The facts are, in fact, relevant.

In response to the Jeremy Kuper essay I criticized yesterday, Laura MacDonald writes an excellent rebuttal demonstrating how little attention Kuper gave the topic beyond the superficial evidence that he believes supports his decision to circumcise his son. This is excellent:

Specifically, let’s talk about the foreskin itself. Its function is – bizarrely – one thing you’ll find absent in most of the discussion articles written about circumcision.

… Often presented as a “tiny” vestigial flap of skin, most particularly by women and by men who haven’t got one, a male foreskin measures around 10-15 square inches when unfolded, some 50% of his overall penile skin system. …

Right, then. Next time they’ll try harder, I’m sure.

For the sheer giggle factor of proving how extreme and indefensible circumcision is when compared to other interventions (i.e. condoms), this:

There is no convincing proof that circumcision reduces sexually transmitted infections in developed nations, and its effect on penile cancer rates is similar to that of soap.

I know. Soap, the preposterous suggestion we needn’t bother offering to men. Especially since they won’t need soap after circumcision. Or does that not make any sense? Whatever. As long as parents get to cut their children in the end, every absurd justification is logical.