 I had no illusions that the response to my circumcision video would all be reasoned and neutral. I made an attempt to present a balanced perspective based on the medical literature. It's probably impossible to wholly remove myself from the analysis, but I made an effort to stick to points I could support with evidence from reputable sources. So I was most surprised that the majority of the criticism was that I gave both sides of this particular argument and didn't take a strong enough stance against circumcision. Apparently being objectively open-minded isn't enough to some people. The reason I make these videos is to inform and educate. I'm just not that interested in persuading or proselytizing. It's not that I don't love you, random internet strangers, but I don't know you, and I have enough respect for other people to let them make their own decisions. I don't care if the facts presented in my videos change your mind or not on a topic. I encourage people to think, to inform themselves from scientific sources, not from the internet, and to avoid personal dogmas. But these videos are my best effort to present useful information from my subscribers. Take it or leave it. They're free, require no investment on your part, and may even make you think for a brief moment. The only cost is that you may be exposed to an argument you dislike, disagree with, or see serious flaws in. I never intend for people to accept everything I say as gospel truth. I may be wrong, I accept that. I count on you guys to keep me honest, to challenge me when I'm wrong, but to do so with the kind of rational disagreement that people have in the real world. I said early on that I was hoping to spark some discussion. Many thanks to about a half a dozen people who pointed out where my presentation fell short, or there was more complexity than I let on. I'd like to name Sophia Roon and Great Big Boar in particular, both of whom pointed out deficiencies. I recommend both their channels. I also agree with many commenters that freedom o' speech is an excellent counterpoint channel. If you want a different take on the issue that's still quite rational and based on research, check it out. It would be a crappy place if we all agreed on everything. A lot of people thought I was advocating for routine male circumcision. I suppose they got that impression because I presented what is known about potential benefits of circumcision. Some people said as much in comments. This is very troubling because it suggests to me that these people believe that we should suppress or dismiss what is known if it goes contrary to their viewpoint. That's the beginning of denialism. It's a psychological deception mechanism called selective acceptance. It's very easy to take 10 papers and throw away six that you feel have methodological flaws or political bias or struck you as poorly done. Why did you choose those six? Were the studies you agreed with subjected to the same level of scrutiny as the ones you disagreed with? Did you discard an equal number from both sides? I generally avoid any kind of critical scrutiny on anything but objective criteria like population size or statistical power for just this reason. It's the only way I know of to avoid imposing my own bias on the literature. I understand if people are strongly opposed to circumcision on a matter of principle, some fundamental tenet of your personal belief. However, that does not negate the need to present a well-reasoned argument to address the issues involved. When I look at the comments that bothered me, they fall into a few categories. I want to describe these and respond generically to these types of arguments. Here are the types of responses that bothered me. Type 1, reductio ad absurdum. Male circumcision is equivalent to cutting off your child's hands and feet. Yes, someone actually said that. One person suggested that every parent who gets their child circumcised should be executed without a trial. Imagine rounding up all those Jewish parents who are observing their cultural practices, I don't know, into some sort of camp and executing all of them. The Muslims would have to be in there too, and of course more than 100 million Americans, or essentially one-third of all the population on earth. This is exactly the kind of argument I was asking people to avoid with emotional wording. The term mutilation was heavily used, which is a pathos argument. I don't know about anybody else, but when I see one side of a debate resorting to these kinds of intellectual pornography, I suspect their arguments are not that strong, and it actually damages their position. Stick to the facts, objectively stated, and the discussion will be a lot more productive. Type 2, TLDNW. Too long did not watch. These are the people who obviously didn't watch the full video. They respond to points I never made, or specifically discounted. For example, I made a point of saying that cultural and family traditions are irrelevant as an argument for me. Yet a half dozen people wanted me to know that my arguing from tradition was a fallacy. Look, people, a fallacy of tradition or popularity is only a fallacy when it's the basis for the argument that something is true, because it's a tradition or popular. Simply stating that something is a tradition or popular is not in itself a fallacy. One guy even quoted the AAP position statement at me. Apparently unaware that it was an entire section of the video. I think the AAP had it exactly right. There are medical benefits, but they don't really overcome the risks in ethical conundrums, so that a family should decide for themselves in consultation with their physician. I know it was a long video, and there were no funny cats or young ladies in bikinis, but please at least scan the script before furiously typing away about things you think I will say based on the first 30 seconds of a video. If you made it to the last five minutes, you get to hear me discuss why I leaned towards opposing the practice. I think it's hard to defend ethically. I don't think the cultural or religious arguments are very compelling. I don't know how many people got that far, but I did receive a lot of messages telling me that I presented a very balanced and fair representation of the issues. Next time I handle a controversial topic, I'll put the con side first and the pro side second, and we'll see if the angrier responses come from the other side in the TL-DNW crowd. Type 3, Single Issue, Single Solution. These are the people who don't see circumcision as a complex topic at all. Black and white, it's mutilation, and every parent who does it is evil or stupid. The benefits can all be discounted because condoms alone could prevent all STDs, and a little soap and water prevent all urinary tract infections. Circumcision for disease prevention is like cutting off your arms to prevent arm cancer. Gosh, I don't know how many times that little gem appears in comments. I said in the video that knowledge is the opposite of confidence, and vice versa, meaning confidence is the enemy of knowledge. It could be that the issues seem black and white to you, because you haven't been forced to really consider them, or you don't allow yourself to see any complexity. I've read several reviews of the topic by Bioethicis, and none of them see this as a polar issue, a black and white topic. This is the real world. Condom use has not, so far, been completely effective at ending STDs. Neither has hygiene prevented UTIs. This is not a trivial problem, and saying that the solution is simple is to ignore the deaths that the complexity of the real world causes. If circumcision could save a few million lives that education alone cannot, I, for one, will not stand in the way of global public health efforts to save lives. Please be skeptical of these benefits by all means, but being skeptical also means remaining open to the fact that you may be wrong. And no, circumcision is not like removing arms to prevent arm cancer. The best analogy I could think of to match the risks and benefits is the removal of tonsils. I'm not sure I would be comfortable if infant tonsil removal were a routine practice, but if it were part of the culture I lived in, it would be a lot harder for me to see it as barbaric and mutilation. I'd be much more likely to rely on the medical costs and benefits and the ethics involved than in an emotional appeal to intact tonsils. Please note that very young children do not participate in the decision to have a tonsilectomy. Their parents make that decision for them as the legal guardian. If parents chose to have a preventative tonsilectomy for their child, the analogy would be pretty close, and that would also be a complex issue. Type 4, Dr. Google says so. How can you say children aren't dying? Everyone knows a little boy died this month in Queens. It's true that a two-year-old died at Beth Israel Hospital in Queens earlier this month. The death was a result of a horrible medical mistake. The little boy was given general anesthesia instead of local, and his lungs simply shut down following the procedure. Was this the result of circumcision? I suppose it could be. I wouldn't have categorized it as a unique risk of that procedure. I don't discount such events, rare as they are, from an analysis of costs, and I said as much as in the video. One death in 500,000 procedures is still a costly price to pay. There were a number of people who, in spite of my request to the contrary, posted factual claims about deaths without any support or source. Anything asserted without evidence is dismissed just as easily. This goes for claims about the studies I cited being refuted, or that everybody knows they have major flaws. Don't believe everything you read on the internet, folks. Source your facts. If a website doesn't have primary sources, be very skeptical. Also beware of using books as a primary source. They're not often peer-reviewed and often distort or bias the original research reports. It's not hard to do your own research. PubMed is a free database of scientific papers. PubMed Central contains freely available full-text articles that you can read. I encourage you to try a few of these terms and see if I fairly represented the range of views in the scientific community. Thanks to everyone who participated in the discussion. I never claim that I have all the answers, but I can present you with what I do know or what my thoughts are on a topic. And the interactive nature of YouTube allows us to exchange our views. How many other forums allow diverse people from around the world with very little in common but a computer in the English language to exchange ideas and viewpoints on topics that interest them. You guys are the reason I make these videos and I make the videos you request. I hope in spite of disagreements that you'll keep coming back for the free information and the chance to have your position heard. Thanks for watching.