Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Comment
  • Published:

Deficiencies and biases in professional understanding of the effects of childhood male genital cutting: comments on “Psychological, psychosocial and psychosexual aspects of penile circumcision” by Marcus C. Tye and Lauren Sardi

International Journal of Impotence Research volume 35, pages 249–251 (2023)Cite this article

Subjects

In “Psychological, psychosocial and psychosexual aspects of penile circumcision” authors Tye and Sardi address shortcomings of past policy statements on penile circumcision that “focused primarily on disease, dysfunction, or sensation, with relatively little consideration of psychological and psychosocial implications of the procedure” [1].

The authors are correct that there has not been adequate research into these topics. As a human rights campaigner of many years, with an early focus on LGBTQ+ issues, I’ve dedicated the last three decades to promoting children’s rights to bodily integrity and safeguarding their future genital autonomy (i.e., their ability to decide, when sufficiently mature, whether or how they would like their own genitalia to be surgically modified, regardless of their sex or gender). This recent work is a logical outgrowth of longstanding LGBTQ+ concepts of body ownership and autonomy, as well as principles endorsed by the World Association for Sexual Health, including “the right to be free from… cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment… related to sexuality, including: harmful traditional practices”, and that “everyone has the right to control and decide freely on matters related to sexuality and their body”, including “free and informed consent prior to any sexually-related testing, interventions, therapies, surgeries, or research” [2].

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on Springer Link
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

References

  1. Tye M, Sardi L. “Psychological, Psychosocial and Psychosexual Aspects of Penile Circumcision”. Int J Impot Res. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-022-00574-4.

  2. World Association for Sexual Health (2014). Declaration of Sexual Rights. Retrieved from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Sexual_Rights; and http://www.worldsexology.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/declaration_of_sexual_rights_sep03_2014.pdf.

  3. Darby R. Moral hypocrisy or intellectual inconsistency? A historical perspective on our habit of placing male and female genital cutting in separate ethical boxes. Kennedy Inst Ethics J. 2016;26:155–163.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Earp BD. Male or female genital cutting: why ‘health benefits’ are morally irrelevant. J Med Ethics. 2021;47:e92–e92.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Hammond T. “A preliminary poll of men circumcised in infancy or childhood”. BJU Int. 1999;83:85–92.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Hammond T, Carmack A. “Long-term adverse outcomes from neonatal circumcision reported in a survey of 1,008 men: An overview of health and human rights implications”. Int J Hum Rights. 2017;21:189–218.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Mohamed FS, Wild V, Earp BD, Johnson-Agbakwu C, Abdulcadir J. “Clitoral reconstruction after female genital mutilation/cutting: a review of surgical techniques and ethical debate.”. J Sex Med. 2020;17:531–42.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Svoboda JS. Nontherapeutic circumcision of minors as an ethically problematic form of iatrogenic injury. AMA J Ethics. 2017;19:815–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. American Academy of Pediatrics. “Report of the task force on circumcision”. Pediatrics. 1989;84:388–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. American Academy of Pediatrics Task Force on Circumcision. “Technical report: male circumcision”. Pediatrics. 2012;130:e756–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Williams N, Kapila L. “Complications of Circumcision”. Brit J Surg. 1993;80:1231–6.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Maeda J, Chari R, Elixhauser A. “Circumcisions in U.S. Community Hospitals, 2009” HCUP Statistical Brief #126. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD. 2012. Retrieved at: http://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/reports/statbriefs/sb126.pdf.

  13. Fahmy MAB. Anatomy of the Prepuce (Ch.5) and Functions of the Prepuce (Ch.7). In: Normal and Abnormal Prepuce. Springer Nature Switzerland AG: Cham. 2020.

  14. Özer M, Timmermans FW. “An insight into circumcised men seeking foreskin reconstruction: a prospective cohort study”. Int J Impot Res. 2020;32:611–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Taher M. Understanding female genital cutting in the Dawoodi Bohra community: an exploratory survey. Sahiyo: United Against Female Genital Cutting. 2017. Retrieved from: https://sahiyo.files.wordpress.com/2017/02/sahiyo_report_final-updatedbymt2.pdf.

  16. U.N. International NGO Council on Violence Against Children.Violating children’s rights: Harmful traditional practices based on tradition, culture, religion or superstition. 2012. Retrieved from: https://archive.crin.org/sites/default/files/inco_report_15oct_2.pdf.

  17. Global Survey of Circumcision Harm . “Video Testimonies of Harm” 2022. Retrieved from: http://circumcisionharm.org/testimony.htm

  18. I Am Not Thankful. 2022. Retrieved from: https://www.facebook.com/IAmNotThankful.

  19. National Organization of Restoring Men. 2022. Retrieved from: http://norm.org/

  20. Personal Accounts of Circumcision Resentment. 2022. Retrieved from: http://www.circumstitions.com/Resent.html.

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Independent Researcher/Co-founder, National Organization of Restoring Men; Founder, Global Survey of Circumcision Harm, Palm Springs, CA, USA

    Tim Hammond

Authors
  1. Tim Hammond
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tim Hammond.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The author declares no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Hammond, T. Deficiencies and biases in professional understanding of the effects of childhood male genital cutting: comments on “Psychological, psychosocial and psychosexual aspects of penile circumcision” by Marcus C. Tye and Lauren Sardi. Int J Impot Res 35, 249–251 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-022-00574-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-022-00574-4

This article is cited by

Search

Advanced search

Quick links