there are a lot of reasons that someone might choose to keep their child's genitals intact. do you find that there is a certain reason that tends to be more likely to convince people? unfortunately i've found that a lot of people do not share my opinion that this is a human rights/body autonomy issue.
so for a while i focused on the pain/trauma part but recently had someone tell me that if you go to a good doctor at a good hospital then circumcisions "aren't as bad as they used to be". (i'm cringing just thinking about someone saying that, by the way.)
i had someone tell me that their baby wasn't strapped down (they were allowed to gently swaddle the baby) and that the doctor waited for the anesthetic to work before starting. the mom was able to stay right next to her baby and talk to him and that their baby's cries were not the awful, gives-me-nightmares sort of cries that i've heard on videos but the baby also did NOT go into shock (which i know is responsible for lots of people mistakenly saying "my baby slept right through it"). obviously, i still think that it is absolutely unacceptable to cut off part of your baby's genitals regardless of how much or how little pain they are feeling but i also don't want to try to convince people using less than accurate information. anyone heard of this before- "gentler, less traumatic, less painful" circumcisions? or is this mom feeding me a bunch of baloney? i have no idea what "method" of circumcision was used but just that she went to a new-ish hospital in this area that has all the latest and greatest equipment.