I know that National Secular Society has been one of the few organizations brave enough to tackle this issue, and I appreciate it.
The issue that I'm addressing is male "circumcision." I often avoid starting off with the euphemism because I know many people often stop reading as soon as they see the term. It's probably the most contentious issue that stirs up more negative feelings in people than any other issue. And this is true regardless of what your viewpoints are on the issue. However, if we do not discuss the issue and educate ourselves, the harms to individuals and society continue.
Many readers will respond, "what harm?" and stop reading. This is a typical response from anyone who does not want to consider that they are harmed or that they have been involved in anything that causes harm. I, myself, can't imagine how I would feel if my sons were irreversibly harmed. It's hard enough to consider the mistakes that I've made as a parent.
So, you've already learned that I am a parent. Becoming a parent is what led me down the proverbial rabbit hole on this issue. My oldest son was born in 2005 when I was 35 years old. My youngest was born the year after. Readers may assume that I am "uncircumcised" and that makes me biased on this issue, but that is very far from the truth. Part of my genitalia was removed when I was born in a US Navy hospital. The fact that it was done by my government makes things even more concerning.
When my oldest was born, my wife was concerned about the pain that our son might endure during the procedure. At this point in my life, I did not truly understand what "circumcision" is and how it affected me. I unknowingly was in the biggest awakening of my life.
I assumed that we had technology that would prevent pain during such procedures, but I did not understand that there are limits to the amount of anesthetics that could be used, how long the surgeon needed to wait for the anesthetics to work, how deep into the tissues the anesthetics would go to be effective and that anesthetics are not required to be used by the surgeon. I honestly do not like using the term "surgeon" because surgeons are supposed to "first do no harm" and only perform necessary surgeries or surgeries that are consented to by the individual.
There are many studies that show that things that occur to us before we are old enough to remember do affect us throughout life. A book by psychologist Ronald Goldman, PhD, titled "Circumcision: The Hidden Trauma" addresses these. Another book titled "The Body Keeps the Score" also addresses this. There has been much study on Adverse Childhood Events. But let's just say that the pain could be completely prevented. And, I'm not just addressing the pain that would occur during the procedure, but the pains during the recovery period. Would it be justified then? Please read further...
Many claims about medical benefits have been made, many debunked. At the time my oldest was born, the main claim was that it reduced the chances of HIV/AIDS. This was a very scary issue during my life up to that point. The thing that made me dismiss it was that the USA had a very high rate of infant "circumcision" while Europe had a very low rate, and the USA had much higher rates of HIV/AIDS. While that could be attributed to other factors, I simply was not sold, and my wife and I decided to leave our sons intact.
This is likely to become more uncomfortable for you to read as it gets more direct into the specific anatomy.
As a young boy, my member (I'm avoiding the term that gets censored) was regularly incited to erection. I did not know that this was abnormal, and my parents did not talk to me about it. I learned that masturbation would get me to orgasm, and then I had a period of time where I could do other things and not have to worry about being discovered or distracted. After going down the rabbit hole and learning about the anatomy (see Sorrels Fine Touch Pressure Thresholds), I have learned that I was cut in a way that left most of my inner mucosa and frenulum behind. That is sensitive tissue that is supposed to be protected and against the glans. Since it was not, it was rubbing against clothing and bedding. The sensations from that are what elicited the erections.
It does not stop here.
When I was with my grandparents one summer, my grandmother noticed that i had an issue when I was urinating. She took me to the doctor, and they found that I had a skin bridge crossing my meatus (end of the urinary tract). After going down the rabbit hole, I found that this is something that happens to boys who were cut as newborns. The glans is normally adhered to the inner mucosa of the prepuce (often wrongly referred to as "foreskin"). The prepuce protects the glans, and the adhesion breaks down over time. Think kitten eyes, where they can't open their eyelids immediately after birth. Forcing the separation of the glans and inner mucosa causes damage. What is crazy is that one of the medical claims is that it reduces the chances of infection, but this very process of breaking the adhesion creates an opening for infection. Parents/caregivers are taught to apply petroleum jelly (e.g., Vaseline) or other creams to the glans. One reason for this is to prevent the wound and inner mucosa of what is left behind from adhering to the glans through scarification. Another reason is to protect everything from infection, much like a bandage does. As a man who has changed his sons' diapers as well as the diapers of boys who were "circumcised," I can tell you that this is insane. Caring for my sons was much easier. People just need to learn about the development of the genitalia.
I'm far from done.
When I became sexually active, I had issues with partners. I had no idea that those issues were due to not having skin mobility. This skin mobility issue does not affect every man who was "circumcised." This is because there are actually several ways to do it. Whoever did mine pulled way too much tissue into the clamp, leaving me with a very tight result. This made initial entry difficult and would lead to chafing and/or tearing for my partners. I eventually learned to be patient and spend more time with foreplay and/or use lubricants. This lends itself to killing the mood.
Also, since I was cut so tight, I have penoscrotal webbing and craning. Penoscrotal webbing is when the scrotum draws up onto the shaft. Craning is when the skin between the shaft and body is so tight that things act like a crane - instead of the member being at a 90-110 degree angle, it can be nearly parallel to the body. This all leads to certain sexual positions being uncomfortable.
I actually consider myself lucky compared to many men I have spoken with on this. The newer bell tools (e.g. Gomco and Plastibell) tend to remove far more of the inner mucosa and frenulum. While I have not seen a study that specifically looks into this, I get the idea that these men have far less sensitivity. Some can't get to orgasm at all. These bell tools were invented to address an issue that daunted the Mogen Clamp, which led the company that was selling them to be sued out of existence (in the USA) by attorney David Llewellyn. While these bell tools might protect the glans from excision, they cause more of the sensitive tissues to be excised.
I'm done with the physical harms. Although I could go into many other stories about how others have been physically harmed. If you want, you can look into that yourself. I don't think that these issues are all that rare; just not considered because we are practically born this way and just do not have a frame of reference. And, most men don't want to talk about it out of fear of being labeled "gay" (homophobia).
The very existence of genital cutting rituals creates an additional divide in society. We have enough reasons to be divided; it would be nice if this reason went away.
This topic touches on several of your campaigns:
Secular state - no other country uses public funding to perform this ritual on citizens, outside of countries that are run by religion. The federal government should not be allowing or pressuring the ritual in military hospitals. The federal government should put a stop to states allowing the use of Medicaid funding for the ritual. I get that is complicated because different states take different approaches to the use of Medicaid. The way that the AMA has written billing codes makes this more challenging. States like New Hampshire block legislation to end the use of Medicaid for it due to views of the bill being anti-Semitic - this is odd considering that Judaism does it on the 8th day and does it as part of a Bris. Some states see it as providing prophylactic benefits even though they have not been proven.
Secular education - this might not seem to fit for you, but hear me out. I've been to multiple school sex education meetings because my sons attended different school districts during their high school years. I was never able to see the books that they used for educating - they claimed that there were concerns about copyright infringement. When I pressed the educators about discussing this issue, they were clearly afraid to discuss the issue with their students. I'm not surprised, as I'm sure many parents might object to having their children learn the truth. Anatomy books should not omit the prepuce of the male, and students should get honest answers when they ask, instead of "we all come in different shapes and sizes" when we aren't normally born without a prepuce. I feel that I should have been taught before I was able to become a father and get asked the question.
Human rights - Most seem to believe that genital surgeries should wait until the person is old enough to consent themselves, when it comes to females. And, it doesn't seem to make a difference how minor the procedure/ritual is: even a ritual nick of the prepuce (aka "clitoral hood"). This became apparent when the American Academy of Pediatrics suggested it was acceptable, and later retracted due to backlash. So, why is it that so many think that it is acceptable to completely uncover the male glans when a person is a baby? Many ignore those who advocate to end female "circumcision" (aka Female Genital Mutilation), who also advocate to continue male "circumcision." This makes me believe that it all has to be ended together.
Secular healthcare - The only medical claim that defends infant male "circumcision" is that UTI rates are reduced. The other claims can be addressed at a later age when things are more developed and the person can have a say. UTIs are already much lower in males than females and antibiotics work. Maybe you prefer the definite harms of "circumcision" over the potential harms of antibiotics, but proper care and feeding of a baby boy also reduces chances of UTIs. I get that doing something like "circumcision" in a healthcare setting feels safer than doing it in a synagogue, temple, etc., but those places can put the same safety measures into place that the healthcare field has put into place. The healthcare field should not be using a euphemism taken from religion ("circumcision") for medical procedures. There are far more appropriate terms like "preputioplasty," "posthectomy," and "partial penectomy" are examples.
Justice - I saved this one for last, on purpose, and left it out where you combine it with human rights. I co-founded Genital Autonomy Legal Defense and Education Fund (GALDEF). Many want to convince society to put an end to this without making doctors, parents, etc., into criminals. As a parent who was willing to allow my son to be "circumcised" I certainly appreciate this. At the same time, there are certain victims of genital cutting who advocate for punishment, including capital punishment. I would gladly spend years of my life in prison if it meant that we were able to have our day in court. As it is, a court in Cologne, Germany found "circumcision" to be "grievous bodily harm." From that point until politicians voted to make it explicitly legal, "circumcision" was considered illegal.
If there is anything I could do to get you to further address this issue, please do not hesitate to reach out.
