17,052
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Add Richard et al. (1976)
</blockquote>
So we see that circumcision has long been used to effect behavior change.
==Profound lack of understanding of psychological issues==
There was little awareness of emotional and psychological issues when child circumcision was being promoted in the late 19th century and early 20th century. For example, [[Douglas Gairdner]] made no mention at all of pain, behavior changes, or psychological issues in his landmark 1949 paper.<ref name="fate1949">{{REFjournal
|DOI=10.1136/bmj.2.4642.1433
|date=1949
|accessdate=2019-1012-2805
}}</ref>
</blockquote>
Researchers in Britain and America noticed that male infants in America, where most males were circumcised in the 1970s behave differently from female infants, while male infants in Britain do not behave differently from female infants. Richards, Bernal, & Brackbill (1976) said:<blockquote>The extent to which circumcision does contribute to gender differences in behavior during the neonatal period, or subsequently, obviously demands detailed and focused study. Most certainly, the published description of any sample using male neonates should indicate circumcision status. At present, with rare exception, this information does not appear in any account of subject characteristics.<ref>{{REFjournal |last=Richards |first=MPM |author-link= |last2=Bernal |first2=JF |author2-link= |last3=Brackbill |first3=Yvonne |author3-link= |etal=no |title=Early behavioral differences: gender or circumcision? |trans-title= |language= |journal=Dev Psychobiol |location= |date=1976-01 |volume=9 |issue=1 |pages=89-95 |url=http://www.cirp.org/library/psych/brackbill/ |quote= |pubmedID=767183 |pubmedCID= |DOI=10.1002/dev.420090112 |accessdate=2019-12-05}}</ref></blockquote>
{{REF}}