Ganz interessanter Text von Audrey Alejandro, der sich allerdings jeder Wertung dieser Genitalverstümmelung enthält.
Ein paar Schnipsel:
Research shows that pro-male circumcision United States doctors have been often older, male, and circumcised
Ach was! Wer hätte das gedacht!? 
A review of the 1095 articles about male circumcision indexed on Medline between 1996 and 2006 shows that the sector considers it a “complex, problematic and contested procedure” (Dowsett et al., 2007: 35). Indeed, the medical community in other countries recommends non-surgical interventions for the predicaments male circumcision has been allegedly supposed to prevent and cure.4 As a result, the medical sector worldwide tends to consider United States’ male genitalia exceptionalism as a “cultural bias” and “cultural prejudice”
Bloß der Bundestag hatte 2012 kein Problem damit...
Bezogen auf die USA:
These include social pressure on the mother, for example for sons to look like their father and peers (Avenado, 2016: 3; Dekkers, 2009: 139; Newman and Carpenter, 2014: 445–446), the “fear that anti-circumcision efforts might offend the Jewish community“ (Carpenter, 2010: 625–626), the influence of for-profit insurance systems, and the fact that medicalized circumcision lasted longer than in other contexts and people became unfamiliar with uncircumcised penises (Darby, 2005).
Male circumcision has remained “a procedure in search of a biomedical rationale” throughout its remedicalization (Fox and Thomson, 2010)
Und sucht und sucht und sucht...
Indeed, RCTs starting in 2007 in Kenya, Uganda, and South Africa finally provided a rationale that pro-male circumcision doctors had been looking for a hundred years: a “new etiology for HIV, positing the foreskin as a disease vector and circumcision as the treatment” (Carpenter, 2010: 623). These experiments propelled the remedicalization of male circumcision to a new level by concluding a 50%–60% reduction in female-to-male HIV transmission for a follow-up period of 21 to 24 months after circumcision (Wamai et al., 2012). The results of these experiments were met with skepticism from a large part of the medical community, who highlighted the limits of the experiments—e.g. the sample was too small, the duration of the experiments was too short, and the supposed process through which male circumcision prevents HIV transmission was unknown—and produced counter-evidence (Green et al., 2008). The concerns of global health experts regarding the generalizability of the results were accentuated by the failure to account for the contextual factors involved in a large-scale implementation of male circumcision for anti-HIV purposes, considering the documented beliefs and behaviors regarding male circumcision in the region—for example, the idea that male circumcision works as a “natural condom”—and the impact of such belief on men’s partners (Berer, 2008).
