I WAS shocked to read Hanna Rosin's post noting that the CDC was considering requiring circumcision for all American baby boys. And I was reassured to find that Ms Rosin had mischaracterised the New York Times article she referenced. In fact the CDC is simply considering nudging its recommendation on circumcision to a more positive slant, because conclusive evidence from studies in Africa shows that circumcision reduces men's chances of getting HIV through heterosexual sex by about half. That's a pretty huge public-health benefit, considering that America has HIV prevalence rates several times higher than European ones, with a 2% prevalence rate among blacks that is higher than most third-world levels. HIV in America spreads chiefly through injecting-drug use and male-to-male anal sex (where benefits from circumcision have not been shown), but multiple partner heterosexual sex is also an important vector, and circumcision has been shown to inhibit the spread of other sexually transmitted diseases too. Basically, on the medical side, the evidence favours circumcision.

On the cultural side, obviously, the decision to circumcise is a lot touchier, and that's why I wish Ms Rosin had been more careful with the distinction between "require" and "recommend". Growing up Jewish in America, where the great majority of boys of all religions have been circumcised for decades, I never considered the issue a big deal; scenes in movies like "Europa, Europa", where a Jewish boy strains to hide his penis in the bathroom for fear of discovery by Nazis, seemed alien and antiquated. But then I had a son in Europe, where boys are not routinely circumcised, and where in fact simply finding a doctor who will perform the procedure is a royal pain. (This is a big issue for Muslims in Europe, incidentally.) Finding a Jewish mohel who would circumcise a boy with a non-Jewish mother was a non-starter, too. And I pretty quickly realised that for men, for deep-seated psychic and cultural reasons, ensuring that your son's equipment looks like your own, and does not renounce his membership in a tribe you belong to, can be a very big deal.

The health benefits of circumcision should be determinative for parents who don't particularly care about the cultural issues. For those who do, there's no reason to deride their decision. On the other hand, there is a movement against circumcision in America these days. Some of those who oppose circumcision advance reasonable contingent arguments: it's painful for the baby, and there's some evidence that it reduces sexual pleasure. Fair points. But others oppose circumcision for anyone on human-rights grounds, terming it a "mutilation". That stance is even sillier and more invasive than the position that all boys should be obliged to get circumcised would be. If anyone actually were arguing the latter position. But nobody is. The CDC move concerns a public-health recommendation. At a time when political propagandists are whipping up a new frenzy every week over ludicrous accusations that public-health experts are trying to take away our freedoms or convince us to kill ourselves, it's important to keep such vocabulary straight.

(Photo credit: AFP)