And it's always the same, isn't it; if the people who want to silence you can somehow construe what you have said as "harassment," then they can have you silenced.
The funny thing is, I think I know who did it, and if it's the person I think it is, then it's ironic.
It's a person who has the Twitter/X user handle @JulesMagaGirl.
Yes, she's a "MAGA" girl?
You know?
The kind of people that go on and on about "cancel culture?"
Well, it sounds like one of the anti- #cancelculture crowd is engaging in the very thing she says she hates.
A few days ago, I got notification that my X/Twitter account was suspended because one of my Tweets was labeled "harassment," and I was given the option to either delete the Tweet or appeal. I appealed, and I got the notification back that my appeal was refused, and I appealed again, because I know that the Tweet is not "harassment" as it is claimed.
It may be the last of my Twitter account, because I know for a fact that what I tweeted is not "harassment," and I sure as heck am not deleting the Tweet.
I'd like to use this blog post to make the case that Twitter/X does not allow me to make. I'm not sure if I'm caught by an automated system, or if there is a live person on Twitter trying to FORCE me to remove the tweet that is keeping my account suspended.
It went like this:
This user, @JulesMagaGirl had been arguing back and forth on a Twitter thread about circumcision being mutilation, and I happened to be part of it.
The user typically proceeds to post all the usual alibis and excuses for forcibly slicing off part of a healthy, non-consenting child's penis.
It's "healthy," "cleaner," it "prevents STDs," all the usual stuff.
But in one tweet, she tries to argue that male infant circumcision "does not have to do with genitals."
I can't remember exactly what was said because I CAN'T ACCESS MY ACCOUNT, but she actually tries to say "Male infant circumcision is not in any way cutting away any part of the genitals."
To which I post the following tweet:
Highlighted in my Tweet: "Those look like genitals to me..."
This is the Tweet that got me suspended from my account.
This is what passes for "harassment" in the eyes of some Twitter/X hall monitor.
If you look closely, all it is is just a rebuttal to the girl's claim that circumcision "doesn't remove anything from the genitals."
The tweet includes a clear picture of a circumcision.
It should be obvious to anyone with eyeballs and two brain cells to rub together that circumcision clearly removes tissue from the genitals.
Where else could circumcision be removing anything from?
The nose?
The chin?
The knee?
@JulesMagaGirl is clearly delusional, as the fact that circumcision is clearly an act of male genital mutilation is clear as day from the picture I posted.
The thread goes on and on with other attempts at arguments that @JulesMagaGirl tries to make.
Parental choice. (Which would also apply to FGM.)
Retention of the ability to orgasm. (Also true of FGM.)
Retention of the ability to procreate. (Also true of FGM.)
All the usual canned stuff.
But the above Tweet is the one that got me cancelled.
I'm still waiting for that appeal, because as it is easy for anyone to see, I have not engaged in any "harassment," unless the "harassment" is adequate rebuttal to poor arguments.
At this point I need to ask, @elonmusk, what is the meaning of this?
Is this conversation not allowed on X/Twitter?
Kind of disappointing as I thought that free speech had returned to X/Twitter.
Apparently not.
Anyway, since X/Twitter will not allow me to make my case to them directly, I thought I'd post it here.
Well, well, well! Would you look at this! I guess I'm on a roll after a long hiatus. Who knows how long it will last? Well, I guess I might as well ride the wave while I'm at it.
I was surfing Facebook and I came across an old video I hadn't noticed before. Fox's Tucker Carlson was interviewing Fuambai Ahmadu and her advocacy for female genital cutting. According to YouTube, the video was put up on May 4, 2017, around the time the federal ban on FGM was lifted due to a court case in Detroit.
I'll embed the video here. Today is December 15, 2021 and I can still see the video as of today, so if you can't see the video anymore, it was probably taken down. See the video below.
I decided to watch the whole video, and I couldn't help but notice that basically these two are making the case against male infant circumcision in the United States.
I think this back-and-forth perfectly illustrates the male infant circumcision slash female circumcision debate and how it usually goes down in this country because people are committed to the narrative that ignores and protects their cognitive dissonance.
I decided to type up a transcript of the whole thing and post it here. (I'm afraid there are some things that I couldn't quite hear clearly, please forgive me)
I'll be inserting my own commentary; if you want to hear the argument without any commentary, please feel free to watch the video.
BEGIN TRANSCRIPT:
Fuambai Ahmadu: "I don't defend FGM. I don't mutilation. I would never defend the mutilation of anybody. I don't identify with the term 'mutilation.' I don't know anybody in my family who does, or my community. From over 25 years of research I've done on this field, I would say the great majority of women who are affected by what I call female circumcision practices do not see themselves as mutilated. I think we need to start interrogating how we use that terminology."
I'd like to draw a parallel here; she sounds precisely like an advocate for male infant circumcision. People who advocate and support cutting the genitals of boys never think it's "mutilation" and they feel "insulted" that anyone ever referred to what they do as such. Well THEY don't do "mutilation," it's those other people who do it. We're the innocent ones. And I think this is where the whole trouble of "female genital cutting is mutilation" begins, because the point is not actually to decry mutilation; if it were, we would talk about the elephant in the room, and we would have to talk about the very practice one is defending. In my opinion, the whole point of decrying genital cutting as it occurs in girls as "mutilation" is to diverge attention to the practice one wishes to defend. If "that other" thing is "mutilation," what we do is perfectly fine.
Tucker Carlson: "I almost don't want to specify what it refers to because it's upsetting, but it's the removal of a kind of key female sex organ in a lot of cases and this is being done to girls who obviously can't give consent, and it affects them for life."
Notice here the arguments that Carlson is putting forward, because it will get him in the end.
He has a problem with cutting girls because they can't give consent, and it affects them for life.
The same is irrefutably and demonstrably true for male infant circumcision. The biggest problem any intactivist have with male infant circumcision are, as you can read throughout my entire blog is, consent, and the fact that a man has to live with the outcome, adverse or benign, for the rest of his life.
Ahmadu: "This is why I think we DO need to have a discussion on what IT is. When we use the term "female genital mutilation, automatically a certain image comes to mind, an image that has been put out there for over 30, 40 years in the mainstream media through activists, efforts and women's groups. It's the idea of the most horrific of procedure, which is Type 3, the WHO's classified this as type 3 infibulation, that involves the suturing and sowing up of the labia majora. This is a very rare procedure that is confined, basically, to a specific part of sub-Sahara Africa, the horn of Africa. It makes up less than 10% of the entire prevalence of the procedures in sub-Sahara Africa and across various parts of the world.
A case I've made on here on several posts already (scroll to the bottom for links to other posts I've written on this subject).
Ahmadu is engaging in a classic tactic that advocates of male infant circumcision turn to, and that's blaming it all on the media and the negative image it has given it. It is forceful cutting of a healthy, non-consenting child, but that's not the problem; it's the negative attention it has garnered.
Can you imagine pedophiles arguing that nothing is wrong with what they do; it's the negative image the media and others have given them and they're being oppressed?
Actually, in the case of male infant circumcision, it's quite the opposite; for the past century it's been presented as this good and wonderful and harmless and "medically beneficial" thing.
We need to understand that over 90% of what we call 'female circumcision' involves what WHO classifes as Types 1, and that's divided up into types A and B, and Types 2, A and B as well. So for instance, the Dawoodi Bohra case that has become quite talked about in recent weeks with the doctor, the female doctor, Dr. Nagarwala I believe, in Michigan, their community, their Shia Muslim, you know, quiet community here in the United States, their community performs, first of all they perform circumcision on boys, we'll get to that in a moment, and they perform Type 1 A circumcision, which is a nick, a nick of the prepuce, the foreskin of the clitoris."
Exactly. She's on point.
Advocates of male infant circumcision would like people to believe that female genital cutting is "much, much worse" without actually ever making comparisons. The argument usually goes something like this:
Male infant circumcision advocate: "Female infant circumcision is so much worse."
Skeptic: "So let's discuss it."
Male infant circumcision advocate: "How dare you compare them! You just can't! So don't!"
I'm SO glad to see a woman discussing this; I'm usually shut down because I'm male. Well, here is an actual woman who has undergone so-called "FGM."
Carlson: "That is not actually what is illegal as far as I understand. What I understand is the removal of an entire portion of the female sex organ without the consent of the child. Now, you underwent this as an adult; there's a quantum difference between making a decision to do something like that, and having that decision made for you that cannot be reversed as a child. That seems to me, probably the worst thing you can do to a child."
Here again, Carlson brings up the elephant in the room when it comes to male infant circumcision; the consent of the person involved for a decision that cannot be reversed. This is precisely it, Tucker! You've got it!
Ahmadu: "OK, so back to the case of the Dawoodi Bohra doctor who is now in prison waiting trial, she is accused, she's charged with FGM, mutilating 7yo girls , he performed nicks, nicks, Type 1 A to the clitoral foreskin. (Carlson tries to interrupt) But it's really important because what's happened it's the activists who have made the term female genital mutilation they've conflated it with all these different practices..."
Yes! It's a nick! So small! And she's completely right. This shouldn't be a problem. Not if it's OK to slice off a chunk of flesh from a child's penis.
Carlson: "Some of these activists are victims of the practice itself. And we've interviewed them on this set. And they have said this has affected my life and my happiness, and my ability to experience happiness in a profound way, and it's totally barbaric, and guess I don't buy the 'hey it's a different culture,' well so is throwing widows on the pyre, and it's still wrong."
Tucker sounds like he could be on the intactivist team! Except when Fuambai actually throws his own logic in his face.
Yes, Tucker. "It's a different culture" shouldn't justify slicing parts of children's genitals without their consent. You are right on the money.
Ahmadu: "...and I absolutely agree with you, Tucker, but there's one thing I want to correct. You've said it removes a vital part of the female genital anatomy, alright? And is it OK to say if I actually that part is? Because there's a misconception about actually, you know, what these surgeries entail. There is no female circumcision procedure that removes the clitoris of a woman. It is absolutely impossible to remove a woman's clitoris without killing her. What is exposed is a tiny fraction of what is actually an extensive organ.
Again. Fuambai is on point.
And here too is an argument that male infant circumcision advocates like to use; the foreskin isn't a VITAL part of man's anatomy, is it? Since it isn't "vital," then it should be OK for parents to have doctors remove it in their children. After all, they can still have fulfilling lives, sexual or otherwise, what's the real "harm?"
This argument works in the case of female genital cutting. If it's not actually removing anything "vital," what's actually wrong with it? Why can't parents choose to have doctors do this? It's the same argument.
Carlson: "I'm going to stop you there and before we get too into it, I'm gonna just... lemme just say... (he's interrupting) Would you concede, because there are a lot of women who feel mutilated by this, this is being led by women, that maybe we should let adults make this decision and not imposed on six year olds? Is that fair?"
(Clap, clap, clap...) BRAVO, Tucker. Bravo.
Now if only you could agree to carry this argument through its logical conclusion...
Ahmadu: "Well here's what I think. There are a lot of men, right? ...who have experience male infant circumcision who say that this is mutilation. In fact, in the courtroom, when Dr. Nagarwala appeared in court, there were protesters outside they were not anti-FGM protesters...
Jesus Christ! Who's side is this Fuambai woman on?
Intactivists could easily confuse her as one of our own.
She's completely right.
The one thing that I would have to say to this is that far from being an "experience," a lot of men have graphic evidence that circumcision has indeed harmed them, because their procedures resulted in severe deformity of their organs. It is verifiably, objectively true that, to many men, circumcision has resulted in "mutilation" as defined by opponents of FGM.
Of course, in my book, unless there is medical or clinical indication, slicing ANY part of a healthy, non-consenting person's body off is "mutilation."
Carlson: (Interrupts again) But that's not an argument for female circumcision...
Tucker, yes it is. Readers, scroll back up. Did he, or did he not bring up that "there are a lot of women who feel mutilated by this, this is being
led by women, that maybe we should let adults make this decision and not
imposed on six year olds?"
Sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander, Tucker.
Ahmadu: "What I'm saying is, you're saying to me that there are opponents to female circumcision... Carlson: "Look as you know, there's a lot of research, and I don't want to get into the circumcision debate on men, but there is research that shows that there are profound medical advantages in that, there is no research that shows there's any medical advantage in female genital mutilation.
Classic.
Notice here how his own argument of consent and letting adults make their own decision flies right out the window...
Ahmadu: "First of all, that research is contested. There's a lot of research that shows that yes there IS harm, there IS risk. There are over a hundred deaths, a hundred deaths each year from male circumcision.
THIS WOMAN! Fuambai, you're an intactivist!!!
Carlson: "Look, I don't want to... that's... that's a separate show... and I'm open-minded but, but, but what you're doing is not making...
Poor Tucker... walked into his own trap on this one...
Ahmadu: "You're saying we're abusing girls...
That's what he said, Fuambai...
Carlson: "But that's like saying... you know we can't ban weed because beer is legal... it's two separate arguments..."
Talk about attacking a straw man... what does weed and beer, two substances that adults choose to take out of their own accord, have to do with the arguments at hand, that of the severity of genital cutting and the consent of the individual...
Ahmadu: "You are accepting that it is OK to perform a much more intensive or, invasive procedure on boys...
When she dies, Fuambai Ahmadu needs to be made an intactivist saint...
Carlson: "No, I'm not accepting that I'm just saying that this is bad to do to little girls it's pretty simple...
But OK to do to little boys...
Ahmadu: "I disagree. I think that if we accept it in American society that we do remove the foreskin on boys, we do practice genital cutting here, in the US, on boys, then it should not be impossible to understand that there are cultures and societies that practice what certain people are now calling gender inclusive genital surgery.
BINGO.
Carlson: "Well I just don't want it in my culture, in my society, I guess it's what it all comes down to."
As his society mutilates 1.4 million boys annually...
Ahmadu: "So what, it's OK to cut BOYS in your society?"
YOU GO, GIRL!!!
Carlson: "I'm just saying I don't want THIS. I think it's awful."
Yes to this, but no to that.
The words "ad hoc" and "special pleading" come to mind...
Ahmadu: "Well we don't in our culture we don't discriminate. You know, we have gender egalitarian surgeries. We do not discriminate."
Carlon: "We're out of time I feel that we could finish the hour... I'd probably die of embarrassment but thank you very much..."
Ahmadu: "You're welcome."
Poor Tucker... clearly here tripping over his own arguments, and clearly his attacking the straw men of beer and weed isn't working and he can't stand it so he's got to end the segment...
But see, neither of them is wrong. They're both absolutely correct.
Both of these individuals make the case as to why forcibly cutting the genitals of boys, and girls, is wrong.
Tucker Carlson, quite rightly so, points out that this is a decision that needs to be made by consenting adults, and he makes no exception for culture. He says "I don't want this in my culture," but then recoils when he is faced with the fact that his own culture already accepts the forcible cutting of minors.
Fuambai Ahmadu is on point when she talks about gender egalitarianism and non-discrimination, albeit in the wrong direction. She's right though.
"..if we accept it in American society that we do remove the foreskin on
boys, we do practice genital cutting here, in the US, on boys, then it
should not be impossible to understand that there are cultures and
societies that practice what certain people are now calling gender
inclusive genital surgery."
Absolutely on point.
However, conversely, if we oppose it in American society, the forced cutting of healthy, non-consenting girls without their consent, regard for culture or religion, then the same should be true of the forced cutting of healthy, non-consenting boys, regardless of culture, religion or otherwise.
Though it's on Fox, I thought this was an excellent interview and an excellent representation of how the circumcision debate usually goes, with the absolute meltdown when male and female genital cutting is discussed in the the same breath, the refusal to acknowledge that they are the same issue.
Fuck anyone who insists on continuing to push the false narrative that "male and female circumcision aren't the same" and that men have all the attention when it comes to genital mutilation and that men attempt to "shove women to the back of the bus" in this regard.
It's feminists and anti-female genital mutilation activists and organizations that hog the limelight and piss on the rights of boys and men.
To push the narrative that "men bring up male circumcision while women suffering genital mutilation struggle to find a voice" as countless organizations dedicate themselves to raise awareness of FGM in Africa as they ignore boys and men who die in circumcision initiation rituals has got to be the ultimate misandrist grift.
Ding dong the witch is dead.
I can't wait until all willfully ignorant advocates of male genital mutilation die out.
I had been following the Detroit FGM court case (see related posts below), and it seems the case has finally reached it's conclusion:
According to The Detroit News, the most serious remaining charge against the doctor accused of FGM has been dropped, adding the final nail in the coffin for the federal ban on FGM of 2006.
I'm disappointed, but not surprised at the results.
I knew it would end like this.
Americans would rather sacrifice the rights of baby girls on the altar of "religious freedom" rather than bring that elephant in the room, the forced genital cutting of baby boys that happens 3,000 times a day, into question.
I'm not going to comment long like I usually do.
I'm just going to close with the statements and questions I usually ask:
In any other case, reaping profit from non-medical surgery, on healthy, non-consenting individuals already constitutes medical fraud.
Without medical or clinical indication, can doctors be performing non-medical surgery on healthy, non-consenting individuals?
Much less be eliciting any kind of "decision" from parents?
How far are doctors expected to comply with "parental decisions?"
The risks of male infant circumcision include infection, partial or full ablation, hemorrhage and even death.
(Exact statistics on either male or male infant circumcision are unknown because those who perform them do not collect or report them, and governments do not require them to because they want to avoid being seen as "infringers of religious freedom.")
How is any of this conscionable given that male infant circumcision is non-medical, non-therapeutic?
Rough times lie ahead, but I am confident in that the truth cannot be hidden long.
"Do nothing secretly; for Time sees and hears all things, and discloses all." ~Sophocles
Perhaps this decision being handed down during the current coronavirus scare was strategic; people are distracted by the current pandemic.
But it doesn't matter.
"Truth suppress'd, whether by courts or crooks, will find an avenue to be told. During wartime it takes longer."--Sheila Steele
Intactivists had been watching this case closely. We knew that what was riding on this case, what the possible outcomes, and what their implications were. We knew that whatever the outcome would be, it would be a landmark decision, and progress in the fight for basic human rights.
How far can "religious freedom" and "parental choice" justify the needless cutting of flesh in healthy, non-consenting minors?
This was it; the one case that would finally address this question.
Either "religious freedom" and "parental choice" could be used to justify the needless cutting of flesh in healthy, non-consenting minors, or it could not.
You cannot have it both ways.
Recapitulation
In March, 2017, one Dr. Jumana Nagarwala was charged with performing female genital cutting on two girls from Minnesota on February 3rd, 2017, at a Livonia clinic owned by one Dr. Fakhruddin Attar. She had been doing this for 12 years, and if found guilty, would have faced life in prison for violating the Female Genital Mutilation Act of 1996.
This was, unless, the doctor could prove that what she did wasn't "mutilation," but "benign religious procedure," which she and her defense lawyers were already trying to allege, or unless the federal ban could somehow be thwarted, since, under the ban, all cutting of female genitals, great or small, constitutes "mutilation."
The outcome of this case would have far-reaching implications, particularly in the case of another alleged "benign religious procedure."
Readers know what I'm talking about; male infant genital cutting.
Who was on the case, and why would it matter?
Who the doctor's defense lawyers were is important to note because it would appear that they had personal stake in the matter.
Famed constitutional law scholar and attorney Alan Dershowitz and prominent Birmingham defense attorney Mayer Morganroth were hired by Dawat-e-Hadiyah, an international religious organization overseeing a small sect of Shia Muslim mosques around the world.
According to Morganroth, they were hired "to protect the people charged and to represent the religious organization."
Morganroth had represented numerous high-profile clients, including ex-Detroit Mayor Coleman A. Young, auto executive John DeLorean and Jack Kevorkian.
Dershowitz is a retired Harvard Law School professor and lawyer who defended celebrity clients in some of the country's highest profile criminal cases, including O.J. Simpson, Mike Tyson and British socialite Claus von Bulow.
Alan Dershowitz is Orthodox Jewish, and Morganroth is a Jewish surname.
This is important because male infant circumcision is seen as divine commandment in Judaism, and it has been a highly contested practice for the past two millennia.
A negative outcome in a case against a physician performing non-medical genital cutting in children at the request of religious parents would mean the legality of Jewish circumcision would be put in question.
Of course, the defense of a client is the duty of any lawyer, but for these lawyers, the outcome would mean a bit more, and so they would see to it that it would result in a favorable one for them.
Religious Freedom or Basic Human Rights?
A year ago, I said that the outcome of this decision would be a landmark decision either way.
On the one hand, upholding the federal ban on FGM would mean a loss for this doctor, and it would mean not only that what she did was illegal, it also meant that the legality of Jewish circumcision would be brought into question.
It would mean that parents couldn't just do abusive things to their children and get away with it under the cloak of "religious freedom."
On the other hand, a landmark win would mean a win for "religious freedom," and the legality of Jewish circumcision would remain unquestioned.
A year ago, I also warned that such an outcome might result in the Federal FGM Ban of 1996 being struck down, opening the door for other forms of FGM, and possibly other abusive practices, to be legally performed in the US.
Today, we read about the outcome of this case.
History Made
So what was it going to be?
The protection of "religious freedom?"
Or the protection of basic human rights?
For all people?
The powers have decided "religious freedom" must be protected at all costs.
On November 10 of this year (2018), the charges against Dr. Jumana Nagarwala were dismissed, precisely because the judged declared the federal ban against FGM "unconstitutional."
The judge deciding this was none other than US District Judge Bernard Friedman.
US District Judge Bernard Friedman
I must say, with a name like "Friedman," I'm really not surprised.
There is not a doubt in my mind that the unstated reasons the judge ruled this was precisely to protect male infant circumcision. Intactivists would have wanted the federal ban on female genital mutilation to be struck down on the grounds that it violated the 14th Amendment equal protection clause, but it was struck down on the grounds that genital mutilation is said to lie outside the scope of federally regulated interstate commerce instead.
But to me, it really doesn't really matter; those who wanted to prevent a legal precedent that would invalidate "religious freedom" and thus place male infant circumcision under scrutiny from occurring, found a way to invalidate the Female Genital Mutilation Act, just as I predicted they would do a year ago.
I have always said, and continue to say this; either religious freedom and parental choice can be used to justified the forced cutting of genitals of children, or it cannot. It can't be had both ways. The Ramifications of This Decision I don't know about other intactivists, but I for one, welcome this decision.
Either decision would have been progress for our movement, because either decision would result in questioning "religious freedom" and "parental choice" sooner or later. However, I believe we couldn't have wished for a better outcome.
Had the judge upheld the federal FGM ban, it would have merely prolonged the grace period for male infant circumcision. The fact is that most, including activists against female genital mutilation, would laud the decision as the "correct" one, and life would have continued business as usual.
The fact is that striking the federal ban against FGM down is going to get people's attention; I don't think campaigners against FGM are going to be happy. There is going to be hell to pay.
Perhaps this judge inadvertently gave this conversation a push in the right direction.
The topic of the extent of "religious freedom" and "parental choice" is going to be a lightning rod for conversation.
In the past, activists against FGM and advocates of male infant circumcision alike were able to dismiss the topic "because they're not the same." Still others would hem and haw and hoped that the conversation would just go away.
Dismissing and ignoring is no longer a choice.
Sitting on the fence is no longer an option.
We intactivists have been saying for years that laws against FGM would not stand unless male infant circumcision were addressed. We were attacked by FGM activists for it. Now, exactly what I and others have predicted has come to pass.
This decision has propelled this topic from its usual position as the elephant in the room, to the forefront of conversation.
It can no longer be said that "male and female are not the same," because thanks to this legal precedent, male and female forced genital cutting are on the same tier.
The firewall between male and female forced genital cutting has been officially knocked down.
Anti-FGM groups will now have a decision to make; either recognize basic human rights for both boys and girls, or watch their movement crash and burn.
The conversation can no longer be dismissed on the grounds that the forced cutting of one sex is more or less "severe" than the other, because that's neither here nor there.
Either "religious freedom" and/or "parental choice" justifies the forced cutting of the genitals of healthy, non-consenting children or it does not.
Ultimately the question is this:
What is more important?
"Religious freedom and/or "parental choice?"
Or basic human rights?
You cannot have it both ways.
We are going to have to choose once and for all which it will be. What's it going to be, FGM activists?
Female genital cutting, known as "sunat," is common in South East Asia
I recently posted the following Tweet:
Women who raise a stink about smegma in intact men act like their uncircumcised vulva smells like raspberries and cream. How dare they balk at intact men when their vulva is a disaster zone 7 days out of the month anyway.
I think this should serve to highlight the dangers of condemning the forced genital cutting of one sex, but condoning it in the other.
There is this firewall between female genital cutting and male genital cutting, where, at least until now, ne'er the twain shall meet, but this coming back to bite anti-FGM groups in the pussy. (Did I just say that?)
Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, and as long as male infant circumcision can be defended "because it's cleaner," "because studies says it prevents disease," leaves the door open for female infant circumcision advocates to defend female genital cutting using the same pretexts.
Either religion, "parental choice," and/or "research" justifies the forced genital cutting of healthy, non-consenting minors, or it doesn't. You can't have it both ways.
As long as anti-FGM advocates want to have this firewall up between FGM and MGM, then they fight a losing battle.
THIS is the shit they're going to be up against; a mirror image of themselves.
It's been a while, and I was thinking a post on my blog is long overdue. Believe it or not, your blogger does have a life outside of intactivism; a family to raise, bills to pay, a job to be at. I really wish I had more time to dedicate to this, as I believe it to be a worthy cause.
At any rate, this post was touched off by a recent private message war on Facebook.
It seems that people that both defend the forced circumcision of males, but oppose the forced circumcision of females have an arsenal of canned responses that they're ready to fire off at any given moment. Furthermore, it seems that they haven't given these responses much thought, for upon further investigation, one can see the logical fallacies in their arguments.
It never ceases to amaze me how the same person can present an argument in favor of male infant circumcision, but for whatever reason, the same argument fails when used in favor of female circumcision, and vice versa, an argument used against female circumcision that would also work against male circumcision, but for whatever reason, doesn't apply.
One can witness male circumcision apologists trying their hardest to have it both ways, going through mental gymnastics to make their arguments work.
I shall talk about the points raised in my latest exchange on Facebook Messenger without naming any names to save the person embarrassment.
"Americans do not practice barbaric, pointless practices that leave females in pain for the rest of their lives like genital mutilation also commonly called "female circumcision"."
Here are the myths this statement is imbued with:
Male infant circumcision isn't barbaric
Male infant circumcision isn't pointless
Female circumcision always results in pain for the rest of their lives
Only forced female genital cutting can be euphemised with the word "circumcision"
This statement is rather flawed, because it relies on a straw-man argument. FGM is "barbaric and pointless mutilation" because it "it leaves females in pain for the rest of their lives."
While FGM does have disastrous results in some cases, this simply isn't true for most women. Even the WHO acknowledges that there are varying degrees of severity for FGM, and that the worst form of FGM, also known as "infibulation," or "pharaonic circumcision," is actually the rarest. A New York Times article says it is as low as 15%. Actually, most women in Africa who have been circumcised don't complain, according to Catania and Johnsdotter. The majority of women in countries like Malaysia and Indonesia are circumcised, and, like American parents regarding male circumcision, they don't see what the big deal is.
A circumcised African woman sounding off
A circumcised Malaysian woman speaking her mind
This is important to point out, because some of the biggest arguments that advocates use to justify the forced genital mutilation of boys in America are that:
Boys don't remember what happened to them as infants
Adult men don't complain
Adult men enjoy sex (the converse argument being that circumcised women don't)
Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. The same argument that would justify male infant circumcision would justify female infant circumcision, but it somehow just doesn't, or people would rather continue to belief myths that simply aren't reality, because what is true for adult circumcised in America, is true for adult circumcised women in say, Malaysia, Indonesia and countries in Africa.
So it must be asked.
Is pain and/or whether or not it can be remembered in adulthood what makes the forced genital cutting of minors "barbaric, pointless mutilation?"
Is pain and whether or not it can be remembered the issue here?
The fact is that most men weren't circumcised as infants. That's an American or Jewish phenomenon. Most men who are circumcised in the world are circumcised at later ages, when they can remember what is happening to them. I don't hear anyone decrying the fact that scores of men die yearly in initiation rituals in Africa.
A girl is circumcised in Bandung, Indonesia
"BARBARIC AND POINTLESS MUTILATION!"
A boy is circumcised in the same city.
"Nothing to see here... He can still have sex. It's OK."
On with the next part of my exchange:
"If male circumcision was anything like this female "circumcision" practiced in parts of the world, they would have their entire penis removed and not just a flap of skin that can get constricted later in life."
Here are the myths this statement is imbued with:
Female circumcision is all one and the same
All female circumcision completely removes the equivalent of the entire penis
The foreskin in males is merely a flap of skin that can and usually always does, get constricted later in life
The potential for problems is enough to justify the removal of a body part
The question then becomes, would FGM variations that are as severe, or even less severe than male circumcision as it is justified in the United States, be justified?
Is FGM justified so long as it is as severe, or less severe than male infant circumcision as we know it?
The fact of the matter is that, even in the most severe cases of FGM, it is simply impossible for the clitoris to be removed in its entirety from the female vulva. As Catania argues, only the tip of the clitoris can ever be removed, leaving plenty of clitoris behind in a woman for sexual stimulation. Even women who have undergone infibulation are still able to enjoy sex and experience orgasm. The claim that female genital cutting renders a woman a sexual cripple for the rest of her life is simply categorically false.
Diagram of internal female anatomy taken from Wikipedia
Other facts that I invited this person to observe are that worldwide, 70% of males are intact, and that there simply isn't an epidemic of men experiencing the "problems" she presents. I invited this person to consider that other body parts are susceptible to disease, but that they aren't removed at birth. 1 in 8 American women will be diagnosed with breast cancer. 1 in 6 American men will be diagnosed with prostate cancer. The rate of men developing problems that may require surgical correction is approximately 1%.
The external labia are also "flaps of skin," which could be affected by disease and infection. It is one of the areas affected by cancer. So should these be removed as well?
I'd like to point out to my readers how the argument that "it could cause problems later on" only works when addressing the male foreskin.
Continuing with my exchange:
"Males with constricted foreskins have to have the foreskin removed or face serious infections."
Myths repeated here:
The foreskin is prone to problems
The problem is usually a constricted foreskin
All men with constricted foreskins develop problems including serious infections
I keep asking people to look at reality. Because what is that reality? That 70% of all men in the world are intact, and that there simply isn't an epidemic of constricted foreskins and "serious infections."
The fact of the matter is that true phimosis is actually quite rare, occurring at a rate of about 1%. Some men may have non-retractile foreskins that have nothing to do with phimosis, but the majority of these men live their lives with no problems. Infections, when they occur, can usually be taken care of with conventional medicine, just as they are taken care of in women, when they develop infections.
Some men do need surgery, but these cases are rare. What is the reason for the exaggeration? The person is trying to justify male circumcision. Of course, inner and outer labia have their own problems and diseases they are prone to, and some women must have them removed, but let's not talk about why early removal of them in girls is justified.
The exchange continues:
"Having the foreskin removed is what male circumcision involves while in female circumcision, they basically cut deep into an area full of nerves and blood vessels, a very horrible, completely barbaric practice that serves no rational purpose. It is only cruel in every way imaginable."
Myth purported:
The foreskin is not an area full of nerves and blood vessels
Really?
I want readers to notice how hyperbole is quite justified when speaking out against female circumcision, as is minimization when speaking in favor of male infant circumcision. The opposite is true; any attempt at minimizing FGM is met with hostility, and speaking about any detriment to male infant circumcision is "hyperbole."
Female circumcision is horrible, completely barbaric, serves no rational purpose, and only cruel in every way imaginable. Really? That's not what people who do it think. I hope it's obvious now that the grounds on which female circumcision is attacked, and on which male circumcision is defended is all self-serving special pleading. The conflicting rationale that only works for or against the circumcision of one sex are a necessary result of cognitive dissonance; the mental acrobatics necessary to holding two conflicting thoughts in the mind.
Research shows that the most sensitive area on a man's penis is in the transitional region from the external to the internal part of the foreskin, also known as the mucocutaneous junction, and that this is removed by circumcision.
Diagram from Sorrells et al. study on penile sensitivity
Of course, the foreskin is also an area full of nerves and blood vessels, 20,000 nerves to be exact, however, in the mind of the person I'm having this exchange with, it isn't a problem to cut these off in boys.
The person persists and responds, recycling the same rationale, and repeating what this person already said before in even louder tones:
Saying that you can still have an orgasm if your clitoris is cut off is like saying that you can still use your arm if it is cut off. Yes, you can still have vaginal orgasms as one still has a vagina. However, a female can't have a clitoral orgasm if they have no clitoris and truth is that most females have clitoral orgasms far easier & more frequently than vaginal orgasms.
Why does anyone try to make excuses and make up lies to defend female genital mutilation where the truth is that there is no excuses for clitoris removal regardless! It is equivalent to removing a male's penis head where most of a male's nerves in his sexual pleasure zones are located.
Even after I presented evidence the contrary the following myths persist:
Orgasm and/or sexual enjoyment is simply impossible without a clitoris
The clitoris is always and completely removed during FGM
Intactivists are trying to defend FGM
Clitoral removal is equivalent to removing the glans penis in the male
The glans is where most of a male's nerves in his sexual pleasure zones are located
They say you can take a man to knowledge, but you can't make him think.
Science and research are proving all these myths to be false, yet they persist.
It is actually possible to orgasm after losing the glans. There are videos of men ejaculating post penectomy. (Go to X-Tube and search "penectomy.") It is also interesting to note that transsexuals who undergo surgery are still able to enjoy sex without their penises.
Not that this justifies cutting off children's penises in any way; I'm just trying to dispel the "can't enjoy sex" myth and why it fails as any arguing point.
Let's explore this idea that removing part of the body doesn't affect its function.
You can still see with one eye. You can still taste if I cut off the tip of your tongue. Who sees better though? Who tastes better? Likewise, who feels more? Who has better sensations?
The bottom line
Is it truly a matter "severity?"
Because even the WHO recognizes that not all FGM removes the clitoris. The WHO and AAP acknowledge that some forms of FGM are as severe, if not less severe than male infant circumcision.
Is it a matter of "pain?"
Because women circumcised as infants don't remember it either. And girls can be anesthetized as males can be.
Is it a matter of sexual enjoyment?
Because the great majority of circumcised women will tell you they enjoy sex and can orgasm just fine, just as the great majority of circumcised men will tell you.
The bottom line is this:
Unless there is clear medical or clinical indication, the forced genital cutting of ANYONE is a gross violation of basic human rights.
Arguments that only work in favor or against forced circumcision of one sex, but not the other, are self-serving, ad-hoc, special pleading.
Even if female circumcision could be made "painless," and "less severe" than male circumcision, it would still be wrong.
Even if it could be proven that female circumcision would prevent scary diseases like HIV and cancer, forcibly doing it to non-consenting girls or women would still be wrong.
When an action is a basic human rights violation, how much sex a person can still enjoy afterward is secondary, if not irrelevant.
Last month, I posted about an Ethiopian man who was deported after serving a 10-year prison sentence for cutting his daughter's genitals.
In recent news, a woman doctor was charged with performing female genital cutting on young girls between six and eight years of age. Apparently, she's being doing this for 12 years, and if found guilty, she faces life in prison.
Female genital cutting was made illegal in 1996 under the umbrella term "Female Genital Mutilation" (FGM). I assume that this law refers in particular to the forced genital cutting of girls for cultural or religious reasons, because women can go to doctors for "labiaplasty" and "vaginal rejuvenation" without a hitch.
In fact, there's a website openly running for a labiaplasty clinic in Cleveland, Ohio, right here.
My Thoughts
On the one hand, this ought to be the fate of any doctor who performs non-medical surgery on healthy, non-consenting individuals.
On the other, whatever happened to "religious freedom" and "parental choice?"
If doctors are obliged to surgically alter the genitals of a male child on these grounds, then surely, they're obliged to alter the genitals of a female child, right?
I mean, at least for the case of male infant circumcision, the argument seems to be that doctors are these vassals who are supposed to respond to a parent's every beck and call.
What is the doctor in this case truly guilty of, other than honoring a parent's request and respecting their religious beliefs?
Whenever somebody objects to male infant circumcision, someone always has to defend it on the grounds that prohibiting it would be a "violation of religious freedom," and a "violation of parental rights."
Why the double-standards?
Why does it constitute "justice" to throw the book at a doctor who performs genital cutting in girls for "religious purposes" and honoring "parental prerogative," but "religious persecution" or "infringement on parental rights" to go after doctors who perform male genital cutting for the same reasons?
Why is it called "genital mutilation" to forcibly cut the genitals of healthy, non-consenting girls without exemption, but "religious freedom" or "parental choice" to forcibly cut the genitals of healthy, non-consenting boys?
For better or for worse, female genital cutting is a religious and/or cultural obligation for those who practice it. If this weren't so, people would not be risking their reputations, facing charges, being deported etc., to perform it.
Navigating the FGM problem without hypocrisy is impossible, and this is becoming increasingly obvious in this day and age.
According to New York Daily News, an Ethiopian man was deported after serving a 10-year prison sentence for cutting his 2-year-old's daughters genitals with scissors, highlighting American hypocrisy when it comes to genital cutting.
While this man has been deported for cutting his daughter's genitals, 1.3 million baby boys have their foreskins forcibly cut off at birth.
While it is taboo to question the practice of male genital cutting, people do not hesitate to openly condemn the practice of female genital cutting.
There seems to be two different yardsticks when measuring the forcible genital cutting of each sex.
While forced genital cutting in boys is defended on the grounds of "culture," "religion" and "parental choice," the same alibis fly out the window when it comes to the forced genital cutting of girls.
While the risks, complications and side-effects of forced male genital cutting are glossed over, if not ignored completely, those who oppose forced female genital cutting highlight and exaggerate them.
In either case, both of these practices are painted with broad strokes; while forced male circumcision is depicted harmless, benign, and there are ever adverse effects, female circumcision is always depicted as harmful, and its effects are always adverse, with every female, every time.
It is not my intention to justify female circumcision, because this blogger opposes the forced genital cutting of either sex.
Rather, my intention is to show simply this:
Whatever can be said about the forcible cutting of one sex, applies directly to the forcible cutting of the other.
For this post, I'd like to take excerpts of this report and analyze them.
"...female genital mutilation [is] a ritualistic practice common in certain parts of the world, but widely condemned in western countries."
Male genital mutilation, euphemised as "circumcision," is also a ritualistic practice. It is worthy to note that it is common in precisely those same parts of the world where female circumcision, condemned as "mutilation," is practiced.
It must also be noted that while "holy ritual" seems to be a perfectly good justification for male circumcision, the same does not apply for female circumcision.
"A young girl's life has been forever scarred by this horrible crime... [t]he elimination of female genital mutilation/cutting has broad implications for the health and human rights of women and girls, as well as societies at large."
...says Sean Gallahgher, a director with the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency.
Of course, when two-year-old male children are circumcised as this girl is, their lives are also scarred forever by this terrible... act. I have to call it an "act" here, because people don't want to condemn it as "crime" as they readily do female circumcision.
Let's not talk about the fact that boys are circumcised in the same countries girls are, at about the same ages.
"Ritualistic cutting is common in parts of the Middle East, Africa and Asia and some 200 million women and girls have been subjected to the practice, according to estimates from the World Health Organization."
"While genital cutting is seen as central to certain communities, WHO notes that the practice often leads to long-term health consequences, such as increased risk of newborn deaths, psychological distress, severe infections and problems urinating. Girls are typically cut before they turn 15."
This same statement can also be said of male circumcision.
And here I have to highlight how FGM is being painted with broad strokes.
The statement says "The WHO notes that the practice *often leads* to long-term health consequences..."
But doubtlessly, people are going to read this as "always leads" to "long-term health consequences."
This statement must be clarified, because even the WHO admits that there are various levels of severity when it comes to FGM.
When it comes to the most absolute brutal form of FGM, which is infibulation, a practice where the protruding part of the clitoris is cut off and the outer labia are cut off and sewn together to leave only a small hole for menstruation, yes, this can result in dire-consequences for the women involved.
The fact is, however, that infibulation only accounts for about 15% of all FGM cases globally.
In other parts of the world, such as countries in South East Asia, namely Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei, Singapore as well as others, the female genital cutting that goes on there is not as severe. The girls and women there typically don't suffer ANY of the consequences noted here.
In fact, not too long ago, the AAP tried to approve a form of FGM that wouldn't have removed anything. A "ritual nick," as they called it.
In another recent paper published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, authors called for the legalization of some forms of FGM.
I'd like to contrast this with how forced male circumcision is treated in the West.
When "experts" talk about male circumcision, they say it's "mostly harmless" and "seldom results" in adverse effects.
Of course, most people take this to mean it's "always" harmless, and read that "seldom" part as "never."
The risks of male infant circumcision are infection, partial or full ablation, hemorrhage, and even death.
But these risks are always minimized, if ever even talked about.
While the fact that girls and women often suffer complications because they are circumcised by amateurs using crude utensils like rusty blades and glass shards in the bush is highlighted, we hardly hear of the same complications in males circumcised in the same conditions.
Every year, scores of men die as a result of their circumcision, and still, scores of others lose their penises to gangrene.
The boys, men and their families will be "scarred for life," but let's not talk about them.
After all, who are we to judge ageless tradition?
Instead, we hear highlighted all the "potential medical benefits" that "might result" from a boy being circumcised.
We read of all the "rigorous research" that has gone into male circumcision, "showing" that it "could reduce the risk of transmission" of every disease you can name.
"Research" that involved "thousands of men."
I have to ask, is there a "right" amount of research that would ever justify the forced genital cutting of girls and women?
What would we think of "research" where thousands of women had their labia removed, just to see how much STDs they *didn't* get?
What if the "results" showed that it could "reduce the transmission of HIV" in women by "60%?" Would we allow ourselves to change our minds?
What if that number were a more persuading "70%?" "80%?" "90%?"
Yes?
No?
Why is it we think differently when it comes to the forced genital cutting of boys?
The man in this case is being made an example of.
But while this is happening, why do we turn a blind eye when it comes to male infant circumcision?
Especially when it comes to complications?
I'm keeping a growing list of circumcision complications that surface on Facebook and in the news (scroll to the bottom of this post).
Why don't people care?
"Thoughts and prayers" for the parents of these poor boys who will be, in the words of Director Sean Gallagher, "scarred for life."
Deportation for this father, whose daughter is probably alive and well.
A mother is jailed, separated from her son and forced to sign his circumcision consent papers.
While one parent is guilty of mutilating his daughter, another is "guilty" of trying to protect her son.
Yes, let's not talk about how the boy will be "scarred for life."
This is the country we live in today.
"Thousands more have been sent abroad for so-called "vacation cutting" — a human rights violating practice that involves sending American-born females overseas to be cut. More than 380 people have been arrested in the U.S. for facilitating such crimes since 2003, according to ICE."
Yes, let's pat our selves on the back.
While we ignore the fact that 1.3 million male baby boys are circumcised in this country a year.
American medical boards such as the AAP minimize the number of complications regarding male infant circumcision.
The number presented is a conservative one, at about 2.0%.
This number is rather questionable, because hospitals are not required to release this data, and because parents are often accomplices with doctors who have reputations to protect to keep this information under wraps, but let's just go with it for the sake of argument.
Even at 2.0%, with 1.3 million babies circumcised a year, that is still 26,000 baby boys who will have suffered adverse effects.
How is this conscionable for an elective, non-medical procedure?
Whose "benefits" are already affordable by less invasive, more effective means?
Conclusion
Don't get me wrong; this father is getting what he deserves.
I am dead against the forcible genital cutting of all sexes.
However, I will not let this case go by without highlighting American, if not Western hypocrisy on this matter.
The following questions must be asked:
How far are actions justified by "culture?"
Are we picking which "cultures" or "religions" are more important now?
Is a doctor's duty to practice "medicine," or "culture?"
Since when are doctors obligated to participate in brokering "culture" or "religion?"
What other "religious cuttings" are doctors obliged to participate in?
Shouldn't doctors be sticking to medicine only?
What about "parental choice?"
How far are actions justified by "parental choice?"
How are we deciding what is "abusive" and what is "parenting?"
How far are doctors supposed to honor the wishes of a parent to have something cut off?
In the name of "culture?"
In the name of "religion?"
Why do we condemn one father for cutting is daughter, while we award another father for wanting to take his son to have his foreskin cut off?
Shouldn't we be condemning the forced genital cutting of children of BOTH sexes equally?
Relevant Links:
Complications that made the news and have surfaced on facebook
