Circumcision and forced disability: Routine male neonatal circumcision and the consequences of amputation within a critical disability studies framework
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Through the lens of critical disability studies, this article analyzes the discourse surrounding routine neonatal male circumcision in Canadian and Western contexts. The function of the foreskin is explored, and the functional limitation inflicted by the act of routine neonatal male circumcision is presented. In a critical disability studies framework, it is argued that the act of amputating healthy erogenous tissue and the consequences of that amputation cause disability, particularly from a counter-hegemonic lens. Various principles of critical disability studies are employed, including: recognizing the expertise of disabled people in their own lives; centering the lived experiences of people; factoring in social and political definitions; accounting for the intersections of gender and sexuality; addressing accommodation and equity; and the overall reinterpretation of disability. Through the lens of critical disability studies, considerations include: the intactivist movement; social justice initiatives; foreskin restoration movements; structural violence; the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act; and support for men who live with an amputation due to forced genital cutting. Keywords: male, circumcision, critical disability studies
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 | 0.007 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.019 | 0.090 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.009 | 0.005 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.007 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
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".