcise healthy boys mutilate them:

1 : to cut up or alter radically so as to make imperfect
2 : to cut off or permanently destroy a limb or essential part of

Words have meaning independent of the desired preference of pro- or anti- child circumcision arguments. For mutilation, that meaning is independent of the victim’s gender and the proxy’s intent.

She continues:

It does not really matter if any individual parent decides that circumcision is not for them, as I explained in this New York magazine story, “The Case Against the Case Against Circumcision.” …

This is the crux of her mistake. The (unnecessary) circumcision Rosin defends is not for the parent. It’s imposed on the individual child boy. This is why it’s unethical, regardless of all the unimpressive, incomplete facts she shares. It’s not about what the parents want, but what the boy needs. Proxy consent has objective, logical limits. That our society ignores these does not reduce their validity.

Continuing:

… But it absolutely matters if a whole society turns against the practice. The exact relationship between circumcision and the prevention of certain diseases – from AIDS on down – is not perfectly understood. …

Promote anyway, apparently, since there’s no chance missed factors could contribute to the conclusion.

… But it is absolutely understood that societies in which the majority of boys are circumcised have lower rates of such diseases than other societies.

From AVERT, worldwide AIDS & HIV statistics from 2008 show that North America has an adult prevalence of 0.4%. Most 15-49 year old American males are circumcised. Canadian circumcision rates are declining, but a large percentage in that age group are circumcised. Western & Central Europe, where most males are intact, has an adult prevalence of 0.3%. But it is “absolutely understood” that mutilating societies have lower rates of such diseases. Rosin is entitled to her own facts, apparently. She knows.

Still more:

Anti-circumcision activists have convinced us that circumcision is harmful and dangerous and does a lifetime of damage. …

Circumcision is surgery. It removes healthy tissue and nerves. That’s harmful. Every boy suffers some form of harm (e.g. scarring), but some boys suffer far worse. Collectively it is not “dangerous”, but individuals are not statistics. And since this damage is permanent, it certainly lasts a lifetime.

If a male chooses circumcision for himself, that is his right, regardless of his reason. The issue is its imposition on healthy, non-consenting children boys. Their health proves how the science involved is twisted, since only potential benefits seem to count as “science”. Their lack of consent proves the ethical argument against permitting prophylactic circumcision (i.e. ritual, cultural, and “scientific”), unless Rosin wishes to open proxy consent to medically unnecessary genital surgery on female minors.

¹ I also highlighted her ignorance and bias here and here.

Republican ≠ libertarian

I wrote this when it was topical but forgot to post it.

It seems that Eugene Robinson doesn’t know the difference between a Republican and a libertarian. In this two-weeks-old column discussing the self-inflicted political wounds of Rand Paul, Mr. Robinson lumps these in as a part of Paul’s “Libertarian La-La Land.” This would be a useful approach if a) Rand Paul happened to be a libertarian (or Libertarian) or b) Robinson understood liberty. Regarding Paul’s comments on the Civil Rights Act of 1964:

Actually, there are quite a few direct questions that Paul will be asked. Does he still believe it ought to be permissible to deny Americans access to housing because of the color of their skin, as he argued a few years ago? I have a personal stake in this one, since I live in a neighborhood where a legal covenant once kept African Americans out. Is this sort of thing cool with him?

Inherent in the way Mr. Robinson asked these two questions, he believes they’re related closely enough that Paul’s answer must be the same for both. It’s a “gotcha” question. Say that private-sphere discrimination should be legal and you’re a racist, no thinking necessary. But saying you believe someone has the right to be an asshole doesn’t require you to believe that person should be an asshole, or that such a person shouldn’t be criticized and excluded from polite society. Am I a racist for saying you can be a racist, as much as I despise it?

From the end of his column:

Now that he is running for the Senate as a card-carrying Republican, Paul is going to have to abandon, or pretend to abandon, many of his loopy beliefs. This won’t be easy, as illustrated by the hemming and hawing he did before finally endorsing the Civil Rights Act. Even then, he suggested that the law was justified only by the prevailing situation in the South. As soon as Paul is allowed out of his cave, someone should ask him whether the landmark legislation properly applies to the rest of the country.

As an exercise in critical thinking, did Paul say the Civil Rights Act should only be applied to the South? If he did, he’s an idiot and Robinson should say so directly. If Paul didn’t say that, stating only that the South was the problem that justified a federal (i.e. national) response, is Robinson’s tactic here legitimate?

Next, Robinson highlights Paul’s response to the BP oil spill (emphasis added):

And while we’re at it, what about Paul’s recent analysis of the catastrophic oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico? The Obama administration faces growing criticism for not being tough enough on BP for its failure to stop the gushing flow of crude that is fouling Louisiana’s ecologically sensitive coastal marshes. Paul, however, sees things differently. “What I don’t like from the president’s administration is this sort of, ‘I’ll put my boot heel on the throat of BP,’ ” Paul said. “I think that sounds really un-American in his criticism of business.”

The “un-American” part is consistent with the campaign by Republican cynics and Tea Party wing nuts to delegitimize Obama’s presidency. But the general idea — that it’s wrong to hold private firms strictly accountable for disasters such as the gulf spill — appears to be something that Paul really believes, since he also dismisses the recent West Virginia mine explosion in which 29 miners were killed.

“We had a mining accident that was very tragic,” he said. “Then we come in, and it’s always someone’s fault. Maybe sometimes accidents happen.”

But maybe accidents are less likely to happen when appropriate safety standards are established and enforced. This kind of cause-and-effect reasoning is meaningful only to those who live in the real world, however. From all evidence, Paul lives in Libertarian La-La Land, where a purist philosophy leads people to believe in the purest nonsense.

I’ll speak to general libertarian philosophy, not Rand Paul’s ideas. It’s not wrong to hold private firms strictly accountable for disasters for which they are responsible. That’s what society should do. And to the extent government regulation is justified, a response according to pre-existing rules and procedures is appropriate.

That’s not what happens now. We have public outrage and figurative spankings from our President-as-father. (This is not exclusive to President Obama.) The financial crisis of 2008 shows this, as Obama has repeatedly demonized everyone associated with Wall Street while Congress funneled public money to them and configured new regulations to entrench their businesses against competition. It’s naked populism, not enlightened principle in the face of depraved “Libertarian La-La Land” philosophy.

As for established and enforced safety standards, only the government can be trusted to do that?

I want none of what I’ve written to suggest that I support or seek to defend Rand Paul and his comments. There’s more complexity to the Civil Rights Act and libertarianism, as evidenced by what’s missing from Mr. Robinson’s column and much of most reporting on the story. Anyway, Paul strikes me as a politican at his core, like his father, who is also not a libertarian. No one should act as though he discredits libertarianism.

For example, from Robinson’s column:

I’d also like to know whether Paul really believes in a conspiracy among the U.S., Canadian and Mexican governments to turn North America into a “borderless, mass continent” bisected by a 10-lane superhighway. Because that’s what he said in 2008.

“It’s a real thing,” he said of the imaginary threat to U.S. sovereignty, “and when you talk about it, the thing you just have to be aware of is that if you talk about it like it’s a conspiracy, they’ll paint you as a nut.”

Very little paint is needed.

Fair enough that Paul is a nut, but libertarians won’t view “borderless” countries with fear and disdain. Lumping the two together is silly to the point of ignorance (or dishonesty).

Adam Wainwright Is Wrong

A fan ran onto the field during last night’s Phillies-Cardinals game, one night after a fan was tased for doing so. The volume of comments supporting the police officer’s use of the Taser on Monday night were appalling. The pre-emptive defense of deploying it again was inevitable. From Cardinals starting pitcher Adam Wainwright (emphasis added):

“That was tired, that was bad. You know what? The Phillies fans should be mad at that guy because he might’ve gotten in the way of Cole’s mojo he had going. That’s terrible timing. And if you don’t want to get Tased, don’t go on the field. There’s absolutely nothing wrong with getting Tased if you’re on the field.“

I’ll assume Wainwright isn’t aware that the Taser can be lethal, and that lethal force is never justified for trespassing. If I don’t assume that, I’ll think even less of him than I do after reading his obvious ignorance from that quote.

A Universal Standard of Basic Human Rights Isn’t Divided By Gender Or Culture

UPDATE:I corrected a word from the original entry to clarify my intent. I understand that the AAP is not a government organization. I’ve corrected the poor wording.

The American Academy of Pediatrics’ Committee on Bioethics issued a new policy statement on female genital cutting, titled “Ritual Genital Cutting of Female Minors”. It updates the organization’s previous stance. Mostly it’s predictable statements against all female genital cutting (FGC), which won’t be controversial in the United States. But there are a few bits of odd reasoning included.

From the abstract:

… The American Academy of Pediatrics opposes all types of female genital cutting that pose risks of physical or psychological harm, counsels its members not to perform such procedures, recommends that its members actively seek to dissuade families from carrying out harmful forms of FGC, and urges its members to provide patients and their parents with compassionate education about the harms of FGC while remaining sensitive to the cultural and religious reasons that motivate parents to seek this procedure for their daughters.

This is unobjectionable without focused reading. But it explains what is coming in the policy statement. Most Americans will read “opposes all types of female genital cutting that pose risks of physical or psychological harm” to mean no cutting should be permitted on healthy girls. The policy statement doesn’t refute that because, as it acknowledges, all non-therapeutic genital cutting on female minors is prohibited in the United States. In the body of the statement, this:

Protection of the physical and mental health of girls should be the overriding concern of the health care community. Although physicians should understand that most parents who request FGC do so out of good motives, physicians must decline to perform procedures that cause unnecessary pain or that pose dangers to their patients’ well-being.

Reading what isn’t being said demonstrates that the committee fails to endorse complete opposition to FGC, either. For example:

… Most forms of FGC are decidedly harmful, and pediatricians should decline to perform them, even in the absence of any legal constraints. However, the ritual nick suggested by some pediatricians is not physically harmful and is much less extensive than routine newborn male genital cutting. There is reason to believe that offering such a compromise may build trust between hospitals and immigrant communities, save some girls from undergoing disfiguring and life-threatening procedures in their native countries, and play a role in the eventual eradication of FGC. It might be more effective if federal and state laws enabled pediatricians to reach out to families by offering a ritual nick as a possible compromise to avoid greater harm.

I think there’s merit to this argument. It fits the details of proposed accommodations at Harborview Hospital in the ’90s for Somalian immigrants. From a practical standpoint, a ceremonial nick to draw a drop of blood is better than an excision. Discussion without invectives would be helpful.

However, I don’t want to imply that I endorse this strategy. I reject it as a matter of law and practice because children possess the same basic, natural human rights as adults. (There’s no distinction for the gender of the child, which I’ll address shortly.) Legislating such an exception, or refusing to prosecute such violations of existing law, legitimizes ritual and cultural genital alteration. It moves the discussion from should it be allowed to how much should be allowed. It dismisses the child, the individual whose genitals face the scalpel.

Related to that, the statement includes this:

There is also some evidence (eg, in Scandinavia) that a criminalization of the practice, with the attendant risk of losing custody of one’s children, is one of the factors that led to abandonment of this tradition among Somali immigrants.

There are options and paths to pursue before we embrace moral relativism.

Predictably, the statement avoids acknowledging American hypocrisy on the topic of male genital cutting. This is particularly worth noting as some seek to move the AAP’s (and assorted governmental bodies) official stance on non-therapeutic male child circumcision from its relative neutrality to deliberate advocacy. In the introduction of its updated FGC policy, it states:

The language to describe this spectrum of procedures is controversial. Some commentators prefer “female circumcision,” but others object that this term trivializes the procedure, falsely confers on it the respectability afforded to male circumcision in the West, or implies a medical context. …

Any fair, honest treatment of its words would recognize that male minors have the same rights. That excerpt should be rewritten to state that referring to female genital cutting as circumcision “confers on it the false respectability afforded to male genital cutting in the West”.

This follows the last excerpt:

… The commonly used “female genital mutilation” is also problematic. Some forms of FGC are less extensive than the newborn male circumcision commonly performed in the West. …

This is from the same organization that “opposes all types of female genital cutting that pose risks of physical or psychological harm.” The newborn male circumcision commonly performed in the West imposes objective physical harm in every case, yet the AAP refuses to reject it, preferring platitudes about parental choice. From the abstract of its policy statement on male child circumcision:

Existing scientific evidence demonstrates potential medical benefits of newborn male circumcision; however, these data are not sufficient to recommend routine neonatal circumcision. In circumstances in which there are potential benefits and risks, yet the procedure is not essential to the child’s current well-being, parents should determine what is in the best interest of the child. To make an informed choice, parents of all male infants should be given accurate and unbiased information and be provided the opportunity to discuss this decision. If a decision for circumcision is made, procedural analgesia should be provided.

According to the AAP, parents may impose physical harm on their sons, violating the “principle of nonmaleficence” cited as a reason to reject FGC. Yet, in its revised FGC policy statement, the committee writes:

Parents are often unaware of the harmful physical consequences of the custom, because the complications of FGC are attributed to other causes and are rarely discussed outside of the family.

Changing “FGC” to “MGC” in that statement makes it no less accurate. Briefly perusing almost any news article or essay discussing male circumcision will reveal this.

Near its conclusion the committee writes:

The American Academy of Pediatrics policy statement on newborn male circumcision expresses respect for parental decision-making and acknowledges the legitimacy of including cultural, religious, and ethnic traditions when making the choice of whether to surgically alter a male infant’s genitals. Of course, parental decision-making is not without limits, and pediatricians must always resist decisions that are likely to cause harm to children. …

Including cultural, religious, and ethnic
traditions when making the choice of whether to surgically alter a male infant’s genitals is not legitimate. It is unethical, immoral and offensive to anyone who alleges to respect universal principles against causing harm. The committee’s second sentence shows its hypocrisy. It tells pediatricians to respect and aid parents who (ignorantly but unintentionally) wish to harm their sons. It’s moral relativism instead of clear principles respecting individuals. It’s unworthy of a civilized society.

Contrary to my initial concern, the revised policy statement does not explicitly advocate acceptance of lesser forms (i.e. Type IV) of female genital cutting. But it hints that it’s willing to look the other way if anyone wants to substitute Type IV for a type that won’t be practiced in the United States. Discussing such substitutions is a reasonable approach, but the committee cowardly avoids taking a stance, choosing to introduce the topic while letting others draw conclusions. It attempts to straddle both sides of the FGC debate to let each side read into its statement what it wants, if they’re unwilling to question or acknowledge anything that contradicts their preferred, limited viewpoint. Anti-FGC advocates are (correctly) upset, but the appeal of this approach is to those who believe that a potential benefit is science but the objective current health of a child is not. The AAP can plausibly say it opposes all female genital cutting, while also plausibly saying it recognizes the complexity of FGC as it’s practiced and is sensitive to the people who practice it on their children.