Relative pelvis size as a result of C-section deliveries

@daifu Said
The post origin of the issue was:
buffalobill90 stated: Examples of devolution are already apparent using caesarian sections for childbirth means we will never evolve larger pelvises, many men of middle-eastern lineage medically require circumcision since their foreskin is too small as a result of hundreds of generations of circumcision allowing such faulty genes to survive and be passed on.

My opinion about this was:

This is a bold statement and IMHO blunt racism. The intend in my understanding was to say:
middle-eastern lineage have faulty genes.
It is a very old way of racists to foster a wrong concept in the mind of uneducated and therefore receptive people.

For me that IS a big deal. ESPECIALLY because (but not only) I am having a lot of friends with these (middle-east) characteristics.
It is like saying "blacks are less intelligent then whites". It is on the same line of argumentation. It is the same origin.
And for me (and I fear for a lot of people) it IS a big deal.

I understand the choice to transfer the thread. Since this post was deleted I join it. The collocation of the subject in Biology is for my understanding not a happy choice. I would have transfered it to Society or Politics. Since the whole issue is that pseudo scientific claims of superiority of this or that race are coming surprisingly back these days.

@kit Said
If people keep getting c-sections then why does it matter whether their pelvises are bigger or smaller?

@jonnythan Said
Well, that's the point.

Without the possibility of a c-section, a woman with a very small pelvis would not be able to breed and pass on any potential "small pelvis" genes to her children.

C-sections mean that these people *can* produce offspring and further that genetic line.