Thank you so much for your words of support and advice. Would you want to clap for my article? I want to spread awareness as much as I can.

The difference is that the clitoris is critical for female sexual response. The clitoris carries the same importance in sexual function as the entire penis. Excluding the neurovascular anatomy of the clitoris is equivalent to excluding the neurovascular anatomy of the entire penis. The implication that the foreskin is at all analogous to the entire clitoris would be like equating the sensory contribution of the retractable portion of the clitoral hood to that of the entire penis.

Excision of shaft skin proximally could potentially lead to denervation of the glans of the penis via damage to the dorsal nerve. Does this ever happen? I would think it wouldn’t if performed by urologists who know the anatomy very well. But I did notice anti-circumcision activists protesting at the ACOG convention. OB/GYNs definitely should not be certified to perform circumcisions.

I think the way to combat male circumcision most effectively is by debunking claims of benefit. In absence of benefit, there can be no ethical justification for male circumcision given the lack of autonomy of recipients and risk inherent in all surgery. You should also address the research that shows no correlation between male sexual dysfunction and circumcision. Someone should write a counter-meta-analysis. Focusing on “number of nerve endings” makes people sound ignorant. Where do these numbers come from? You see this same ignorance when people compare the numbers of nerve endings in the clitoral glans and penile glans — numbers that literally come from a study of cows. You could also maybe address how male sexual function is addressed. The focus is generally on erectile function and ability to ejaculate, neither of which are necessarily affected significantly by diminished sensation.