[sillysaurusx]

Lobotomies were also once considered solid science, but our views change over time. That people did it millennia ago isn’t really a persuasive point.

Would you mind citing some of the research supporting that it’s a good idea to take a knife to a baby’s penis? (Sometimes it feels like the word "circumcision" is a nice way to sidestep the implications.)

It seems strange to blame infant penises for higher cancer rates, but if there’s science to support the claim, it shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand.

On the other hand, perhaps a higher cancer rate would be worth it. The question is, how much higher?

[deathanatos]

> Would you mind citing some of the research supporting that it’s a good idea to take a knife to a baby’s penis?

First,

> In medicine, an indication is a valid reason to use a certain test, medication, procedure, or surgery.

From https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2128632/ ,

> What are the absolute medical indications for circumcision?

> Medical indications […] occur in 1.5% and 1% of boys respectively.

That is, the overwhelming majority (>98%) of circumcisions in the US are not done for medical reasons. As the article states,

> Nearly all circumcisions are carried out for cultural or religious reasons.

Lastly, this:

> The most impactful benefit of circumcision is the lower cervical cancer incidence.

Is an illogical argument for circumcision as it is being discussed here, at birth.

> It seems strange to blame infant penises for higher cancer rates, but if there’s science to support the claim, it shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand.

… the claim is absurd. There's no science to support it.

The argument as raised above stands: why is circumcision — done at birth and without the consent of the patient — permissible, but puberty blockers — done far closer to adulthood and with the consent of the patient — are impermissible?

[hattmall]

>The argument as raised above stands: why is circumcision — done at birth and without the consent of the patient — permissible,

Because we make a lot of medical decisions for children and this one is extremely minor with wide raining results.

The same paper you linked showed multiple pathologies that are significantly reduced by circumcision including penile cancer and HIV. That paper also cuts off at 1999. More recent studies show even greater effects.

> the claim is absurd. There's no science to support it.

No it's not, compare the rate of cervical cancer in countries with and without circumcision. It's considerably higher in countries where the majority of males are uncircumcised, even when those countries have higher vaccination rates and better overall health care.