Monday, May 3, 2021

Equal Rights for Boys, Girls and Intersexed Children


My blog is primarily about male infant genital mutilation, and voices opposing the forced genital cutting of girls and women aren't in short supply.

Nobody talks about intersexed individuals, though.

What is an "intersexed individual?"

A very small minority of children are born with what are called "ambiguous genitalia." Their genitals don't take on a definite "male" or "female" look to them (the penis may be too small, the clitoris may be too large, the person's genitals might have both a visible shaft as well as a vaginal opening etc.), and doctors act as if they are entitled to a science experiment. They pressure parents to choose a sex for their child, and the child is forced to undergo a number of surgeries so that their genitals align with the sex chosen for them. If the person grows up to not like the sex chosen for him/her,  or maybe even just resent having had unwanted surgery, well, that's just too bad.

There is a growing number of intersexed children who grow up wishing people just left their genitals alone. A number of them reject their elected sex. I believe it is a basic human right for intersexed people to decide what gender they best align with, and to choose whether or not they want sexual assignment surgery, along the same lines as male infant circumcision.

Actually, perhaps even before male infant circumcision, I've always thought that sexual assignment surgery for intersexed babies and children was wrong. This was probably my gateway into thinking forcibly cutting baby boys was wrong.

Before male infant genital mutilation entered my consciousness, I remember having seen a talk-show with intersexed individuals were talking about having resented having had a doctor surgically alter their genitals and simply be told what sex they were going be. Since then I have always thought that forcibly cutting a child's genitals is wrong.

One day, I saw a video that really pissed me off. I don't remember exactly where I saw it, either on the Discovery channel, or on a news report; a boy had grown up with ambiguous genitalia. He had an ovary and a testicle, along with ambiguous genitalia, and doctors sought to make the boy a girl. They kept pressuring his parents that the child ought to be raised as a girl, but the parents refused. One day, one of the child's doctors said that the child needed to undergo surgery for whatever reason. I forget what that reason was, but it had nothing to do with the child's genitals. The parents agreed to let the child undergo surgery, but when the child had come out, they were notified that the child's testicle had been removed because it "had become cancerous." This was clearly a farce because no previous records of cancer existed. It was very clear, at least to me, that these parents were tricked into having their child undergo unwanted surgery. Doctors basically had their way with this poor child. The child was clearly a boy and liked to do the things boys did; play on bikes, play sports, liked rough-and-tumble play, and doctors removed one of his only sources for testosterone.

I not only oppose the forced genital cutting of boys and girls, I oppose the forced genital cutting of intersexed individuals.

A doctor is not entitled to a science experiment every time an intersexed individual is born.

As with cutting a boy's penis, as with cutting a girl's vulva, consent is at the crux of the argument.

Barring medical indication, a doctor has no business cutting the genitals of an intersexed individual.

Whether or not they want surgery to "fix" their genitals should be that person's choice.

Saturday, April 24, 2021

USA: Doctors Can Get Away With Circumcising a Child by Mistake


I was lucky I found some time to write yet another post for this blog this month! Hopefully I'll keep finding time to write about this ongoing issue in my home country.

I was scrolling through Facebook this morning, and I ran into this:

This got me thinking about the possibility of parents suing doctors who went ahead and circumcised children without permission from parents.

The problem with suing doctors in the United States is that male infant circumcision is not seen as "harm" by the people there. 80% of men in the United States are circumcised from birth (this is separate from the rate of male infant circumcision, which has fallen to 56.4% as per the CDC), so most men are likely to be circumcised, and most women are likely to be married to circumcised men and/or mothers to circumcised male children. For this reason, and this reason alone, it is more than likely that sitting judges may let doctors who circumcise children "by mistake" off the hook.

In Muncie, Indiana, a doctor circumcised a child "by mistake." The sad part of this case is that the child's family traditionally does not circumcise.

One of the witnesses downplayed the unwanted procedure because "a penis could not be used to read books published in Braille for the sight-impared."

If that's the case, a clitoris can't be used for the same purpose either.

In this case, the jury decided to let the doctor off the hook without paying any damages.

But it's not necessarily the case that a doctor will be let off every time; every once in a while, justice shines through and knife-happy doctors are held accountable.

Take the case in Florida for example.

After a mother, Vera Delgado, had told doctors over and over that she did not want her child circumcised, the child was taken away and circumcised anyway while she was away from the NICU.

In this case, the mother sued for millions of dollars and she WON. 

There have been other cases in the past where doctors faced SOME kind of accountability. I copied and pasted the following comments from the same thread as above:


This isn't to say that circumcision cases simply can't be won, either.

In most cases where a circumcision goes beyond acceptable "harm" (destroying any healthy part of the body IS "harm"), parents are successful in suing doctors for millions. (Do a search on my blog for "litigation" and/or "lawsuits." I've posted plenty on here.)

But that's just it; in order for a circumcision to be considered "harmful" it has to go beyond what many doctors and nurses consider "harmless"; for those who perform circumcision, taking a child's foreskin, ripping it from its adhesion to the glans, crushing it in a clamp and then slicing it off, where 99.9% of human males are born with a foreskin, isn't considered "harm."

A circumcision botch where part or all of the glans (AKA "head of the penis"), "that" is "harm."

Are we seriously going to depend on subjective ideas of "harm?

Because whether we like it or not, female circumcision (AKA "FGM") isn't considered "harm" by people in countries such as Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, Brunei, Egypt, Sudan and others.

Let's imagine a couple of hypothetical situations.

What if an expatriate had their daughter in one of the above countries, and the daughter was circumcised "by mistake" in a hospital there?

Or what if a doctor from one of those countries immigrates to the United States and circumcises a child "by mistake?"

Could his or her alibi be "Well, I don't consider it harm?"

That is now a thinkable possibility, given the fact that the ban on FGM in the United States has been deemed "unconstitutional" by a judge in a recent case.

What about "parental choice," which is quite possibly one of the greatest defenses of male infant circumcision in the US?

But most of all, what about a person's individual basic human rights to his own body?

From the same Facebook thread as above, a paralegal gave his account of a father who discovered his son was already circumcised after doctors kept asking him and his wife to sign the consent forms. The father demanded to see his child first, and that's how he found out.



I've heard it be commented before by some mothers, that doctors and nurses told them that they couldn't leave the hospital until the baby was circumcised. From the same thread:

I've also heard of cases where the parents put their foot down on not having their child circumcised, and the hospital billing them for it anyway. Someone commented on this same thread:

Circumcision is a moneymaker, so of course there financial incentive for doctors and nurses to push male infant circumcision on parents, even if it means lying to them about not having a choice in the matter.

As concerned American parents, we have got to stand up and demand to know what's going on here.

What is the AAP telling professionals across the country?

That it's OK to push male infant genital mutilation on parents in whatever which way possible?

There are CONSENT forms that need to be signed.

What's with this "You can't leave the hospital until the child is circumcised" BS?

Do American parents have to simply always be watching their children like a hawk?

It seems that's what we've got to do, because even if we refuse to sign the circumcision consent forms and demand doctors not mutilate our children, there's nothing we can do legally.

From the same thread:

For any parent interested in litigation against doctors, nurses or hospitals that circumcised their children against their consent and express wishes, there is one group of lawyers that I know you should contact, and that's Attorneys for the Rights of the Child, AKA "ARCLaw." Google them, or click on the link down under "External Links." (Or, click here.)

In a country where doctors can get away with mutilating your child's genitals, parents need to be warned and forearmed.

David Llewellyn: "The Circumcision Lawyer"
On the same thread above, an attorney can be seen commenting.

 That attorney is none other than David J. Llewellyn.

He is an unsung hero of the intactivist movement. One of his specialties is male infant circumcision. He is in fact the same David J. Llewellyn who sued Mogen out of business in a 11-million dollar lawsuit. A news article regarding this lawsuit can be read here. He has handled other million-dollar lawsuits as well. If there is anyone who knows about litigation involving male infant circumcision, it's this man. He has a Facebook page here, as well as his own website, at

Related Posts:
Muncie Circumcision Case: HIGHWAY ROBBERY

DETROIT: Federal Ban on FGM Declared Unconstitutional

When Someone Says It's Not the Money...

External Links:
NBC Miami: Lawsuit Over Baby's Unwanted Circumcision 

Attorneys for the Rights of the Child

Atlanta lawyer wins $11 million lawsuit for family in botched circumcision

David J Llewellyn: The Circumcision Lawyer

Monday, April 19, 2021

Daniel Barnz Mocks the French and Intact Men on HBO Max's "Generation"

It's been a while since I've posted on this blog. I've been busy with life, but male infant genital mutilation and how deeply entrenched it has become in my home culture still pisses me off.

Infant Genital Mutilation: Is It To Laugh?
Male infant circumcision is so entrenched in American culture that joking about it is common fare. If male infant genital mutilation weren't so accepted today, people would most likely think that these random insertions of mutilation jokes in our media was bizarre. Indeed, Europeans do think it's weird to see these jokes sprinkled into American television series and sitcoms. They don't think it's funny. That's because it's not funny. It's not funny, but Americans need to convince themselves that it is, so that they feel better about what they allow to happen to their baby boys 3,000 times a day.

Why do people laugh at something as tragic as male infant circumcision?

In the words of one person:

“Sometimes people laugh when something is sad because they are trying to deflect going deeper into their emotions,” says Hopkins-Alvarez.

“This may be an unconscious process that is occurring, not necessarily a conscious one.” In other words, your mind is putting up a type of wall to combat these overwhelming emotions—and it’s totally normal.

The reason people joke about male infant circumcision is to prevent themselves from seeing it for the sad tragedy that it is. Jokes about male genital mutilation serve the same function as anesthetic; it serves to try and numb the pain. The only problem is that, even when the anesthetic wears off, the reality of a mutilated penis and missing foreskin is indelible that it stays there for life.

"A man is circumcised as a baby when he is too young to remember," some might say, in an attempt to belittle a circumcised man's feelings of resentment. "How can he remember?" A circumcised man is reminded of his circumcision every time he urinates, showers, masturbates or makes love. The question is, "How could he forget?"

Even if you "can't remember," it's still there, reminding you every day.
Even if he can't actually remember, the scar is there day in and day out to remind him for the rest of his life.

Ergo, these "jokes" must continue as long as a male person is alive, and as long as male infant genital mutilation continues as a "custom" or "social norm." That is the purpose these male genital mutilation jokes serve.

They've always been there...
Male infant circumcision jokes aren't new. You can look back on American media through the years, and they're there. They've always been there, but perhaps they've just happened so much that by this time it's so unoriginal the joke has become as old and worn as that famous riddle about a chicken crossing the road. They're not funny. They really aren't. Again, they're there to serve one purpose; numb Americans to what's happened to them, what's happened to their husbands and what's happened to their children.

Check out this link for a list of male infant circumcision references on American television.

In my opinion, this is part of a bigger problem of belittling and disparaging men. Along with male genital mutilation jokes, it's not uncommon to see men being hit in the balls in movies and TV sitcoms as a comical device. Violence on boys and men and their genitals is funny, violence on girls and women is not.

Male infant genital mutilation jokes need to stop.

The Elephant-sized Circumcision Scar in the Room
I'm going to dare and say something that others dare not, because it's politically incorrect to do so, and any criticism of anyone who identifies themselves as "Jewish", however removed from the religion or from Jewish ancestry they may be (the one-drop rule), will be condemned as a "Nazi." It's already considered to be "anti-semitic" to criticize male infant circumcision as it is.

Any criticism of Jews or Judaism must be preceded by disclaimers, so here are mine:

The views I express in this blog are my own individual opinion, and they do not necessarily reflect the views of all intactivists. I am but an individual with one opinion, and I do not pretend to speak for the intactivist movement as a whole.

I speak out against the forced circumcision of healthy, non-consenting minors in any way, shape or form. I make no exception for "religion" nor "cultural practice" of any kind. Please do not conflate my disdain for the forced circumcision of minors with a belittlement of circumcised men, or a hate for Jews.

Male infant circumcision is not unique to Judaism; in the US, 80% of males are circumcised, only 0.6% or so who are Jews circumcised at a bris. It's disingenuous to paint criticism of male infant circumcision as "an attack on Jews and Judaism" when it has become such an ingrained part of American culture.

This day and age, not all Jewish men are circumcised, and not all Jewish families circumcise their children. Some of the most outspoken people in our movement happen to be Jewish. Alternative ceremonies exist, such as the Bris Shalom, for families choosing to forgo the ritual cutting. I myself am an appreciator of Jewish tradition, music and culture.

If I'm pointing something out, it's not out of hate for Jewish people, it's out of disdain for the forced genital cutting of minors and the violation of the most basic of human rights.

Commence My Pointing-Out
One thing that bothers me about male infant genital mutilation humor on television is that it seems it's  almost always written by Jewish people.

I look up sitcoms where male infant genital mutilation is a joke, Seinfeld, Sex in the City, The Simpsons, The Nanny, and there they are. It's simply no secret that a lot of writers for American sitcoms happen to be Jewish.

And, of course, most, if not all of the time, it's not merely a joke about circumcision; it has to be the Jewishness of circumcision as a plot device.

On Seinfeld, Cosmo Kramer is being asked to be the sandek (the guy who holds the baby as the mohel fillets him), on The Simpsons, Krusty's father is about to perform a bris on a baby, on Sex and the City, Charlotte is Jewish, so her boyfriend must be circumcised (they play Jewish music and everything). The list goes on and on.

It's not just sitcoms; it's movies too. Remember Ms. Doubtfire?

I remember watching this as a teenger asking myself
"What's gribenes? Why do people have moils?"

 And who could forget Robin Hood: Men in Tights?

Robin Hood: A moyel... I don't believe I've ever heard of that profession.
Rabbi Tuckman: A moyel is a very important guy. He makes circumcisions.
Scarlet: What, pray tell, sir, is a circumcision?
Rabbi Tuckman: It's the latest craze. The ladies love it!

Most Americans aren't Jewish, so they wouldn't understand half of what's going on, where for most Americans who are circumcised or who allowed this on their children it was a question of signing a consent form and not having to even be present for their child's mutilation procedure. So why is humor as it would pertain to a Jewish audience being thrust on the American public?

I think I can understand why; self-preservation.

American males are already pre-dominantly circumcised, at about 80% of US males circumcised from birth, so the idea of male infant circumcision isn't all that foreign. However in recent years, male infant circumcision as "medicine" has come under scrutiny. Indeed, there was a time in the 80's where the American Academy of Pediatrics was already advising that male infant circumcision shouldn't be done. When male infant circumcision as "medicine" is questioned, next would be the ritual of male infant circumcision as performed by adherents of Judaism. Perhaps Jewish authors think that constantly inserting circumcision as a Jewish ritual in the American psyche might inoculate American culture against the outright questioning of what is the most cherished Jewish tradition.

We must look at the history of male infant circumcision and understand where Jews are coming from.

Jewish people have been on the defensive about the ritual mutilation of male infant babies since the time of the Maccabees. Among other things, Antiochus prohibited male infant circumcision. Jews were mocked by the Greeks, where Jewish men would attempt to regrow their foreskins by stretching out the remnants. (The rabbis at the time looked down on this and thus added the "peri'ah" procedure of ripping every last bit of the foreskin from the penile shaft so as to prevent restoration; this alone is why medicalized male infant circumcision is what it is today.) Jews were feared by Europeans, and stories of Jews using gentile baby blood to make matzo were invented to slander them (blood libel). On top of all of this, circumcision was prohibited by Nazi Germany and used as a marker to find Jews during the Holocaust. It is no surprise, then, that there would be Jewish comedy writers seeking to make light of this the most contentious ritual for Jewish people in order to normalize it and make acceptable to their audiences, especially in America, where most men are circumcised anyway.

Male Circumcision in American Medicine and Medical Literature
It might not be that big of a problem if it were merely Jewish comedy writers writing male infant genital mutilation into American comedy, but it doesn't stop there.

The propagation of male infant circumcision as "medicine" has been a great vindication and a boon for Jews. Whereas in the past, male infant circumcision was something Jews were ashamed about and didn't openly discuss, and circumcision in and of itself wasn't openly discussed in general, save to disparage it, today it's a common procedure in the United States and it's discussed in terms of "potential medical benefits." It was first touted as a way to stop boys and men from masturbating, and it has since been pushed as a way to prevent almost every disease imaginable, from bed-wetting, to asthma, to cancer, to STDs. It is currently pushed as a preventative measure for HIV in Africa. As it is currently thought of as a "preventative measure," Jews no longer have to hide this practice and openly flaunt the fact that they circumcise their children. They're out of the closet, so to speak, and it goes without saying that they aim to stay that way.

I've already discussed Jewish authors and the Jewishness of circumcision as a plot device in American comedy, but let's look at Jewish authors of medical literature on the subject.

Look into medical literature, and you'll find that there is a disproportionate number of Jewish authors all purporting the "benefits" of male infant circumcision. Look throughout the history of male infant circumcision as medical panacea and you'll see many Jewish names.

It was Aaron J. Fink who invented the idea that male circumcision might prevent HIV transmission out of thin air; to date a demonstrable causal link is yet to be furnished. It was Edgar Schoen who steered the American Academy of Pediatrics from recommending against male infant circumcision. It's authors like Daniel Halperin who continue writing literature attempting to marry male circumcision to the reduction of HIV and other STDs. (There has yet to be a demonstrable causal link between male circumcision and the reduction HIV transmission furnished; to date, there is none.) It's Jewish directors like AAP director Susan Blank and CDC director Thomas Frieden that make sure male infant circumcision has a secure place in American medicine. (Current CDC director is Rochelle Walensky. More circumcision promotion shouldn’t be too surprising.)

The Gomco Clamp, quite possibly the most widely used instrument for male infant circumcision second only to the Mogen clamp, was invented by Hiram S. Yellen, M.D. and Aaron A. Goldstein. (Incidentally, the Mogen clamp was also a Jewish invention.)

My intention is not to accuse Jewish people as a whole. That's not it at all. As I've already said, some of the most outspoken voices in our movement happen to be Jewish. I'm sure that most Jewish people don't give this procedure any further thought than that, it's a Jewish tradition, if a boy is born, he is circumcised and that's that. What I'm saying is that there seems to be a disproportionate group of dedicated Jewish authors with a religious conviction to defend what has been historically a problematic ritual writing medical literature and writing public health policy that affects the rest of the country and this is a serious conflict of interest.

Adherents of Judaism have a religious conviction to circumcise their male children from birth, to minimize or outright dismiss adverse outcomes from circumcision, while exaggerating its "medical benefits." This conviction is at odds with the capacity to give neutral, unbiased, dispassionate, objective information and a genuine concern for public health. Religious adherence to beliefs is a problem that in any other case is called out. Creationism comes to mind. While we point out that adherents to Catholicism writing literature on abortion and birth control is a problem, while we condemn Islamic doctors who defend female genital cutting, Jewish doctors writing medical literature on male circumcision get a free pass. Why is that?

In 2012, Dr. Hatem Elhagaly, medical doctor and fellow at the American Academy of Pediatrics, was fired from Mayo Clinic for saying that female circumcision was recommended and even an "honor" for women. There were even calls on to have his certifications revoked.

"Female circumcision is recommended, even an honor for women."
~Dr. Hatem Elhagaly MD

In 2018, Dr Ali Selim said "We see female circumcision in the same way we see male circumcision. It might be needed for one person and not another, and it has to be done by a doctor and practised in a safe environment." For this, he has been openly criticized by various health organizations.


"If a parent wants his daughter to undergo female circumcision
then they should seek the advice of their doctor
as it can be necessary for medical reasons."
~Dr. Ali Selim"

When defending male infant circumcision, what it usually boils down to is "It's culture, it's religion, it's tradition," yet "culture," nor religion, nor "tradition" are ever enough to justify any sort of female genital cutting. "It's just a little piece of skin" minimizes male infant circumcision, but the same amount of flesh would never be justified to be removed in girls or women.

Compared side by side: An infant foreskin and an infant clitoris
(Female infant circumcision is a thing in South-East Asia)

I want readers to note the stark contrast and double-standards with which we judge male and female genital cutting. "Religion, custom and tradition" justify only male infant circumcision. The "little snip" narrative disappears when comparing the flesh removed side by side. Religious doctors attempting to clothe their tradition and religious believes can't pass muster this day and age. But yet, no one seems to think it's a problem when "studies" showing the "benefits" if male infant circumcision and medical policy based on them are written by adherents of a religion where male infant circumcision is seen as divine commandment.
"I circumcised him myself on my parents’ kitchen table
on the eighth day of his life. But I did it for religious,
not medical reasons. I did it because I had 3,000 years
of ancestors looking over my shoulder."
~Dr. Andrew Freedman, AAP Circumcision Taskforce 2012

The Shaming of French and Intact Men on HBO Max's "Generation"
There is not a doubt in my mind that there are a number of Jewish people in high places dedicated to protecting, safeguarding, purporting and propagating male infant genital mutilation, the goal of which is nothing more than the preservation of what is possibly their most cherished tradition.

Screenwriter Daniel Barnz is no exception.

I saw the cover picture of this blog post on my Facebook feed today, and I thought I just had to post this. I would have thought that the male infant genital mutilation joke had grown to be so unoriginal so as to be dead by now, and yet, here it is on HBO in 2021.

I decided to look up Daniel Barnz' Wikipedia page, and there it was. It always is.

Why is it that when you see male infant genital mutilation jokes it always turns out to be a Jewish person doing it?

I ask, but as I've already shown, I think we all know why.

More protection, more normalization, more promotion of male infant genital mutilation to the American masses.

The point, aim and goal of these jokes are clear.

Here, we have school girls joking about male infant genital mutilation. Oh Tee hee! How funny!

One of the girls says "I prefer circumcised to uncircumcised."

The other says "Doesn't being uncircumcised mean dick cheese?", followed by an obviously faked, obviously forced "Tee hee."

The message is clear; girls like circumcised penis, so girls watching this, have your sons circumcised. Men, you don't want to be made fun of, so insist on circumcision because "dick cheese."

First of all, this idea needs to strike people as odd; a school girl of high school age has already been around the block enough times that she has a preference for what kinds of penises she "prefers."

In the United States, where is she going to find all these intact men?

Male infant circumcision rates are falling, as low as 56.7% according to the CDC, but even so 80% of men are circumcised from birth. (Men already circumcised from birth aren't all going to suddenly disappear because the circumcision rate has fallen.)


And, of course, the girl who has the penis preference is a person of color.

So what's the message here?

The white girl is the stupid, air-headed inexperienced one, the black girl is the one who's the experienced slut who knows all there is to know about penises.

Like, do people not stop and think about the overt racial stereotyping that's going on here?

I'd like to bring attention to what's being said; the dialogue goes something like:

"Doesn't being uncircumcised mean dick cheese? Tee hee..."
"Isn't everyone circumcised?"
"No, they don't do it in France. But that's because they like stinky cheese."
That's not a direct transcription; I really don't want to watch this again to get the exact quotes, but the joke went something along these lines.

Historically Jews hold French people in disdain for eating pork and not being circumcised. And that disdain is showing up here. It's also blatant misinformation the American public is being force-fed. Of course, the French are not the only people who don't mutilate their boys at birth, at 70% of men in the world being intact, Jews and Muslims are in the minority. But just notice how the stab is specifically against French people and how being uncircumcised is specifically a French thing.

I thought we lived in an age where racial stereotyping and bashing an entire group of people, not to mention immutable characteristics, was supposed to be "problematic."

Just imagine a similar scenario where a girl says "Doesn't circumcision means baby boys get their dicks sucked on by mohels?"

"Tee hee... maybe Jews like bleeding baby peen..."

See how that's not funny?

Let's just imagine a reverse scenario; how would two guys discussing a girl's vagina play out?

Where a black guy tells a white guy "I much prefer a girl who's had her flaps trimmed," and the white guy says "Isn't it true that girls with large flaps get clitter litter?" And the black guy says "Yeah, girls who haven't had their flaps trimmed smell like stinky cheese."

Could you imagine the outrage???

“Objectifying women is the height of toxic masculinity!” they would say.

Something seriously needs to give HBO and Daniel Barnz a wake-up call.

We do not body-shame people.

We do not attack an entire ethnic group.

We do not joke about male infant genital mutilation.

That joke is old, out of touch, and it needs to die.

Joking about male infant genital mutilation is out of touch in this day and age; Americans aren't all circumcised; male infant circumcision is going the way of blood-letting and head trepanation. Male infant circumcision is not practiced in Australia, New Zealand, Ice Land, Norway, Finland, Sweden, the UK, Ireland, the Netherlands, Germany, pretty much the whole of Europe. It's not a practice in Mexico, Brazil or anywhere outside of the US in the Americas. These jokes attempt to marginalize and make fun of what is actually anatomically correct genitals. It paints a false reality for Americans and/which serves to miseducate and misinform. It's about time they stop.

I realize that what I'm saying is going to make me unpopular among intactivist but this needs to be said; I believe the reason male infant circumcision continues in this country is because we give it golden calf status, and nobody wants to speak out against male infant circumcision for fear of being cancelled as "Nazi anti-Semite." While Jewish people aren't all plotting to circumcise gentiles as a collective, it is clear that there is a dedicated number of Jewish people pushing circumcision on the American public through entertainment and medical literature, and on the rest of the world through the UN and organizations like Operation Abraham under the guise of "HIV prevention." (Circumcision does not, cannot prevent HIV, and the United States is a glaringly obvious case in point.) Edgar Schoen tried and failed to push circumcision on all of Europe. Mohels like Neil Pollock are trying to spread their tradition in Africa and in the Caribbean. Inon Schenker is taking advantage of the current UN circumcision vindication to spread circumcision in Africa.

The whole reason male infant circumcision continues in this country is because we treat the issue of male infant circumcision with kid gloves. Nobody wants to criticize male infant circumcision because once you do, you're Hitler. So when Jewish comedy authors write circumcision jokes, the correct response is to laugh. Maybe nervously, but yes, you must laugh. Or else. Or at least not mention the fact that joking about this makes one uncomfortable.
When authors of medical literature to the effect that circumcision prevents Ebola virus just happen to be Jewish, no-one better point out that conflict of interest, you Nazi.The lynchpin preventing male infant circumcision from being stricken from American medicine for the elective, non-medical mutilation that it is, is Holocaust guilt and the fear of being perceived as an anti-Semite. People are afraid to point out the confirmation bias in medical literature written by Jewish authors because that is "anti-Semitic." And this lynchpin is held in place by this steady drizzle of Jewish circumcision humor in American media.

I'm not saying that Jews are all as a collective plotting to circumcise gentiles in this country. That simply can't be true.

What I'm saying is that it's a problem that there is a number of Jewish people are using their platforms in mass media to influence Americans and consumers of American entertainment.

It's a problem when Jewish authors who have a religious conviction to defend male infant circumcision are publishing medical literature with a confirmation bias.

We have no problem ousting religious defendants of female ritual cutting from western institutions of medicine, and yet, we try to pretend like this isn't a problem that Jewish defendants of male infant circumcision are writing medical literature and American medical policy, that it isn't a problem that Jewish organizations like Operation Abraham are in Africa promoting "mass circumcision" as "HIV prevention," that it isn't a problem that mohels are outright telling apprentices to go to Africa to practice male infant circumcision on African boys.

What I'm saying is that male infant genital mutilation jokes need to stop.

What I'm saying is that medical literature on male circumcision shouldn't be beyond scrutiny because it was written by Jewish authors.

What I'm saying is that we need to stop pretending like Jewish people filling medical literature with pro-circumcision "research" and then using said "research" to try and spread their endangered tradition to the rest of the world has anything to do with a genuine concern for public health.

It is not "anti-Semitism" to apply the same rigorous scrutiny to literature regarding male infant circumcision that we normally apply to literature regarding female infant circumcision.

As long as we, collectively, as a nation, continue to agree that we'll not apply the same scrutiny to male genital cutting that we apply to female genital cutting, the genital mutilation of males will continue.

We would NEVER allow the medicalization of FGM.

We would NEVER allow doctors to perform FGM "Because my religion/tradition/custom."

We would NEVER allow FGM "Because I'm an oppressed minority."

We would NEVER allow the joking of about FGM or making light of it in any way.

We would NEVER joke about women’s immutable characteristics, the smells and substances their vaginas produce, the fact that they menstruate every month, or other normal, healthy bodily functions.

We would NEVER shame or make fun of circumcised boys or men.

Joking about forcibly cutting the genitals of ANYBODY, making fun of French people, or ANY peoples that don’t practice infant genital cutting, or anatomically correct genitals in general is outdated and out of touch, not to mention hateful, bigoted, slanderous and racist.

It is simply NOT FUNNY and it has got to STOP.

Genital mutilation is no joke. ~Christopher Hitchens

The views I express in this blog are my own individual opinion, and they do not necessarily reflect the views of all intactivists. I am but an individual with one opinion, and I do not pretend to speak for the intactivist movement as a whole, thank you.

Tuesday, December 29, 2020

The Future of This Blog


Well, it's been nearly a decade since I started this blog.

I've tried to faithfully publish my thoughts by making at least one post monthly for nearly 10 years and now I wonder what the future of this blog will be.

The fight to end the forced genital cutting of healthy, non-consenting minors is far from over, in my home country of the United States, let alone the rest of the world.

However, I do feel that the intactivist movement has made strides.

It had been nearly 15 years since I first started questioning circumcision when I decided to start this blog in 2011, and now in 2020 it has been about 24 years since, and a lot has changed.

When I first started researching the topic of circumcision on the internet in say, 1996, there were few resources on the topic, most of which were, in my view, very pro-circumcision.

Indeed, the first website that ever came up in AltaVista (Do you remember that?) was circlist.

There were, of course, also, a few organizations that opposed male infant circumcision, but I found those much later in my journey.

The topic of male infant circumcision was a lot more taboo.

In parenting forums, the bias was always mostly in favor of circumcision.

If anyone ever questioned it, they were usually shouted down by all the other pro-circ parents.

Nowadays, it's not the same.

Where I would see a parent questioning circumcision be overwhelmed by pro-circ parents, now I see more and more parents speaking out in defense leaving baby boys intact.

I used to be one of those activists who always felt the need to counter pro-circ comments on parenting forums, Facebook and other mediums, and I always felt so alone to be practically the only one speaking out.

Now, when I see nasty comments on the internet mocking anatomically correct male organs, I scroll down and I don't even have to comment; there are now enough aware parents out there speaking out.

Sadly, an increase in the intactivist voice among parents also means that a lot of parenting forums and groups have also taken it upon themselves to silence this conversation.

This is a disservice to parents and their children, because this means that parents aren't making fully informed decisions; you can't make a fully informed decision if factual information is deemed "offensive."

Since I started this blog, new organizations opposing the forced genital cutting of healthy, non-consenting minors have arisen.

IntactAmerica, Intaction, and Genital Autonomy just to name a few.

The information database has been established.

The award-winning film American Circumcision was published and was even available on Netflix.

Activist Eric Clopper spoke out in a performance he gave at Harvard University; the university has effectively cancelled him and he is now involved in a defamation lawsuit against them.

Male infant circumcision is now being talked about in the mainstream, and it simply is not the taboo subject it once was.

But while more than ever, there is awareness of what's going on in American hospitals, the practice of male infant genital mutilation continues.

The practice continues because it's a moneymaker and doctors have no real reason to stop, even though, reaping profit from performing non-medical surgery on healthy, non-consenting individuals already constitutes medical fraud.

There is still a need to bang the intactivist pot.

For this reason, I plan on continuing to publish on this blog, although I'm sad to announce that from now on, it won't be as often as I'd like.

The sad truth is that your blogger is becoming more and more busy with life.

He is a father of three wonderful children and he works a job whose hours are increasing to support his family.

All is not lost, however; in a way, the goals of my blog are already being achieved.

As I've stated already, more and more circumcision is less of a taboo subject; there is more awareness and the topic is being discussed more openly.

Though I project my presence on this blog is going to decrease in the coming years, there are already other voices speaking out to replace me.

I'm just too busy with my job and family to keep up with any of the latest developments.

And others are already articulating my thoughts and sentiments more tactfully and eloquently than I ever could.

So with this post, I announce that I'll be stepping down, albeit not completely.

I'll still be around to post from time to time, but not as frequently as I'd like.

Up until now, I had been trying to post at least once a month, but I think that more and more, this is becoming less possible.

I'd like to thank all my readership that has followed me this far.

Do check back here from time to time, as I'll still be posting.

Who knows! Maybe I'll find something to post about every month.

I just can't make any promises.

May male infant genital mutilation disappear from American hospitals, truly, every hospital, and soon.

I pray for intactivism for one day to be obsolete, and relegated to the past, where it belongs.

Tuesday, November 17, 2020

Parallels: Comparing Tattoos and Circumcision


A while back, I wrote a post comparing male infant circumcision to rape, and I briefly touched upon tattoos to talk about the principle of consent. I'll copy/paste the excerpt here:

Consent is at the center of the intactivist argument

The difference is consent.

There is nothing wrong with male circumcision, if, indeed, becoming circumcised is the express wish of the adult male in question.

It is forcibly circumcising a healthy, non-consenting minor which is a problem.

Tattoos are beautiful to some. There is nothing wrong with a tattoo, as long a person is giving his full consent. A person interested in getting a tattoo need only walk into a tattoo parlor and make the proper arrangements, s/he is free to do as s/he wishes with his/her own body.

US sailor agrees to have his body tattooed

It is forcibly tattooing a person against his or her wishes which is a problem.

An Auschwitz survivor displays his identification tattoo

In this post, I wanted to expand on this thought just a little more, as the more I think about this, the more comparable male circumcision is to a tattoo.

Purely Cosmetic
A tattoo has no medical value; it is purely cosmetic. They are obtained as a visible marker of religious or cultural distinction, or purely for aesthetic value. Barring medical necessity (and this is extremely rare), the same is true for male circumcision. Men are usually only ever circumcised as a marker of religious or cultural distinction, or because it is thought to be more sexually attractive and/or aesthetically pleasing. Unless there is medical indication, male circumcision is purely cosmetic.

Aesthetic Value
Let's face it; tattoos can be beautiful works of art. A tattoo artist has skill, and a person can be a living canvas. In a certain light, circumcised penises can be beautiful. A certain aesthetic other than what is natural can be desired. As a wood or marble block can be chiseled to a desire shape, as flowers can be arranged to a desired form, the penis can be surgically manipulated to have a desired appearance. It is possible to appreciate such works of art. The circumcised male may be a willing or unwitting canvas through which a a circumcision "artist" (or amateur) can display his artistic skill (or lack thereof). In a past post, I compare male circumcision to Japanese flower arrangement.

A bonsai master carefully prunes a work. A circumcised
and/or tattoed man can be compared to a bonsai tree;
a living means for another's artistic expression.

A tattoo can be a source of pride, especially when a desired aesthetic value is achieved. Men or women can be the proud bearers of art created by a masterful tattoo artist. Just the same, a circumcised man can be proud that he has (what he and/or others perceive to be) an aesthetically pleasing penis.

 Men and women alike can be proud to have tattoos

In some cultures, tattoos are a source of religious or cultural identity. The Ainu people of Northern Japan traditionally tattoo the mouths of women.

Traditionally, Berber women's faces are tattooed.

And who can forget the traditional face tattoos of the Maori tribe?

In yet other cultures, tattoos mark a man as being a member of a particular group. In Edo Japan, for example, tattoos marked men of a particular trade, such as firemen and fishermen.

Fireman in the Edo Period

It's no secret that members of the yakuza gangs of Japan are distinguished by elaborate tattoos.

Yakuza gang member displaying his membership

That Jews, Muslims and other peoples use circumcision as a source of cultural identity needs no mention.

In Ancient Egypt, circumcision distinguished priests from the rest of the population.

Indeed, to distinguish one group from the other has always been the point of male circumcision.

A Botched Job
Sometimes, a tattoo doesn't quite turn out as intended by either the tattoo artist or the person getting a tattoo. Sometimes the tattoo can be "saved", and sometimes it just can't be, or is even made worse, and a person has to live the rest of his life with an ugly tattoo on his or her body.

Sometimes tattoo botches can be salvaged, but not always.
The same can be true of male circumcision. Sometimes the doctor screws up and cuts off too much or too little skin. The scar may not be perfectly circular but uneven, or may even have horrific stretch marks where too little skin was left. At times, so much skin is removed from the penis that skin with pubic hair rides up the shaft. It is not unheard of for children to undergo circumcision "correction" surgery; that is how some doctors make their living. Sometimes adult men can go in for "correction" too. But other times, there is just nothing a doctor can do to "fix" a problem that should have never been caused in the first place, and a man has to live with a botched circumcision job and a deformed organ for the rest of his life. There will be no pride for him.

Oppression and Shame
Tattoos can be used to oppress people. I've already talked about the example of Nazi Germany tattooing Jews at a concentration camp.

The arm of a Holocaust survivor with an ID number tattoo

Historically, slaves were branded with tattoos across many cultures. The bible outlines that Jews circumcise their slaves (Genesis 17:12, 13) .

In some cultures, circumcision is used as a tool of oppression or humiliation. In Africa, for example, some tribes are very strict about their male members being circumcised, and if for whatever reason, a male is found to have skipped the circumcision ritual, he will be paraded along the streets, publicly humiliated and circumcised. In addition, members of a circumcising tribe will forcibly circumcise male members of a rival non-circumcising tribe as a sign of dominance. Tribes known to do this are the Kikuyu and Bagisu tribes.

In the Bible, Jews would circumcise their enemies as a sign of dominance and/or retribution (Gen. 34:14-17, 25-26, 1 Sam 18:27). In some Islamic countries, non-Muslims have been forcibly circumcised and forcibly converted to Islam. Forced circumcisions as part of forced conversion to Islam have continued to this very day.
Therapeutic Value
Sometimes, a tattoo can serve therapeutic purpose. In the event a woman loses a breast to cancer, a skillful tattoo artist can create a nipple where one would be for aesthetic purposes, for example.

This "nipple" is actually tattoo

Perhaps a person suffered an accident and is left with a horrific scar; a tattoo artist can creatively hide the scar by tattooing over it with something more aesthetically pleasing.

This elaborate tattoo hides a scar

Sometimes men do develop problems where circumcision is surgically indicated. It is rare, but sometimes men do develop phimosis, and a man may or may not choose to get circumcised. (Not all phimosis cases warrant surgery, and it is possible for a man to live with phimosis for the rest of his life.) So yes, sometimes circumcision may actually serve a medicinal purpose.

The Difference is Consent
For the most part, tattoos are cosmetic alterations. They can be aesthetically pleasing and a source of pride. There's nothing wrong with getting a tattoo, if indeed, that's what a person wants. A person should be free to get as many tattoos as they want, so long as they understand the risks involved, as it is their body and their choice. Most would agree, however, that there is a problem when a person is forced to get a tattoo. Parents in the US have gone to jail for tattooing their children, as well as for modifying other parts of their bodies and rightfully so. The German concentration camp tattoo is an example of forced tattooing that is all too familiar. In addition, there are actually some cultures where children are forcibly tattooed as part of culture or religion.

A Copt child being tattooed, for Christ of all things

The same is true of male circumcision. For the most part it is a cosmetic alteration. A circumcised penis can be a source of pride, especially when the results are as intended and aesthetically pleasing. There is nothing wrong with getting circumcised, if indeed, that's what a man wants and he fully understands the risks. A man should be free to be circumcised, as it is his body and his choice.

A boy being forcibly circumcised in Indonesia

The problem is when a boy or man is forced to undergo circumcision. Even when there is a medical problem that necessitates surgery (again, very rare), a man gives his consent fully understanding the implications of the procedure. A boy or man who is forcibly circumcised must live with consequences, aesthetically pleasing or otherwise, for the rest of his life, if indeed he survives the ordeal; death is one of the risks of forced male circumcision, whether performed by a trained professional in the hospital, or an amateur shaman in the African bush.

I end this post with my mission statement:

The foreskin is not a birth defect. Neither is it a congenital deformity or genetic anomaly akin to a 6th finger or a cleft. Neither is it a medical condition like a ruptured appendix or diseased gall bladder. Neither is it a dead part of the body, like the umbilical cord, hair, or fingernails.

The foreskin is not "extra skin." The foreskin is normal, natural, healthy, functioning tissue, with which all boys are born; it is as intrinsic to male genitalia as labia are to female genitalia.

Unless there is a medical or clinical indication, the circumcision of a healthy, non-consenting individual is a deliberate wound; it is the destruction of normal, healthy tissue, the permanent disfigurement of normal, healthy organs, and by very definition, infant genital mutilation, and a violation of the most basic of human rights.

As with a tattoo, getting circumcised should be the choice of the person whose body is in question. If forcibly tattooing a person is a problem, because it violates that person’s basic human rights, then the same is true of forcibly circumcising a person.

My body, my choice.

Getting circumcised should be a man’s choice; forcibly circumcising a boy or man takes that choice away.
Related Posts:
REPOST: Of Ecstasy and Rape, Surgery and Mutilation 

Random Thought: Is Circumcision Human Ikebana?

Circumcision Botches and the Elephant in the Room

PHIMOSIS: Lost Knowledge Missing In American Medicine

ALABAMA: Mother Busted for Tattooing Son

LAS VEGAS: Parents in Hot Water After Giving Baby Zelda Ear Mod

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Child Dies After Doctor Convinces Ontario Couple to Circumcise

Poetry Corner - To Me
External Links
Wikipedia Tattoo Article

Wikipedia Forced Circumcision Article

Los Angeles Times - 'Purified' in the Name of Allah (Christians forcibly circumcised in Indonesia)

BBC News - Kenyan men in hiding fearing circumcision (from circumcising tribes)

Sunday, November 8, 2020

Straight From Facebook: Inside the Circumcision Room


The 2020 elections were rather stressful and I'm so glad they're finally over. That said, I don't really feel like going into an elaborate post, as that takes a lot of time and thought, so I thought I'd merely copy/paste a post I saw on Facebook, which is perfect the way it is anyway, complete with demonstrative photo. I'll keep my own thoughts to a minimum.

This was posted on a profile called "Brother K."


INSIDE THE CIRCUMCISION ROOM of a large pediatric office. The circumcision board (#1) is leaning against a defibrillator (green case #2) to restart the baby's heart when it stops during the circumcision, and a suctioning canister (white container with tubes #3) to suction out the vomit when the baby pukes during the circumcision. The mom described a large table in the center of the room with a low overhanging light to illuminate the circumcision board during the penis surgery.

The mom told me, "I went to my baby's two month app and they put me in the circumcision room. The moment I walked in and saw the board I said oh my God you do circumcisions in here that’s terrible. She just looked at me and said yeah we do them.

"They even have a crash cart. I could see the defibrillator. And that is what the [circumcision] board is leaning against. They had this huge bed in the middle with the light above it. The light was low. You could tell it was focused for the penis area. It was so disturbing.

"On the shelves they had a bunch of equipment and labeling. Like Vaseline, and gauze things like that. I felt so sick just being in there. I couldn’t even pay attention to the nurse's questions. I could just feel the presence of all of the bad shit.

"The nurse was waiting behind me when I took the photo. Then they took me to a smaller room. A standard size exam room. I started crying when I told the doctor I never wanted to be in that room again. The doctor didn’t even know the board is called a Circumstraint. He said he called it a papoose [board]. I told him I know that it is called a Circumstraint.

"These people act like I’m crazy for being against this abuse."
NOTE: Thanks to three American nurses who have confirmed the names and purposes of the devices in this photo.


Oh for the day when these superfluous rooms are eliminated from hospitals.

We need to stop euphemising the forced severing of the foreskins from babies as "male infant circumcision" and start calling it what it is; infant male genital mutilation.

Unless there is genuine medical indication to circumcise a healthy, non-consenting minor, and let's just be honest with ourselves, there never is, doing this to a child is purely cosmetic, plain and simple.

In addition to violating a healthy, non-consenting person's basic human rights, it's also a needless risk; the risks of male infant circumcision include infection, partial or full ablation of the penis, hemorrhage and even death.

Because this is cosmetic, non-medical procedure, any risk above zero is unconscionable.

Without medical or clinical indication, doctors have no business performing surgery on healthy, non-consenting minors, let alone be eliciting any kind of "choice" from parents.

That this woman was made to wait in this torture chamber out of a horror movie, no, that these rooms exist at all, is despicable.

These rooms need to be eliminated from hospitals yesterday.