Fire Hydrant of Freedom

I'll deal with a few points quickly.

"As for female circumcission, can you really not tell the difference?"

There are various types of female circumcision just as there have been various types of male circumcision, according to my research.  Nonetheless, all types of female circumcision, including a ceremonial pin-prick for the purposes of a Covenant with God with a religious or cultural justification, are illegal in the US.  

A "US version" could keep the entire clitoris intact and remove the clitoral hood - the analog of the modern male circumcision.  No parent would accept such a procedure on their daughter.  So why is that procedure accepted on a son?

"a) Well, as a first person layman's story, of course it is not sicentific. "

It was published in the Wall Street Journal, on-line with the title "Circumcision Saved My Life" in the case of a woman married to a hemophiliac.  Well, in the case of women married to hemophiliacs ...

"c) "The African studies are about circumcision reducing HIV transmission from HIV-infected *women* to *men* in sex."    I could be wrong, but this is not my understanding.  Do you have a citation?  "

From the CDC.  Since the study participants were (obviously) men, the reduction rates are comparing uncircumcised to circumcised men for HIV transmission.  In the US, female to male HIV transmission is a minority of the roughly
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm

Here is a good one on transmission routes.  I need an update.  Current data shows heterosexual sex overtaking drug injection.
http://www.avert.org/usa-transmission-gender.htm

A report from Johns Hopkins University on HIV spread factors:
http://www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/CR22/CR22.pdf
p.109 states that in 18 African countries and India, 10 showed more and 8 showed less HIV infection among circumcised men.

"e) " Likewise, her husband may elect to have a circumcision as an adult." A lot more problematic in adulthood!"

While problematic, why is this more problematic in adulthood?  Days of recovery?  Memory of pain? The infant procedure entails separating skin from flesh as the foreskin is fused to the penis for the first few years of a male's life.  The pain is similar to pulling fingernails or separating less sensitive skin from flesh despite the topical anesthetic that lasts at most an hour or two.  The procedure on an adult is cutting loose but nerve-laden skin.  Infant circumcision takes advantage of an infant's inability to articulate pain.

"f) All procedures have their risks, and accepting your data for this conversation the risks are rather small in contrast to the benefits."

Not a single major US medical association makes this conclusion.  The American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) has repeatedly issued statements that it can not recommend circumcision even after careful review of the potential medical benefits.  In any case, all Western nations are moving away from the trend of circumcision and their circumcision rate has fallen to the low single digits. The benefits are not obvious to the medical professionals of these countries, either.

http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/resources/factsheets/circumcision.htm

The article about circumcision saving a woman's life is the most unsubstantiated piece I've ever read on the topic.
"So there you have it: My husband's circumcision saved my life.  The wife was spared HIV infection because she had a healthy vagina that kills the HIV virus, not circumcision. "  The wife was spared HIV infection because she had a healthy vagina that kills the HIV virus in the semen.  Likewise, her husband may elect to have a circumcision as an adult.    

Also from the article " apparently gives no regard to the numerous studies demonstrating that male circumcision can substantially reduce—by more than 50%—the transmission of the HIV virus during sex"

The African studies are about circumcision reducing HIV transmission from HIV-infected *women* to *men* in sex.  

The two primary HIV transmission paths in the US are 1) anal reception of hiv-infected semen and 2) intravenous reception of HIV-infected blood.  A third, but less common, is vaginal reception of HIV-infected sperm. Largely circumcised US has a higher rate of HIV infection than uncircumcised developed countries such as any European Union nation or Japan/Taiwan, so one may be inclined to conclude the opposite, perhaps that circumcised men shun condoms and engage in riskier sexual activity.

There is always an off laundry list of "health benefits" used to justify circumcision on men, but never on women.  Rarely are the complications of circumcision, which include one US death and a dozen penises rendered useless per year, listed.  Wouldn't female genitalia be cleaner and less prone to disease transmission, general infection or clitoral cancer if, say, the smegma-producing clitoral hood and labia minora were trimmed or amputated?  If mom is circumcised, isn't it important for daughter to look just like mom?   If men learned to prefer the appearance of surgically-altered female genitalia (i.e a hood-free clitoris or shortened/shaped labia minora) isn't that enough of a reason to order the procedure on infant girls ?  I'm not a proponent of circumcision of any kind, but I interchange male and female in the description of circumcision for the sake of argument.

1996 : US federal law bans infant/minor circumcision of any degree on females but not males
201? : US federal law bans infant/minor circumcision of any degree on females and  males

2% of the circumcisions may have a religious justification.  However, the San Francisco circumcision ban proposal will be an interesting bout between freedom of religious expression (on males but not females) and equal protection.