Given the plethora of articles in mainstream locations concerning the declining rate of circumcision in America I thought that it would be appropriate to write concerning this happy fact and the responses made to it.
A common response has been that it's all down to immigration, those Hispanics are moving in and bringing their unmodified penises along with them and that's the cause of the shift. This was alluded to in MSNBC's coverage, which was on their website headlined with "Circumcision's decline pinned on immigration".
Now to be fair there is evidence to suggest that this may well be the case, the rate has fallen lowest of all states studied in California (21%), a state which has also experienced wide-scale immigration from uncut Mexico. But a fairly basic tenant of rational thought is not to presume causation and to be wary of attributing shifts to factors chosen on an intuitive rather than factually supported basis. California is also one of the most liberal states within America and this combined with increased knowledge about the exact nature of the procedure (via the internet) than has ever been accessed before could feasibly be another cause for the drop.
But I wish to disregard that point for the time being since I feel that even if accepted the argument reveals a trinity of pertinent points about circumcision advocates that start of bizarre and become pitifully implausible. I shall also ignore, for the moment, those advocates who claim that the rate is as high as ever, if not higher, since despite the efforts they have gone to (and some have tried immensely hard: I recall one even claimed that a study showing that "More American boys are being circumcised" refuted intactivist claims, which is rather akin to saying that there is any significance in the fact that more Americans voted for George Bush in 2000 than George Washington in 1789 besides the fact that there were a lot more voters alive in the former than the latter) since the recently released study has conclusively proven them to be incorrect.
I doubt that that shall deter them but it gives me grounds to disregard them.
So let us return to the immigration case-makers, whose argument has few variants or diversity and tends to run roughly as follows: "Working class Mexicans do not circumcise. Many working class Mexicans have moved to America and thus the rates have declined in response. White Americans are still circumcising as much as ever. Therefore the claim that America's rate is declining is untrue."
Now there are three unworded and unpalatable assumptions that you need to swallow to accept this argument, none of which stand up to even a sceptical glance when seen as they are:
1. Only White Cock Counts
This is effectively what their argument amounts to; in claiming that we should only pay attention to the high white rates (I shall ignore the issue of whether they really are so high, since if you read the studies for yourself the answer to that is fairly obvious) and that the genitals of any other race should be disregarded this argument depends upon the superior importance of the white prepuce over all others. Caus-skin supremacy, if you will.
Now I find it far more likely that this is simply a measure taken to evade admitting that they are wrong than the advocates who make this argument are all implicit racists but the fact that they only seem to consider worthy of attention seems at very least to hint at some level of personal preference.
2. Immigrants Are Not Americans
Sorry guys, I know that you live here and have grown roots here and love "Your" country and all but unlike...Well, just about every other single American ever (Hell, even "Native Americans" travelled from overseas at one point!) you can't be considered one of the gang. Why? Oh, well, y'see your genitals weren't modified without your consent so...
What do you mean "The Irish"?
This argument seems to hint at some fairly extreme right-wing tinge within the advocates who make it, either that or they are once again just trying to back-flip their way over the facts and ending up on the floor. If they actually are being earnest about it though the use of this argument means that these advocates feel that recent Hispanic immigrants ought not to be considered Americans at all and should not be included within counts of American rates as they are classed as the other.
Now why exactly? Well I've never actually managed to extract any real reasoning for this one out of them but I can tell you for certain that the notion that Hispanics should not be considered American unsettles me.
Is it due to their foreskin or all of it?
3. Races Never Mix
When your racial views are more detached from reality than those of your average white supremacist you ought to take that as a hint to re-consider.
Races mix, blend and fuse, it happens, many people are unaware that immigrants from Ireland and Eastern Europe were previously considered to be of a different race to the Americans but this is no longer true thanks to characteristics being mixed through integration and now all are just considered "White". Indeed The Economist already classifies Hispanics that way too.
This is a pretty much inevitable consequence of an immigrant population being there and in this context it is likely that with popular arguments such as "Looks like daddy" only half as likely to result in circumcisions under such circumstances and the whole "Hygienic" thing easily dismissed by the fact that even the women will have relatives who are not cut. Intact is the cultural default for many American families now and to imagine that that is not going to have any influence upon the rate of those where it is not is implausible.
Will there be a reverse effect? Well probably but the more foreskin you have in this debate the less appealing its removal becomes, as you can tell by the fact that the only way circumcision reached such popularity amongst parents was after decades of hospitals performing them as default and without even parental consent.
In expecting the growth of the Hispanic population to have no impact upon the "White" one the advocates are seeing matters in a highly restricted fashion.
Whether this is because it suits them or they actually believe that no inter-pro-creation will occur is beyond me.
It would seem that even the strongest of arguments against the obvious has gaping holes within its reasoning and repeatedly misses the point. The American circumcision rate is in decline and if immigration is the cause for that then if anything the advocates have a greater reason to panic.
A common response has been that it's all down to immigration, those Hispanics are moving in and bringing their unmodified penises along with them and that's the cause of the shift. This was alluded to in MSNBC's coverage, which was on their website headlined with "Circumcision's decline pinned on immigration".
Now to be fair there is evidence to suggest that this may well be the case, the rate has fallen lowest of all states studied in California (21%), a state which has also experienced wide-scale immigration from uncut Mexico. But a fairly basic tenant of rational thought is not to presume causation and to be wary of attributing shifts to factors chosen on an intuitive rather than factually supported basis. California is also one of the most liberal states within America and this combined with increased knowledge about the exact nature of the procedure (via the internet) than has ever been accessed before could feasibly be another cause for the drop.
But I wish to disregard that point for the time being since I feel that even if accepted the argument reveals a trinity of pertinent points about circumcision advocates that start of bizarre and become pitifully implausible. I shall also ignore, for the moment, those advocates who claim that the rate is as high as ever, if not higher, since despite the efforts they have gone to (and some have tried immensely hard: I recall one even claimed that a study showing that "More American boys are being circumcised" refuted intactivist claims, which is rather akin to saying that there is any significance in the fact that more Americans voted for George Bush in 2000 than George Washington in 1789 besides the fact that there were a lot more voters alive in the former than the latter) since the recently released study has conclusively proven them to be incorrect.
I doubt that that shall deter them but it gives me grounds to disregard them.
So let us return to the immigration case-makers, whose argument has few variants or diversity and tends to run roughly as follows: "Working class Mexicans do not circumcise. Many working class Mexicans have moved to America and thus the rates have declined in response. White Americans are still circumcising as much as ever. Therefore the claim that America's rate is declining is untrue."
Now there are three unworded and unpalatable assumptions that you need to swallow to accept this argument, none of which stand up to even a sceptical glance when seen as they are:
1. Only White Cock Counts
This is effectively what their argument amounts to; in claiming that we should only pay attention to the high white rates (I shall ignore the issue of whether they really are so high, since if you read the studies for yourself the answer to that is fairly obvious) and that the genitals of any other race should be disregarded this argument depends upon the superior importance of the white prepuce over all others. Caus-skin supremacy, if you will.
Now I find it far more likely that this is simply a measure taken to evade admitting that they are wrong than the advocates who make this argument are all implicit racists but the fact that they only seem to consider worthy of attention seems at very least to hint at some level of personal preference.
2. Immigrants Are Not Americans
Sorry guys, I know that you live here and have grown roots here and love "Your" country and all but unlike...Well, just about every other single American ever (Hell, even "Native Americans" travelled from overseas at one point!) you can't be considered one of the gang. Why? Oh, well, y'see your genitals weren't modified without your consent so...
What do you mean "The Irish"?
This argument seems to hint at some fairly extreme right-wing tinge within the advocates who make it, either that or they are once again just trying to back-flip their way over the facts and ending up on the floor. If they actually are being earnest about it though the use of this argument means that these advocates feel that recent Hispanic immigrants ought not to be considered Americans at all and should not be included within counts of American rates as they are classed as the other.
Now why exactly? Well I've never actually managed to extract any real reasoning for this one out of them but I can tell you for certain that the notion that Hispanics should not be considered American unsettles me.
Is it due to their foreskin or all of it?
3. Races Never Mix
When your racial views are more detached from reality than those of your average white supremacist you ought to take that as a hint to re-consider.
Races mix, blend and fuse, it happens, many people are unaware that immigrants from Ireland and Eastern Europe were previously considered to be of a different race to the Americans but this is no longer true thanks to characteristics being mixed through integration and now all are just considered "White". Indeed The Economist already classifies Hispanics that way too.
This is a pretty much inevitable consequence of an immigrant population being there and in this context it is likely that with popular arguments such as "Looks like daddy" only half as likely to result in circumcisions under such circumstances and the whole "Hygienic" thing easily dismissed by the fact that even the women will have relatives who are not cut. Intact is the cultural default for many American families now and to imagine that that is not going to have any influence upon the rate of those where it is not is implausible.
Will there be a reverse effect? Well probably but the more foreskin you have in this debate the less appealing its removal becomes, as you can tell by the fact that the only way circumcision reached such popularity amongst parents was after decades of hospitals performing them as default and without even parental consent.
In expecting the growth of the Hispanic population to have no impact upon the "White" one the advocates are seeing matters in a highly restricted fashion.
Whether this is because it suits them or they actually believe that no inter-pro-creation will occur is beyond me.
It would seem that even the strongest of arguments against the obvious has gaping holes within its reasoning and repeatedly misses the point. The American circumcision rate is in decline and if immigration is the cause for that then if anything the advocates have a greater reason to panic.
