Every time that there is any circumcision debate, you will see some names appear over and over. For example, when Morten Frisch publishes a study suggesting that circumcision may be linked to orgasm difficulties, specialists such as Brian J. Morris, Jake H. Waskett, and Ronald H. Gray jump to disprove the studies.
Brian J. Morris is known to comment in articles in blogs promoting the benefits and denying any changes in sexual function. Quite often he will quote studies, which upon further inspection by a critical reader will result in being written or co-authored by himself. Morris would like circumcision of infants to be compulsory.
Jake H. Waskett, who also goes by jakew, is a computer programmer who goes to lengths into quoting studies to prove his points while discrediting those studies that oppose his views. He also blogs here.
Ronald H. Gray, Ron, supervised one of the 3 African studies that have been used ad nauseam to promote circumcision as a tool to prevent HIV, and which would be of little relevance to the American environment if the media had not turned them into a rationale to promote circumcision of neonates disregarding the environmental differences that make those studies inapplicable to the United States.
A name that has fallen in disgrace is that of Vernon Quaintance and the Gilgal Society, as Vernon was convicted of possessing child pornography.
Another important name is the Gilgal Society, headed by Quaintance, which publishes several pro-circumcision resources (Gilgal is Hebrew for "hill of foreskins"). They have also published what can only amount to "circumcision porn".
When you read a letter such as the one Brian J. Morris, Jake H. Waskett, and Ronald H. Gray wrote to disprove Frisch report, you tend to first, be overwhelmed by the number of quoted studies and methodological arguments, which seem to give authority to the letters. However, it's quite logical that their rebuttal does not disprove that thousands of men feel that they were hurt by being circumcised as infants. You may prove statistically that it won't happen to the majority (which depends on how you define 'harm'), but the fact that any man can stand in front of his peers and state that he was harmed should lead people who try to "evidence" such good intentions into asking why this person was hurt, how, and what could be done to alleviate his suffering. But no, the victims, the collateral damages don't deserve any empathy or any study. We are "noise" in their theory. Jake describes our words "misleading activities of many activist groups opposed to neonatal circumcision", but does he stop to think why we are here?
They are blind to us, because we are the voices that say "let the child grow up and decide for himself", and this doesn't fit their theory of the world and their hill of foreskins:
"According to the biblical narrative, Joshua then orders the Israelites who had been born during the exodus to be circumcised. The Bible refers to the location this occurred as Gibeath Haaraloth; some English translations of the Bible identify Gibeath Haaraloth as the name of the place. However, since the place is elsewhere identified as still being Gilgal, and since Gibeath Haaraloth means hill of foreskins, some scholars now think this is simply a description, and some modern translations follow their lead." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilgal#The_Gilgal_associated_with_Joshua)
Would they ever explain why is it necessary to defend and advocate for an elective procedure normally performed in infancy (without consent), that could equally take place in adulthood when the individual can take an informed decision?