> sometimes hygienic reasons too The idea that circumcision has substantive positive health effects has been thoroughly debunked in the presence of semi-regula

> sometimes hygienic reasons too The idea that circumcision has substantive positive health effects has been thoroughly debunked in the presence of semi-regular washing, and the jury is out in third-world countries without sanitation. However, when you factor in the risk of infant mortality from infection or botched procedure in those same third-world countries, any (minor) health benefit that might exist disappears and goes negative. Hygiene also doesn't seem to be an accepted excuse for clitoral hood removal, even though it's anatomically identical (mutatis mutandis) to male circumcision and presumably has similar (minor) health benefits (dryer environments are harsher on bacteria). The one non-negligible semi-legitimate medical justification is in the case of severe phimosis, but that can almost always be treated with topical creams rather than surgery and doesn't manifest until adolescence anyway, so it's not an excuse to circumcise babies.