Comments by "Daily Wire Third Stringer" (@DailyWireThirdStringer) on "" video.

@DavidWest2 The highest quality evidence consistently finds that it does not have any negative impact in the vast majority of men (such as VMMC randomized controlled trials in Africa and the Dominican Republic) -- and, indeed, having researched this topic for four-and-a-half years myself, this is perfectly consistent with the numerous accounts I've seen from men who have had the surgery as adults (both for medical reasons and not), and who consequently experienced both sides. My own speculative explanation for this (based on research) is that, in most cases, much of the inner lining is retained (i.e. "mid" to "high" cuts are the norm), sensitivity to temperature is more important than light-touch, the brain "adjusts" to the deficit over a period of about six months to one year (some men have testified to this), the mechanics differ post-surgery, and the oft-cited figure of "20,000 nerve endings" is a wild overestimate based on a sample size of ONE that employed shoddy statistics (by a convicted fraudster and HIV/AIDS denialist, no less). (Side note: I am well aware of the history of the practice in America, but it is quite irrelevant to the discussion as it pertains to ethics; claiming that it's wrong merely because the person to start the trend, William Harvey Kellogg, believed that it would prevent m@sturbation is functionally equivalent to condemning Planned Parenthood because its founder, Margaret Sanger, was a eugenicist. Comparisons to FGM are also not apt: the latter offers negligible or no medical, health, hygiene, or aesthetic benefits, and is quite often much more severe. I'm an atheist, but I'm also willing to acknowledge when certain beliefs, practices, rituals, etc. are beneficial based on scientific findings, or at least not harmful, as are other critical thinkers like Martha Nussbaum and Sam Harris. Also, the historical evidence strongly indicates that the the trend only caught on decades later after initially introduced, during both World Wars to maintain hygiene during trench warfare, but that's another matter.) "Our risk-benefit analysis showed that benefits exceeded procedural risks, which are predominantly minor, by up to 200 to 1. We estimated that more than 1 in 2 uncircumcised males will experience an adverse foreskin-related medical condition over their lifetime. Wide-ranging evidence from surveys, physiological measurements, and the anatomical location of penile sensory receptors responsible for sexual sensation strongly and consistently suggest that male circumcision has no detrimental effect on sexual function, sensitivity, or pleasure." (Emphasis added.) That is according to a meta-analysis published in the World Journal of Clinical Pediatrics in 2017. "The hypothesis of inferior male sexual function following circumcision is not supported by the findings of this systematic review. The popular narrative that male circumcision results in sexual dysfunction does not seem to be supported by evidence." (Shabanzadeh) Taken directly from a review published in the Danish Medical Journal in 2016, which is run by the Danish Medical Association — not exactly an organization biased in favor of this operation. Furthermore, "the Danish Health Authorities do not recommend a law-enforced ban of non-medical circumcisions in Denmark based on these low rates of short-term complications." (Emphasis mine.) Hm, it's almost like the evidence doesn't support the notion that circumcision is harmful and should be banned, and even Scandinavian societies have recognized this. Go figure. But go ahead, ignore and dismiss the credible scientific evidence all you want -- including a systematic review published by a SCANDINAVIAN journal. But while you're at it, I would like to know: Are you also a climate-denier, or do you only ignore the scientific evidence whose conclusions you don't like?
2
@AzureZenorag If you were done at birth, how can you have any measure of confidence in your claim, as you have had no basis for comparison? I have read numerous testimonies from men who received the operation as a child and in adulthood that not only conflict with your purported experience, but actively call it into question. In the absence of a plausible empirical context, your anecdotal "evidence" is philosophically worthless. (P.S. Those claims you cite have their origins with men who have and have not received the procedure. Studies consistently find that men who were cut are just as satisfied as those who weren't at all stages of life. Given this context, I strongly suspect that your dissatisfaction results from a more unique circumstance, such as low testosterone levels, high blood pressure, or age.)
1
@DavidWest2 This, by the way, is not even a complete collection of my thoughts on the matter (I have researched this topic for four-and-a-half years). That information, however, is available upon request. As to your first point, I am pleased to see you concede that the health benefits are well-documented at this point (though still predominantly minor). Concerning sensitivity and function, on the other hand, I believe an accusation of misrepresentation with the intention to mislead is warranted. As I've noted, the most rigorous observations (with randomized controlled trials, or RCTs, being the "gold standard") have consistently found that the differences pre- and post-operation are negligible. Those few with contradictory findings have, almost without exception, been criticized by other experts for flawed experimentation methods or poor statistical analyses (see, for instance, Morris et al.'s response to Sorrells, Young, and Van Howe (2007)). We will agree that more research is needed to determine the effect, if any, on partners (male or female). Based on my research alone, it would seem to vary quite significantly by individual, although a majority do not appear to indicate a preference one way or the other. "The dismissal of [the 20,000 nerve-endings figure] doesn't automatically invalidate the potential loss of sensitivity argument." I beg to differ. It does, at the very least, cast it into serious doubt. Again, more research is needed to conclusively determine the exact magnitude of the loss, but as I mentioned earlier, even a superficially substantial amount may make little difference to overall sensation because (for instance) the mechanics differ post-surgery or the brain may have the capacity to "adjust" to the deficit — both of which have been attested to by men who were operated upon as adults. Regarding the Danish Health Authorities, I would like to point out that your stance was previously iterated thus: "If we apply the same principle of upholding bodily integrity over religious tradition, we could reimagine the practice of circumcision." Perhaps this impression is erroneous, but I interpreted this message as equating circumcision to FGM, with the implication being that the response from medical and governmental authorities should be similar. If so, then it would be inconsistent to also agree with the stance of the Danish Medical Association, which has explicitly opposed any "law-enforced ban of non-medical circumcisions." Clarity on this would be appreciated. Lastly, your critique of the equivalence between this issue and climate change is flawed. It is my contention that there currently exists a "broad scientific consensus" with respect to the effects of the procedure on overall health and function/sensation (namely, the one I just outlined). And, as I have just noted, there is reason to believe that you may be disregarding said consensus "without valid grounds." Further, the implication that the debate around climate change does not encompass "personal, ethical, and cultural factors" is, I argue, wrong on its face. The decision to drive (an ICE car) to work rather than cycle or to make use of aviation for a luxurious getaway necessarily involves personal, ethical, and cultural considerations. That one belongs to the medical domain and the other the physical is ultimately irrelevant. The degree of confidence in the conclusions as informed by empirical evidence is what matters, and in both cases (I contend) the consensus is quite strong — albeit not equal.
1