I agree with you - Here's the unanswered e-mail I sent shortly after the show.

This is not as well-composed as I might like, but I need to strike while the iron is hot.

I have never been moved to write into Slate for any podcast before, of the hundreds and hundreds I've listened to, but the "discussion" on circumcision was a bridge too far. The truculent, patronizing tone of all three members of the gabfest was offensive.

It doesn't matter what the reasons may be for performing a circumcision. The fact is that it is an elective cosmetic surgical procedure. While it makes perfect sense for parents to make medical decisions for their babies, it should be noted that nobody performs rhinoplasty on babies, and if they did it would be considered both bizarre and cruel, just as circumcision is self-evidently bizarre to anyone not indoctrinated in its tradition from early in life.

Regardless of the reasons, it should be clear why performing cosmetic surgery on babies is at least worthy of a controversy, and the opposition to it was being dismissed by the panel as crazy or bitchy, the way that women often have been in the past when they have tried to attain rights regarding their bodies.

It's breathtaking how apparently the panel believes that religion gives one an automatic free ride to beyond the reach of scrutiny when supporting the surgical alteration of the genitals of babies to suit the aesthetic tastes of sexually mature adults.

I wonder what Emily would think cultures that ritually scar or partially desensitize the clitoris of all newborn baby girls.