that uncircumcised men are at much greater risk of becoming infected with HIV than circumcised men” (2000a:1592). Weiss and colleagues (2000) conducted a “meta-analysis” of previous research on connections between male circumcision and HIV infection rates. This article concludes that “the data from observational studies provide compelling evidence of substantial protective effect of male circumcision against HIV infection in Sub-Saharan Africa, especially in populations at high risk of HIV/STD” (Weiss et al. 2000:2369).
These texts point out that there are problems—for example that there is no evidence that male circumcision performed on adult men has any positive impact—but their conclusion is clear: lack of male circumcision is a health risk in Africa and male circumcision should be promoted as a means of HIV prevention:
The hour has passed for the international health community to recognize the compelling evidence that shows a significant association between lack of male circumcision and HIV infection. It is time to take the following actions: to provide communities with accurate, balanced information so that individuals can make informed choices; to provide the training and resources needed to offer safe, voluntary male circumcision in which pain is kept to a minimum; and to begin investigations of the feasibility of acceptable male circumcision interventions in communities with large HIV and STD seroprevalence where circumcision has traditionally been practised (Halperin & Bailey, 1999:1814-1815).
Voices against the practice of male circumcision are raised in the journals, too (Van Howe 1999). In fact, strong opposition follows any article presenting male circumcision as a HIV/AIDS prevention strategy. Szabo and Short’s (2000a) article, mentioned above, provoked more than 50 replies to the British Medical Journal. These replies argued, for example, that the review did not hold scientific standards, did not present enough evidence, did not take into account the risks of complications involved in circumcision etc. Van Howe’s (1999) meta-analysis concludes that medical research does not show conclusive evidence on the protective effect of male circumcision.
Those researchers who in their empirical studies have most data on circumcision and HIV infection rates are the ones most cautious in promoting male circumcision as a preventive measure. It is more frequently the popularizing media texts that highlight and promote male circumcision as a preventive measure. In the following discussion it seems necessary first to deal with the issue of scientific evidence for male circumcision promotion, in order to show that what is discussed in these studies is above all the issue of scientific uncertainty as to whether male circumcision can reduce risks for male infection. The major concern of this study, the race and gender discourse in male circumcision promotion, will be discussed afterwards.