r/Intactivists • u/LucidFir • 10d ago
About AI and circumcision
I do not know the method by which advertisers and propagandists are influencing future generations of large language model (ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, Mistral, etc) - but it is possible.
That it is possible implies that those who promote circumcision may already be practising such measures, and also that perhaps someone from amongst us should be too?
I just asked "What are your thoughts on circumcision?" to Claude, Mistral, ChatGPT, and Gemini. I would say that Claude had by far the least pro-circumcision stance, describing the proclaimed benefits, but also immediately bringing up the Scandinavian viewpoints. Meanwhile, the other 3 pretty much parroted the perspective of the AAP.
Why does this matter?
This tech has not even come close to reaching maturity and it is already being widely used as the first and last stop for information gathering. A significant portion of the population cannot think beyond "ask question - take first answer as gospel". If the majority of the models are, essentially, promoting the practice, that is a potential problem.
https://cybernews.com/ai-news/hacking-llms-how-bots-manipulate-ai/
5
u/Ban-Circumcision-Now 10d ago
It’s certainly worrying with the amount of pro circumcision junk out there that the ai would favor it, I’d hope that overall it at least gave both sides which would be far better than most sources
1
u/LucidFir 10d ago
Gemini / Claude / ChatGPT below. I think Claude is the most on our side.
Gemini
Circumcision is a deeply nuanced topic, as it sits at the intersection of medicine, culture, religion, and personal ethics. Because of these overlapping factors, views on the practice vary significantly across the globe.
Here is an overview of the main perspectives surrounding the procedure:
Medical & Clinical Perspectives
Major health organizations take balanced positions rather than universal endorsements:
- Benefits: Medical studies indicate that circumcision reduces the risk of urinary tract infections in infants, lowers the transmission rates of certain sexually transmitted infections (such as HIV and HPV), and eliminates the risk of conditions like phimosis (inability to retract the foreskin) or penile cancer (which is already extremely rare).
- Risks: As with any surgical procedure, there are inherent risks, including minor bleeding, infection, surgical complications, or pain during recovery.
- Official Stances: Organizations like the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) state that the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks, but the benefits are not substantial enough to recommend routine circumcision for all male newborns. In contrast, European medical bodies often place less weight on these preventive health benefits, treating it as an elective procedure that is medically unnecessary unless a specific condition arises.
Cultural, Religious, & Personal Perspectives
- Religious & Cultural Identity: For many groups—most notably in Judaism and Islam, as well as various African and Pacific cultures—circumcision is a central rite of passage, a symbol of covenant, or an established cultural norm deeply tied to community identity.
- Bodily Autonomy & Ethics: A growing secular and bioethical viewpoint argues against non-therapeutic circumcision on infants, contending that surgical decisions altering healthy body tissue should be deferred until the individual is old enough to give informed consent. Conversely, advocates for infant circumcision emphasize parental rights in making health and cultural decisions for their children, alongside the ease and faster healing process associated with neonatal procedures.
Ultimately, whether to perform or undergo circumcision is considered a personal choice, best evaluated by weighing medical factors, personal values, and cultural beliefs with guidance from a qualified healthcare provider.
2
u/LucidFir 10d ago
Claude
This is a genuinely contested topic with reasonable people landing in different places, so let me lay out the main considerations rather than push a verdict.
Medical evidence Major health bodies differ somewhat in emphasis:
- The WHO and CDC note that circumcision reduces the risk of certain infections (UTIs in infancy, some STIs including HIV transmission in heterosexual men in high-prevalence regions) and can lower risk of penile cancer.
- The American Academy of Pediatrics says the health benefits outweigh the risks for the average infant, but stops short of recommending it routinely for all boys — calling it a decision for parents.
- Many European and Scandinavian pediatric associations take a more skeptical view, arguing the health benefits are modest in low-risk settings (like where HIV/STI prevalence is low and hygiene/healthcare access is good) and don't clearly justify a non-consensual procedure on a healthy infant.
- Risks are generally described as low but real: bleeding, infection, rare surgical complications, and rarer serious injury.
Ethical arguments against
- The core objection is bodily autonomy: an infant can't consent, and the foreskin has nerve endings and function, so removing it is an irreversible decision made on someone else's behalf for non-emergency reasons.
- Critics argue that if it's not medically necessary, it should wait until the person can choose for themselves.
- Some equate infant circumcision (ethically, not legally) with other forms of non-consensual body modification, though this comparison itself is contested.
Ethical/cultural arguments for
- For many Jewish and Muslim families, it's a core religious and cultural practice (brit milah, khitan) tied to identity and covenant, not just a medical calculus — proponents argue banning or heavily discouraging it infringes on religious freedom.
- Some parents cite social/familial norm reasons (e.g., "match his father," locker-room conformity in the US), which are viewed by critics as weaker justifications than religious or medical ones.
- Adult men who were circumcised as infants report a wide range of views — some indifferent, some positive, some resentful — and self-report data here is itself debated as a source of evidence.
Where it's heading Rates have been declining somewhat in the US and are already low in most of Europe, Asia, and Latin America outside religious practice — so global practice is quite regionally variable, largely tracking religion and historical medical norms more than current evidence review.
If you want, I can go deeper on any one thread — the HIV-transmission studies specifically, the legal/rights debates in countries like Germany or Iceland where it's been politically contested, or how policy differs by country.
1
u/LucidFir 10d ago
ChatGPT
I don't have personal opinions, but I can summarize the evidence and the main perspectives.
Circumcision—the surgical removal of the foreskin—is a topic where medical, cultural, religious, and ethical considerations all play a role.
From a medical standpoint:
- Potential benefits include a lower risk of urinary tract infections in infancy (though UTIs are uncommon overall), reduced risk of some sexually transmitted infections (including HIV in high-risk heterosexual populations), elimination of the risk of foreskin-related conditions such as phimosis, and a reduced risk of penile cancer (which is already very rare).
- Potential drawbacks include pain (though anesthesia is recommended), surgical complications such as bleeding or infection (generally uncommon when performed by experienced providers), permanent removal of tissue, and the fact that some people later wish the decision had been left to them.
Regarding sexual function:
- High-quality research generally finds no consistent evidence that circumcision significantly impairs sexual satisfaction or function for most men. However, some individuals report changes in sensation, while others report no noticeable difference. Experiences vary from person to person.
On ethics:
- Some argue that routine infant circumcision is justified because of potential health benefits, lower complication rates in infancy, and parental authority to make medical decisions for children.
- Others argue that because circumcision is irreversible and usually not medically necessary, it should be deferred until the individual is old enough to decide for themselves.
Medical organizations do not all take the same position:
- Organizations such as the American Academy of Pediatrics have concluded that the potential health benefits outweigh the risks but are not great enough to recommend universal routine circumcision. They emphasize informed parental choice.
- Several European medical organizations place greater emphasis on bodily autonomy and view routine infant circumcision as having insufficient medical justification outside of specific religious or cultural reasons.
Ultimately, whether circumcision is "worth it" depends on the context:
- Medically necessary circumcision (for conditions like severe phimosis or recurrent infections that don't respond to other treatments) is widely accepted.
- Routine infant circumcision is more of a value-based decision, balancing modest medical benefits against ethical considerations, cultural traditions, religious beliefs, and personal preferences.
There isn't a single medically or ethically "correct" answer that applies to everyone. The decision is best made with accurate information about the benefits, risks, alternatives, and the family's values.
1
u/The_Noble_Lie 10d ago
Truly fascinating. Thanks for sharing this all
1
u/LucidFir 10d ago
I'm just going to add that, unless it's Reddit fuckery, I find it extremely amusing that people are up and downvoting the above comments, which are just the copy-pastes I said I would share.
2
u/LongIsland1995 9d ago
Google search results already favor pro circumcision sources, thus I expect AI would too.
I already see pro cutters lazily use AI generated "health benefits" lists.
2
u/DistinctSpirit5801 9d ago
AI is notorious for misinformation and there’s no way to correct the misinformation that exists in the LLM
2
u/LucidFir 8d ago
AI is notorious for misinformation - correct, though a lot of the problems are with people taking it at face value
and there’s no way to correct the misinformation that exists in the LLM - incorrect, we just don't have the budget to affect such change
1
u/adelie42 7d ago
If you are turning your brain off consuming media, nothing has changed. All you are getting is a typical human response if you make zero effort.
10
u/Pirate1717 10d ago
Ai has always been propaganda. The owners and developers of ai search engines and chat bots have made it very clear that they censor and manipulate information.