The AAP's basic failure on the topic of circumcision is this: They asked and answered the wrong questions. On purpose.

A normal approach for doctors would be this 1-2-3:

  1. Why do males have a covered glans? (What are all the possible reasons? How did this evolve to be the default state?)

  2. What is the complete makeup of the foreskin? (Does it have muscle tissue? Veins? Nerve endings? Mucosa? In what proportions? And why?)

  3. Does foreskin/glans separation and prepuce amputation cause harm to the penis and any other parts of the body? (Up to and including the brain)

Instead, the mercenary medicos approached the subject ass-backwards and expected the public to go along:

  1. Can an infant endure this surgery? (And can it be done quickly enough so as not to inconvenience the doctor?)

  2. Is a male still able to pee and procreate in a circumcised state? (Since we assume the foreskin itself serves no purpose. We don't know; none of us has one.)

  3. Who is going to pay us? (We'll stress in our "research" that it's imperative that the government and private insurance never cut circumcision subsidies to parents.)

This is blatant medical malpractice. It's negligence and malfeasance by those entrusted to know and practice medical ethics. The right way to approach the question of genital cutting is not elusive. It's obvious -- to anyone with common sense and not driven by bias and greed.

The ultimate goal should be: How do we advise parents on how to keep this normal body part safe and healthy?