Sunday, May 23, 2021

“Doctor at your Door” Facebook User Feels Intactivist Heat

 


Also known as Carole Keim, MD, the Facebook user who runs the page "Doctor at Your Door" recently faced backlash from intactivists for a video she posted about the supposed "pros and cons" of male infant genital mutilation. (Also known as "male infant circumcision.") The video can be found here (on Facebook), but I've taken a snapshot and posted it below in case she takes it down.

She spouts the usual "pro-and-con" BS, framing it as a "parental choice," as most male infant circumcision advocates do.

Once intactivists made the scene, however, she started blocking users and deleting comments, leaving up only those who were favorable to her, including comments that appear to be from circumfetishsts spouting pro-circ non-sense.

Her videos are now locked for comments (at least to me, anyway), she has allowed only pro-circ comments to remain.

She also decided to post this little gem:

 

It's interesting she describes her "stacnce" on circumcision as "neutral," given her credentials on Linked-In.

"Neutral?" Or inherently biased?
Her latest "Experience" entries reveals just how "neutral" she actually is:

 

 

You can't have a "neutral" stance on male infant circumcision when it's one of the main things you do for a living.

 

A quote by Upton Sinclair comes to mind:

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it." ~Upton Sinclair

 


 

Religious Bias?
There is yet one more thing that makes me question Dr. Keim's "neutrality"; a quick google reveals that Keim is an Ashkenazic (Jewish) surname.

 


Also, if one looks carefully at her Linked-In page, there seems to be mismatch between her current surname and what is listed as her page address. Check it out:

 


"Dr. Carole Gedenberg" appears instead.

Looking up "Gedenberg" does not really yield much in terms of Jewish connections, save for obituaries here and there, although anything ending in "-berg" sounds suspiciously Jewish to me.

Why is this important?

Promoting male infant circumcision for its "health benefits" while also belonging to an ethnoreligious group whose very identity is founded upon the forced genital cutting of children is a glaringly obvious conflict of interest.

As with the financial conflict of interest, you can't have a "neutral" stance on circumcision if you've got a religious conviction to protect what is seen as a "divine commandment." It would be difficult if not impossible for her, to say anything that would result its demise. 

For example, in her "neutral" video, she doesn't talk about the risk of infection, partial or full ablation, hemorrhage or death. She doesn't talk about how circumcision would negatively affect the child as a man, desensitization due to keratin build-up in the glans, reliance on artificial lubricant for masturbation and sex because circumcision dries out the penis and makes masturbation and intercourse difficult.

She can't.

Either because she needs parents to say "yes" to the mutilation she offers, or because she can't put what she might see as a sacred command in jeopardy.

Parental Choice is the Pretext
I've already written about this, but relying on "parental choice" as a defense is an escape hatch that relieves doctors of professional responsibility.

It is inescapable that parents make decisions for their children up until they are eighteen; no one is challenging this fact.

However, parents make decisions when and if there is a decision to be made.

Doctors must first diagnose a problem and determine that conventional methods of treatment have been exhausted before finally recommending surgery.

Parents can't merely “choose” for their child be put on chemotherapy if the doctor hasn't diagnosed cancer in the child yet.

Parents can't merely “choose” for the doctor remove organs like the gall-bladder or the appendix; a doctor must make a diagnosis and determine that a child needs surgery.

Only then can parents be asked to make a “decision.”

Male infant circumcision is the only time a parent can ask the doctor to remove a normal, healthy part of a child's body without medical or clinical indication, and the doctor can comply.

It's the only time a doctor can treat non-medical surgery on a healthy, non-consenting person as a "choice" they can present to parents.

In fact, in any other case, reaping profit from performing surgery on healthy, non-consenting individuals constitutes medical fraud.

Medical Fraud
Without medical or clinical indication, a doctor has no business performing surgery on healthy, non-consenting minors, let alone giving parents any kind of "choice."

This doctor's career depends on our government's courts and legal system looking the other way at this very fact.

Perhaps Dr. Keim knows at some level that she is offering parents a false “choice?” Why else would she get defensive and start blocking people calling her out?

It's understandable that she would want to block intactivists; she must protect her business model of violating the basic human rights of children and then putting that blame on their parents.

She is, after all, a businesswoman; she must secure clientele and protect herself from lawsuits.

She and all doctors must know that they are profiting at the expense of the rights of healthy, non-consenting individuals under the pretext of "parental choice."

What doctors SHOULD be saying:
If Dr. Keim were an honest person, she would tell parents the truth; there is no medical need to perform surgery on healthy children's genitals.

She would tell parents that no respected medical organization in the world recommends male infant circumcision, not even the American Academy of Pediatrics in their 2012 statement.

She would tell parents that the true incidence of complications after newborn circumcision is unknown (AAP 2012), and thus a true risk/benefit assessment is not possible.

She would tell parents that 70% of males are intact globally, and that there simply isn't an epidemic of UTIs and "problems" in those countries where men are mostly intact.

She would tell parents that despite 80% of American males being circumcised from birth, we still have some of the world's highest rates of STDs, including HIV.

She would tell parents that even when circumcised, adult males must wear condoms for actual protection from any STD transmission.

She would tell parents that the risks of male infant circumcision include infection, partial or full ablation, hemorrhage and even death.

She would tell parents that the vast  majority of circumcised males often need the aid of artificial lubrication for masturbation and sexual intercourse because the head of the penis dries out over time.

She would tell parents that circumcised men often experience desensitization as a result of the naked glans penis building up keratin over time.

She would tell parents that painful sex for women is associated with a circumcised partner.

She would talk about all the adverse outcomes of circumcision, which include botched circumcisions which may need revision surgery later on.

She would tell parents about the possibility that their child might resent being circumcised as an adult.

She would tell parents about the possibility of circumcision causing painful sex and/or erections in adult men. (See BBC stories at the bottom of this post.)

She would treat male infant circumcision as she would any other surgical procedure; as a very last resort only after other methods of treatment have failed.

No doctor would discuss the "pros and cons" of "early appendectomy" or "early gall-bladder removal," "infant labiaplasty," and then "let parents make a choice."

Male infant circumcision is the only procedure doctors can get away with "letting parents decide" to have them perform on healthy, non-consenting infants without any kind of diagnosis.

If Dr. Keim were an honest, ethical person, she would tell parents she refuses to perform elective cosmetic surgery on healthy, non-consenting minors.

But then she'd probably lose business, and at the end of the day, that's any American physician's bottom line.

Isn't it.

Such dishonesty.

I wouldn't want her at my door.

I close with my mission statement:

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, present in all males at birth; 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 individuals 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.

Without medical or clinical indication, doctors have absolutely no business performing surgery in healthy, non-consenting individuals, much less be eliciting any kind of "decision" from parents.

In any other case, reaping profit from non-medical procedures on non-consenting individuals constitutes medical fraud.

Genital integrity, autonomy and self-determination are inalienable human rights. I am against the forced circumcision of healthy, non-consenting minors because it violates these rights.

Genital mutilation, whether it be wrapped in culture, religion or “research” is still genital mutilation.

It is mistaken, the belief that the right amount of “science” can be used to legitimize the deliberate violation of basic human rights.


You're in the business of male infant genital mutilation and the violation of basic human rights, Dr. Keim.

The time is coming where the men your circumcised as children will hold you responsible, and the pretext of "parental choice" will not save you.

UPDATE:

Apparently she posted this elsewhere as well:

No, doctors have the right to practice *medicine.* Their duty is to their patient, not his parents. Without medical indication, there is no treatment to prescribe, let alone any “choice” to make. Barring medical indication, that decision belongs to the owner of the penis.

When has a newborn child died because he had anatomically correct genitals? I’d like to see that medical paper.

I think it’s interesting how facts that are devastating to her business are “hate speech” now.

Pseudoscience and pseudomedicine spouted to convince parents to allow doctors to mutilate their children is hate speech.

Lo, it is scientific profanity not to mention medical fraud.

Related Posts:
The Circumcision Blame Game

Intactivism: It's Not Just for Gentiles Anymore
 
Daniel Barnz Mocks the French and Intact Men on HBO Max's "Generation" 
 
The "Anti-Semite" Card No Longer Washes
 
Edgar Schoen Showing His Age
 
UNITED STATES: Infant Circumcision Fails as STI Prophylaxis

Where Circumcision Doesn't Prevent HIV II
 
PHIMOSIS: Lost Knowledge Missing In American Medicine
 
Politically Correct Research: When Science, Morals and Political Agendas Collide

Circumcision Botches and the Elephant in the Room

External Links:
"Doctor At Your Door LCC" Facebook Page

"Doctor At Your Door" Homepage


Carole Keim, MD's Linked In Page

 Men Do Complain Webpage

BBC News: My Son Killed Himself After Circumcision

BBC News: Circumcision - My Penis Causes Me Constant Pain

Fine-touch pressure thresholds in the adult human penis - study

Saturday, May 22, 2021

Jews Circumcising Adopted Children

 


I had seen this phenomenon before, but I hadn't really given it much thought. Several years ago, my attention was brought to a blog of a Jewish woman outlining her adoption and circumcision of boys from Russia, and the thought of having been adopted by Jewish parents horrified me. Like, I can't recall the blog anymore, but if I remember correctly, these weren't even baby boys, these were older boys not older than 10.

How horrific to be yearning for parents, only to be adopted by strangers who immediately proceed to make arrangements to have someone forcibly cut off part of your most private, most intimate organs. I don't know what I'd do had I been one of those Russian boys.

At any rate, I ran across this on Facebook:

I don't know what to think when Jewish people actually flaunt having adopted male children and having them circumcised.

Like, it's horrifying enough that cutting off a part of a child's penis seems to be like, the defining cornerstone of Judaism. Now they have to mutilate the organs of a child who's not even Jewish?

Look.

I'm trying real hard not to be an anti-Semite here, but this is seriously getting to a point.

I grew up in a very conservative, pro-Israel, pro-Jewish church.

In becoming an intactivist, going against what is supposed to be the very tenet of Judaism, the "covenant" on which the entirety of Judaism is based, I knew I was going to become something I was taught in my church to hate and despise.

These are feelings I fight with every time I think about being horrified by doctors and mohels taking knives and cutting off part of children's penises.

But the more I read about this, the more I'm leaning to the "I don't like Jews" side.

I keep telling myself; some of our more outspoken voices are Jewish people.

I've written a post about this.

I know that not all Jewish people are proponents of male infant genital mutilation.

I know that Jewish people not mutilating their baby boys are increasing.

I know that Jewish people speak out with us.

I want to believe that not all Jews support this, and that some have even created the Bris Shalom ritual to replace the mutilation ritual.

But just, the more I look into how pro-circumcision Jews and Judaism influence this country, the more I read about how Jewish doctors are using pseudomedicine and pseudoscience to promote male infant genital mutilation, the more I see how Jewish proponents of male infant genital mutilation stand in the way of removing this blight from American medicine, the more I'm filled with hopelessness and rage.

There is at least one website that I've come across in the making of this post that outlines that male children that Jewish families adopt must be ritually mutilated.

It's just casually written there, and nobody is saying anything about it.

Like an elephant in the room.

Like, I admit it, this is probably going to sound real "anti-Semitic," but Jews, Muslims, ANYBODY who plans on ritually mutilating a male child should not be allowed to adopt.

And anyone who does this to an adopted child should lose custody of that child and they should never be allowed to adopt again.

And this isn't just Jews, because I've also read about American families taking an adopted male child and having him circumcised just after.

Genital mutilation is wrong.

It's wrong and it ought to be a crime to forcibly cut the genitals of children.

If it's wrong to forcibly mutilate the genitals of newborns, forcibly mutilating the genitals of children that AREN'T EVEN YOUR OWN should be RIGHT OUT.

I realize this is a hairy situation where we look the other way at ritual mutilators such as mohels.

Fine.

If we must look the other way at Jews mutilating their own, at least for now, then fine.

But like WHAT THE FUCK IS A MOHEL DOING MUTILATING A NON-JEWISH CHILD.

WHY ARE DOCTORS MUTILATING BOYS at the request of people that AREN'T EVEN THEIR PARENTS???

OK, I get it.

At least for now, mutilating a child is considered a "parental choice." It's considered a "religious rite" that must be "protected."

OK, for your OWN CHILDREN. (Even then I think it's wrong.)

But these are children who aren't even YOUR OWN.

These children are yearning to be taken in and loved.

NOT TAKEN IN AND HAVE THEIR GENITALS MUTILATED.

It ought to be a crime for strangers to arrange, facilitate, officiate, and/or otherwise participate in the genital mutilation of a foster child.

This is just wrong on so many levels.

We're not talking about medical necessity here. If a child needs surgery to correct a problem, that's one thing.

But mutilating the genitals of a healthy child as a matter of course for adoption is simply horrific human rights violation.

Forcibly mutilating a healthy child is a horrific human rights violation in and of itself. Full stop.

Letting a stranger mutilate the genitals of their own child is one thing, but arranging this to be done on a child that's not even your own flesh and blood is simply horrific abuse.

Yeah, I guess I'm an "anti-Semite" now.

I'll fucking own it.

It's bad enough Jews are mutilating their own children, now they have to mutilate the genitals of children that aren't even their own.

I'll say it; Jews who plan on mutilating the children they adopt should not be allowed to.

Those who mutilate foster children ought to face severe punishment.

Without medical or clinical indication, cutting off any part of a child's penis is genital mutilation and a gross violation of his basic human rights.

Could you imagine Muslim parents arranging the genital mutilation of baby girls they adopt?

And don't you come to me with this "female genital mutilation is not a Muslim practice." Yes it fucking is, you just don't want this to be true because you don't want to be put in the same category.

"Sunat" is a practice followed by Muslims in South-East Asian countries such as Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei and Singapore. Muslims in Egypt and Sudan also have similar practices. It's also a tradition in many African countries.

For better or for worse, female genital mutilation is part of many religions including Islam, and many cultures including cultures from countries I've mentioned above.

 


I'm not sure how many of you reading are aware, but do you know that the federal ban on female genital mutilation has been lifted? All the arguments used in favor of male infant genital mutilation you could name were used. What was practiced was "minimal." "Less severe" than male infant genital mutilation even. It's an important part of the parent's culture and religion.

This is reality in the US.


What do we think of parents adopting female children and taking them to have their genitals mutilated by a ritual mutilator straight away?

If we accept this for boys, then we must accept this for girls.

And this is horrifying.

This is what's next.

We need to stop looking the other way because this is what's coming.

We need to decide right here and now.

What matters more?

The basic human rights of the child?

Or the "religious freedom" of parents wishing to practice their religion on the children they adopt?

What about the child's religious freedom?

The website "My Jewish Learning" says:

 

"Jewish law also allows those people converted as an infant or child to renounce the conversion when they reach maturity. After girls reach 12 or boys 13, converted infants and children can legally reject the conversion and go back to their previous religion. If they accept Judaism or are silent, they are deemed to be considered adult converts."



THEY CAN'T REJECT THE GENITAL MUTILATION.

THIS IS THE BIGGEST PROBLEM WITH "CONVERTING CHILDREN."

Genital mutilation isn't "for the children." This isn't something the children choose for themselves. The "conversion" is to satisfy an ADULT'S religious requirement.

The poor children are merely tools for adults to fulfill their religious duties.

Which only adds to the whole fucked-uppedness of the situation.

This is wrong in more ways than one.

It is horrifying for me to think about, to imagine poor children who need and want parents to be adopted by parents who want to physically abuse them the first chance they get.

I don't care what prepared dismissive moniker you have for me, this is WRONG and it needs to STOP.

EDIT:

Somebody I know read what I wrote and decided to remind me of this:

There it is in plain sight, and it's just so hard for me to believe.

I wish this weren't so.


DISCLAIMER:
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.

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.

~Joseph4GI

 

Related Posts:
Intactivism: It's Not Just for Gentiles Anymore

Jewish LGBT Leaders Against SF Circ Ban - Ignorance or Hypocrisy?
 
Daniel Barnz Mocks the French and Intact Men on HBO Max's "Generation" 
 
The "Anti-Semite" Card No Longer Washes
 
Edgar Schoen Showing His Age

Circumcision is Child Abuse: A Picture Essay
 
So Where's the "Sunat Party?"
 
External Links:
Female circumcision part of Malaysian culture, says DPM
 
My Jewish Learning: Converting Infants and Children

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 thecircumcisionlawyer.com.

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:

DISCLAIMER:
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 Change.org 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.)

Fantasy.

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.

Conclusion
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

DISCLAIMER:
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.
~Joseph4GI

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 intactiwiki.org 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.