15,954
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
[[Category:USA]]
→Intactness is the new norm: Add text and citation.
===Late twentieth century===
The late twentieth century was characterized by increasing opposition to non-therapeutic circumcision of boys by [[intactivists]] and increasing efforts by the circumcision industry to protect [[third-party payment]] for performance of non-therapeutic circumcision of non-consenting boys; and by increasing recognition that newborn boys intensely feel [[pain]] and that non-therapeutic male [[circumcision]] is a [[trauma| horribly traumatic experience]].
[[Abraham Ravich]] (1951) falsely claimed that [[circumcision]] prevents [[cervical cancer]] in women.<ref name="ravitch1951">{{Ravich1951}}</ref>
}}</ref>
Preston (1970) considered the matter of infant [[circumcision]]. He examined and debunked claims that male circumcision could prevent cancer of the [[cervix ]] in women, cancer of the [[penis ]] and cancer of the prostate in men. Preston concluded:
<blockquote>Routine circumcision of the newborn is an unnecessary procedure. It provides questionable benefits and is associated with a small but definite incidence of complications and hazards. These risks are preventable if the operation is not performed unless truly medically indicated. Circumcision of the newborn is a procedure that should no longer be considered routine.<ref>{{REFjournal
Laumann et al. reported an incidence of newborn circumcision of 78 percent in 1971.
The [[American Academy of Pediatrics]] (AAP) is not an "academy" at all. It is a [[medical trade association ]] that protects and advances the business and financial interests of its pediatrician "fellows". Influenced by Preston's paper, the AAP published a manual on the hospital care of newborn infants in 1971. The manual included the statement:
<blockquote>
<b>There are no valid medical indications for circumcision in the neonatal period.</b><ref>{{REFbook
|year=1971
|title=Standards and Recommendation for Hospital Care of Newborn infants
Grimes concluded:
<blockquote> However, until the benefits of [[Routine Infant Circumcision| routinecircumcision]] circumcision of the neonate can be proved worth the risk and cost, medical resources probably should be allocated to measures of demonstrated value.<ref name="grimes1978" />
</blockquote>
The American circumcision industry appears to have totally ignored Grimes' concerns.
|year=2008
|title=Ch. 10: American Law and the Circumcision of Children
|url=https://www.i2researchhub.org/articles/ch-10-american-law-and-the-circumcision-of-children-doc-genital-integrity-statement/
|work=Genital Integrity Policy
|editor=
[[Doctors Opposing Circumcision (D.O.C.)]] issued a Genital Integrity Policy in June 2008.<ref name-"doc2008">{{REFdocument
|title=Genital Integrity Policy
|url=https://www.i2researchhub.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/GenitalIntegrityStatement.pdf
|contribution=
|last=Hill
}}</ref>
The ill-fated 2012 [[AAP ]] Circumcision Policy Statement expired on August 31, 2017 in accordance with AAP policy, because it was not reaffirmed. The AAP has had ''no'' official circumcision policy since that time.
[[Dan Bollinger|Bollinger]] (2019) discussed circumcision as an adverse childhood experience,<ref name-"bollinger2019">{{REFdocument
In the Midwest, the incidence of [[circumcision]] has declined to 75 percent, which translates to a [[genital integrity]] rate increase to 25 percent or 1 in 4 boys having an [[intact]] foreskin.<ref name="jacobson2021" /> The previous report from 2010 was one boy in five being intact,<ref name="bollinger2017" /> and before that it was 1 in 10 boys being [[intact]], so this in an increase of 250 percent (0.25/0.10 X 100 = 250%) in the rate of [[Intact| intactness]] for the Midwest. The still high incidence of circumcision in the Midwest is counterbalanced by the low incidence in the West.
=== Intact Intactness is the new norm === Intactness had previously been shamed in the United States,<ref name="garrett2023-12-21">{{REFweb |url=https://intactamerica.org/foreskin-phobia-intact-penis-shamed/ |title=Foreskin Phobia: How The Intact Penis Has Been Shamed |last=Garrett |first=Connor |init= |author-link=Connor Judson Garrett |publisher=Intact America |date=2023-12-21 |accessdate=2024-05-15}}</ref> but that era has ended. Intact America called attention to the existence of a "tipping point", when public opinion would shift toward [[intactness]] in 2016.<ref>{{REFweb |url=https://intactamerica.org/do-you-know-about-the-tipping-point/ |title=Do You Know: About the “Tipping Point? |last=Anonymous |first= |init= |author-link= |publisher=Intact America |date=2016-11-01 |accessdate=2024-06-03}}</ref> Public opinion in the United States in 2024 has now reached that tipping point.
The percentage of American boys being [[circumcised]] has been slowly declining for a long time, while the number of boys with [[intact]] [[foreskin]] has correspondingly increased.<ref name="jacobson2021" /> The percentage of [[intact]] newborn boys now exceeds the percentage of [[circumcised]] newborn boys.
As the present trend continues, being [[intactintactness]] is now becoming the more usual, normal , and expected condition for infant boys in America.
==American [[genital integrity]] organizations==
* [[Financial incentive]]
* [[Intact-friendly]]
* [https://en.intactiwiki.org/index.php/Main_Page Home page]
{{LINKS}}
[[Category:BSM]]
[[Category:Male circumcision]]
[[Category:Circumcision]]
[[Category:History]]
[[Category:USA]]
[[de:Vereinigte Staaten von Amerika]]