Generally, this changes as they grow up. After puberty, most teenage boys spend long times in the shower ‘cleaning’ their genitals.
The idea that being part of the chosen people depends on genetics (let’s leave out the penis mutilation for a moment because that confused the issue and is not in itself racist).
If anyone tried to make such a claim outside of a religious setting, then it would definitely be described using words at least similar to racism and eugenics.
Now you understand that, let’s add the penis end removal back into things. My understanding is that with most but not all Jewish sects, the circumcision is about celebrating God’s endorsement of the chosen people thing.
In other words, it’s mutiliation in celebration of racism.
Don’t get me wrong, it’s very different to the KKK (for example) in that it’s all “positive racism” and different to dominance based FGM (also for example) in that it’s “positive mutilation”. But the analogy holds.
You misunderstand the Chosen People thing.
It means (for those who believe) that Jews carry an additional burden that non-Jews do not carry. Non-Jews can enter heaven and be considered righteous people without having to do the rituals. We have to because of the covenant with god. It has nothing to do with elitism, being better than or anything. Just about being different. And non-Jews who convert are considered equal, so eugenics (dealing with genes) and racism (dealing with race) do not apply. And FWIW, all racism, “positive” or otherwise is abhorrent. Circumcision, to those who believe, is simply a compact between that person and god. It means nothing about anyone else.
There are many good sites on Judaism as a religion and misconceptions that you might want to read further.
Is what you said above something that 99% of people who call themselves Jews would agree with?
Absolutely.
If that is true, I stand corrected. So what’s all this stuff about being a Jew if your mother is one then?
Missed the window:
Absolutely.
‘Does Judaism believe that chosenness endows Jews with special rights in the way racist ideologies endow those born into the “right race”? Not at all. The most famous verse in the Bible on the subject of chosenness says the precise opposite: “You alone have I singled out of all the families of the earth. That is why I call you to account for all your iniquities” (Amos 3:2). Chosenness is so unconnected to any notion of race that Jews believe that the Messiah himself will descend from Ruth, a nonJewish woman who converted to Judaism.’ from: The "Chosen People"
Also Noahide laws: In Judaism, the Seven Laws of Noah (Hebrew: שבע מצוות בני נח Sheva mitzvot B’nei Noach) form the major part of the Noachide Laws, or Noahide Code.[1] This code is a set of moral imperatives that, according to the Talmud, were given by God[2] as a binding set of laws for the “children of Noah” – that is, all of mankind.[3][4] According to religious Judaism, any non-Jew who lives according to these laws is regarded as a righteous gentile, and is assured of a place in the world to come (Olam Haba), the final reward of the righteous.[5][6] Adherents are often called “B’nei Noach” (Children of Noah) or “Noahides” and may often network in Jewish synagogues.[citation needed]
From Wikipedia.
One last link- not the smoothest writing, but hits a lot of points you might find interesting. http://www.torah.org/features/secondlook/chosen.html
With that, I’m done with this diversion and multi-posting!
Judaism heritage comes matrilinealy or through conversion. Reconstructionist and Reform Jews also recognize patrilineal decent. It’s where ethnicity and religion blur lines.
erm, but isn’t the “heritage” from blood very much related to the “heritage” from circumcision?
I see no non-purely-religious argument for circumcision for jewish babies other than the heritage one… which brings us back to square one right?
I will look at your links though.
No one said Jewish reasons for circumcision had nothing to do with ritual. It does. That fact has nothing to do with science and the idea Jewish doctors influenced the result to gain approval for ritual is offensive (to me both as a Jew and as a scientist!).
I never espoused any such idea. I in fact argued against it.
I certainly espouse the idea that pro-circumcision scientists will have inadvertantly contaminated the science due to being the ones that care about it the most. Frankly, that is a practicaly almost inevitable result of the way science is carried out these days, especially with “marginal” subjects like this.
You contradict yourself in your own post.
My people have a word. Oy. 
ETA: while I disagree with the assertion in your post, I realize I’m conflating your posts with Sicks Ate. For that I apologize.
I don’t see how. To be clear I’m not saying a Jewish doctor is necessarily a pro-circumcision doctor, I see no reason that they would be (at least for non-Jews).
But there are definitely doctors who are. Right bloody weirdos some of them - at least as I said religious reasons explain some Jewish and Muslim doctors, but the majority of the real pro lot have no such “excuse”. My personal suspicion is that at least a few are circumcision fetishists. An interesting site you can read about this is circleaks.org
For example, the Austrialian doctor quoted in the news article that starts that OP is this guy - take a look at what that website says about him. He’s a bloody loony!
Stopped from adding this by the edit clock: You can also see by following links on that site just how damn incestuous the scientific circumcision community is. It’s all very well having peer review and so on but when it’s the same people endorsing each other’s articles then while the science may be fine for each study it’s inevitably never going to let the full story through.
As I said that is a problem in all sorts of scientific areas, and I have no practical alternative for better science as such - it just means that the onus is on the reader to always remain a bit skeptical. My father publishes in a fairly obscure area (visual aspects of processing disorders) and believe me everyone knows everyone else.
wow look at the video clip - he thinks ONE IN THREE non circumcised males will get a problem from it.
That’s the kind of nut we’re dealing with.
Just ask the Muslims who practice it. They’ll tell you it has benefits that outweigh the negatives. For instance:
"The secretions of the labia minora accumulate in uncircumcised women and turn rancid, so they develop an unpleasant odour which may lead to infections of the vagina or urethra. I have seen many cases of sickness caused by the lack of circumcision.
Circumcision reduces excessive sensitivity of the clitoris which may cause it to increase in size to 3 centimeters when aroused, which is very annoying to the husband, especially at the time of intercourse.
Another benefit of circumcision is that it prevents stimulation of the clitoris which makes it grow large in such a manner that it causes pain.
Circumcision prevents spasms of the clitoris which are a kind of inflammation."
My point is that there is no way to escape the cultural judgment involved. We’re simply used to male circumcision, so we accept it. We go out and find medical reasons to justify that after the fact. Just like they do.
The vast majority of Muslims don’t practice it any more then most Christians practice it.
Male circumcision is considered obligatory but female circumcision isn’t.
Moreover, the link you’ve provided is a religious website for a Sheikh, not a respected medical organization.
I’d hardly consider the Sheikh remotely as reliable or on par with the American Academy of Pediatrics.
I know - that’s why I wrote “the Muslims who practice it” instead of just “the Muslims.”
I know that too. But THEY think it’s sound medical information. That’s my point.
I’m sure the AAP is right about the benefits of circumcision. My point is that those are irrelevant to whether it is ethical. Since the benefits can be acheived without cutting off part of the genitals, there is no good medical reason for it. It’s a silly Victorian practice designed to stop boys from masturbating (yes, they cut off part of the penis just to avoid that). And now we do it for nothing more than fashion. And now the AAP has found a reason to make people feel less stupid about it.
It’s hopelessly caught up in culture, not medicine.
Yes, except you initially claimed that there were medical benefits to female genital mutilation.
You now seem to be admitting that there are none just you found some Sheikh with no medical training who thinks there are.