Policy in the Pants: Peeling Back the Layers in Political Discourse on Male Circumcision and its Creation of the Masculine Body
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Male circumcision is surgical procedure that amputates the male foreskin from the penis, and its merits have been debated for millennia. The surgery is highly contested as it represents a collision of ideas surrounding gender, infant vs adult bodies, human rights, religion, and understandings of health, to name a few. To justify its continued existence, rooted in differing ideological frameworks, claims that are regionally specific for the arrest or continuation of the practice are made around the world. This research examines through a critical discourse analysis the cultural differences between the Canadian Paediatric Society and the American Academy of Pediatrics policy recommendation statements that were constructed for both health practitioners and the public. Beginning in 1975 both Canada and the United States began in 1975 to release policy recommendation statements after having been spurred into action from a small statement in an American text for physicians titled “Standards and Recommendation of Hospital Care of Newborn Infants.” Circumcision policies are not simply theoretical imperatives but claims that enact physical changes to bodies and their lived experiences of the universe. Therefore, I utilize the three bodies of Lock and Scheper-Hughes (1987) to ground my linguistic findings to bodies – with first and third body most present. Ultimately, I discuss how scientific framing of data in both countries policies create two different individual bodies, with the Canadian holding more holistic views of individual bodies than Americans. The body politic differed whereby, Americans emphasized efficacy of procedure, Canadians expressed the need for regulating and controlling pain and who can perform the procedure.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.020 | 0.028 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.007 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.039 | 0.080 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.022 | 0.020 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Research integrity | 0.010 | 0.014 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".