PS- saying that circumcision is not 'medically necessary' is an insipid dodge.
No- its not medically 'corrective' and no, having a foreskin is not a 'condition' that requires treatment. ( at least, as long as the foreskin is not malformed
which it sometimes is ) Medically Necessary is a term doctors use to describe things that NEED to be corrected because otherwise the patient's health or survival is compromised immediately.
But that has no bearing on the fact that circumcision DOES reduce transmission rates of many diseases. ( when those with them become sexually active- 12-20 years later )
And ANY site claiming that it does not is simply propaganda
Just like sites with scientific sounding titles that claim global warming is not happening
. they are easy to find. But that does't make it true.
The rate of transmission in the US after RIC was adopted fell dramatically when that generation children became sexually active. Recent, more rigorous, studies by WHO have proven the protective effect
and those studies led to tissue experiments that uncovered several possible reasons why foreskin tissue is more susceptible to infection.
So
is it "medically necessary"? no. But Neither is vaccination. No child necessarily needs "medical treatment" for a disease they do not actually have.
But that is not the same thing as saying vaccination is not beneficial.
So Does circumcision confer a health benefit?
YES, but, like vaccination, only when widely adopted as a public health measure.
That is, in a population with MOSTLY circumcised men
you are less likely to get infected partly because you have higher resistance to infection
but mostly because each of your partners are less likely to have been infected- so you are less frequently exposed to infection.
However, if you are the sole circumcised male in an otherwise Uncut population
while you yourself are less likely to be infected in any one encounter
your partners are, each, MORE likely to have been infected
. which means you are exposed to infection more often, which can defeat your lower susceptibility thru sheer opportunity.
Those are the medical facts.
In a nation of mostly cut males
it makes little difference if a few choose to be uncut.
In a nation of mostly uncut males
everybody, even those who are cut, are at higher risk because the vectors of infection are multiplied.
Stop searching for "language" that doesn't actually support your assertion.