Compelling reasons exist for strong concern among attorneys and the public about the various types of damage caused by circumcision. These include pain and suffering, psychological harm, behavioral changes, irreversible reduction or loss of full sexual function, and underreported tragic complications, including deaths. Moreover, no satisfactory medical justification for routine circumcision has ever been demonstrated.

---

Recent ARC Activities and Accomplishments

Two Books Appearing Later in 2008 with Contributions by Steven

Two books are scheduled to be published later this year that will include contributions written or co-written by me. Rodopi Press, an academic press known for its medical works with offices in Amsterdam and New Jersey, will be issuing a volume later this year edited by Chantal Zabus and titled Fearful Symmetries: Essays and Testimonies Around Excision and Circumcision. The Fearful Symmetries book will, as its title suggests, address differential perspectives on female and male genital cutting and will contain two pieces to which I contributed. One article to be included has my esteemed collaborator Robert Darby of Australia as its lead author and is an extensively updated version of our article from the Medical Anthropology Quarterly, retitled, "A Rose by Any Other Name?: Symmetry and Asymmetry in Male and Female Genital Cutting." The other article is an autobiographical account by an acquaintance of mine, Jerry K. Brayton, of his personal experiences relating to circumcision.

The other upcoming book, Human Rights and the Problem of Circumcision, will collect essays by presenters at the 2006 NOCIRC Symposium in Seattle. My piece is titled, "Why Are Circumcision Lawsuits so Hard to Win?"

---

Radio Program (UPDATE)

ARC Executive Director Steven Svoboda appeared on Los Angeles area radio station KVTA 1520 AM (www.kvta.com) on February 15. Steven is listed on the station website as the "circumcision correspondent" for KVTA. Host of the show is long-time friend of intactivism Maria Sanchez. Steven discussed the book recently published by Oxford University Press, Does Feminism Discriminate Against Men?: A Debate (by Warren Farrell [with Steven Svoboda] and James Sterba). He also reviewed some recent developments regarding intact rights, such as growing legal opposition to male circumcision in Australia and the ongoing Oregon circumcision case, Boldt v. Boldt.

---

ARC Letter to New York Times

January 24, 2008

Editor
New York Times
letters@nytimes.com

Editor:

We were surprised by a misleading attempt to set up an opposition between male and female genital cutting in Sara Corbett’s otherwise fascinating article in The Times Magazine (“A Cutting Tradition,” January 20, 2008).

Noted opponents of female genital cutting (FGC), as well as most European and African observers, are skeptical of attempts—such as Laura Gaurenti's—to excuse genital cutting of males ("circumcision") while simultaneously vilifying FGC. Such ventures violate basic principles of fair play, not to mention the constitutional doctrine of equal protection.

In fact, precisely the same justifications are used for both male and female genital cutting—esthetic appeal, “health,” custom, and religion. Yet male circumcision continues to be the most common medical operation performed on males in this country, while simultaneously the only procedure performed without medical justification. It is ironic that we have passed legislation against female genital cutting and prosecuted a grand total of one individual in the eleven years the law has been in effect, while we continue to cut more than a million male children per year.

With your position as perhaps the world's premier newspaper comes the responsibility to investigate and publish the truth. We ask that you set the record straight on this issue. Let’s protect all children from needless and painful surgery, whatever type of genital equipment they may have.

J. Steven Svoboda
Executive Director
Attorneys for the Rights of the Child

---

Biannual NOCIRC Symposium

Abstract submitted for the biannual NOCIRC Symposium, to be held September 4-6 in Keele, England. "Three-Fourths Were Abnormal"—Misha's Case, Sick Societies, and the Law

By J. Steven Svoboda

Law, human rights, and medical ethics reflect, transmit, and reinforce social norms. By creating mandates ultimately underwritten by a state's police power, certain ambiguities are eliminated, and others are introduced regarding interpretation. Genital cutting, a tragically flawed attempt to perfect a child, thrives on such ambiguities.

Gender identity anchors us from the buffeting winds of social change. 150 years ago, normality was redefined, and suddenly, "three-fourths of all male babies [had] abnormal prepuces." Circumcision helped cover up male anxiety over legitimacy and father-son relations. Cultural constructions of dirt served reigning ideologies then and now.

Genital cutting presents a cluster of interwoven discriminations—racial, gender-based, age-based, and class-based—that violate law, human rights, and ethics. Parents (as in Boldt v. Boldt), doctors, and society seek treatment, not the infant. Thus the problem cannot be solved by a medical procedure, which circumcision never was anyway. Only human compassion can end the nightmare.

---

Letter to The Sun Magazine 1-29-08:

The story of Ismail, who rejected virtually all other trappings of his religion, nevertheless insisting on cutting his newborn son, raises the question why he retained this "custom" while rejecting all others?

---

Letter to Discover Magazine 1-2-08:
Male Circumcision and HIV.

---

Letter to Time Magazine 12-19-07:
Circumcision to Stop HIV Not Medical Breakthrough.

---

Article:
A Rose by any other Name: Rethinking the Similarities and Differences between Male and Female Genital Cutting

I am pleased to announce that an article written by Robert Darby, Ph.D. and myself has been published in September, 2007, by Medical Anthropology Quarterly, one of the world's premier medical anthropology journals. (more)

---

New Book:
Does Feminism Discriminate Against Men?

I am pleased to announce that Oxford University Press has published Does Feminism Discriminate Against Men?: A Debate (by Warren Farrell [with Steven Svoboda] and James Sterba). The book is a university-level gender studies textbook... (more)
9-10-07

---

ARC Activities Archive

 

---

Intact News Feed
Thanks to
International Coalition for Genital Integrity (ICGI)