The data seems clear enough to me; and certainly clear enough for there to be a push for widespread circumcision of males in those parts of Africa where the procedure is rare. Some skepticism is in order, however:
Although the apparent protective effect of circumcision has been noted for more than 20 years, doubts linger as to whether circumcision itself is protective, or whether the lower risk may be the result of cultural practices among those who circumcise. HIV rates are low in Muslim communities, for example, which practice male circumcision but also engage in ritual washing before sex and frown on promiscuity.
Does all this prompt me to reverse my view that the circumcision of infants is a violation of every man’s right not to have his body mutilated without his consent? In principle, no. The studies involved adult men who agreed to be circumcised; and my position was always primarily about consent, not the procedure itself. But in practice, in Africa, obviously yes: for convenience’s sake. The key thing here is reverse transmission, i.e. from women to men. If you can stop or slow the process of infection both ways, you can make a real dent in the epidemic. So as Keynes once said, when the facts change, I change my mind.
The Dish 