Sparked somewhat by the recent debate in r/worldnews, I would like to just speak my mind briefly regarding debating circumcision.

In no way in this post am I downplaying people who have had circumcision forced upon them and ended up resenting it. I am not ignoring nor undermining your pain and suffering and think it is despicable personally.

However, I think that telling people that their penises are mutilated is not an effective tactic. Most people like their own genitalia, and telling them that their penises are in some way damaged is just like them telling us that women will refuse to sleep with you if you have an uncircumcised penis. It doesn't really benefit either side.

I think the most productive approach is to focus on the denial of rights. Make it clear that your personal opinion is irrelevant. Whether you prefer the look of it circumcised or intact - whether you are glad you were circumcised or resentful; whether you chose to be circumcised later or had to due to medical reasons - I think the point of most importance is that the person in question should be able to choose.

It is frustrating when people attempt to portray this issue as "not a big deal", but I think that while it essentially boils down to a "pissing contest" (for lack of a better phrase) in comments and such, we are unlikely to make much progress spreading our argument. The lasting impression retained from these debates should not be "cut vs uncut", but "choice vs removal of choice (medical necessities aside)".