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

Parallels: Comparing Tattoos and Circumcision

 

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

Consent is at the center of the intactivist argument

...

The difference is consent.

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

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

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

US sailor agrees to have his body tattooed

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

An Auschwitz survivor displays his identification tattoo

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

Purely Cosmetic

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

 

Aesthetic Value

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

 

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

Pride

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

 Men and women alike can be proud to have tattoos

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

Traditionally, Berber women's faces are tattooed.

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

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

 

Fireman in the Edo Period

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

Yakuza gang member displaying his membership

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

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

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

A Botched Job

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

 

Sometimes tattoo botches can be salvaged, but not always.

 

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

Oppression and Shame

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

The arm of a Holocaust survivor with an ID number tattoo

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

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

In the Bible, Jews would circumcise their enemies as a sign of dominance and/or retribution (Gen. 34:14-17, 25-26, 1 Sam 18:27). In some Islamic countries, non-Muslims have been forcibly circumcised and forcibly converted to Islam. Forced circumcisions as part of forced conversion to Islam have continued to this very day.

 

Therapeutic Value

Sometimes, a tattoo can serve therapeutic purpose. In the event a woman loses a breast to cancer, a skillful tattoo artist can create a nipple where one would be for aesthetic purposes, for example.

This "nipple" is actually tattoo

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

This elaborate tattoo hides a scar

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

The Difference is Consent

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

A Copt child being tattooed, for Christ of all things

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

A boy being forcibly circumcised in Indonesia

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

Conclusion
I end this post with my mission statement:

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

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

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

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

My body, my choice.

Getting circumcised should be a man’s choice; forcibly circumcising a boy or man takes that choice away.

 

Related Posts:

REPOST: Of Ecstasy and Rape, Surgery and Mutilation 

Random Thought: Is Circumcision Human Ikebana?

Circumcision Botches and the Elephant in the Room

PHIMOSIS: Lost Knowledge Missing In American Medicine

ALABAMA: Mother Busted for Tattooing Son

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

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

Poetry Corner - To Me

 

External Links
Wikipedia Tattoo Article

Wikipedia Forced Circumcision Article

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

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

Death toll rises as Eastern Cape initiation season claims more lives

Commedians Openly Criticising Circumcision

You know what's encouraging?

When I hear a North American comedian openly criticize male infant circumcision.

On American TV, it's just a constant barrage of "Ew! Foreskin. Men need to be circumcised. It's cleaner. Uncircumcised men are gross. Blah blah blah blah." Whether it's on the news or sitcoms. Some comedians even cringe at intactness and sing the praises of circumcision.

So when I see a comedian openly question male infant circumcision, openly criticize it, it gives me a feeling that maybe things are starting to change.

I was scrolling down my Facebook newsfeed and I noticed someone had posted a video of a comedian talking about how he got criticism for not having had his child circumcised despite the fact that he was circumcised.

I can't post a video of it here because at least for now, it's exclusively on Facebook. However I did transcribe it and I'm going to post it right here.

When you have a son, you have to decide if you want to circumcise him or not, I didn't want to do it. I'm circumised but I thought it was unnecessary.

People got really mad at me though. People are still really pro-circumcision.

Main argument, people are like "It's cleaner! It's cleaner!" And I'm like, "How about we try some soap and water first? Before we just start chopping things off people's bodies."

Like "Eew! The butt's gross! Get it outta there!"

Next argument, pople are like "Oh, he's not gon' remember, he's not gon' to remember."

It's like, yeah he's a BABY. He's not gon' remember ANYTHING. This doesn't mean I should DO it. I could stab him in the LEG and he's not gon' remember it.

Like "First two years! Do whatever you want! No memories!"

Then the weirdest argument I kept getting from multiple people, where like, who knew I was circumcised, they were like, "Well don't you want your penis and your son's penis to MATCH?"

What kind of fucked up father/son pageant do you think we're entering into?

Like "Hello my baby, hello my darling, hello my ragtime gal..."

"Look at those penises! They're so similar! Same barber..."

I'll link to the video on Facebook here, but I think it's only accessible to those who have Facebook accounts.

I was like "Alright!!!"

So refreshing!!!

"THANK you, THANK you!" I thought.

So I decided to check out the origin of the video and I see the guy's Facebook page. (Visitors with Facebook accounts can see it right here.)

And I notice the name is Ahmed Bharoocha.

Now, mind you, I had never even heard of this comedian.

And I think "Wow. Ahmed. That's a Muslim name isn't it?"

To me this is a big deal, because I know that having your child circumcised is seen as a religious requirement not only for Jews, but also for Muslims.

I've gotta say, I admire this comedian for his bravery in openly admitting he left his own child intact and criticizing circumcision through his act.

So not only is this a North American man openly criticizing circumcision and leaving his own child intact, but a North American of Muslim background.

Good for this guy.

Even though he himself is circumcised, he decided this isn't something he wants to do to his son. Seeing this video and finding out about this man and his son made my day.

 

 Ahmed Bharoocha and Son

But you know, Ahmed isn't the first North American comedian I've heard openly talking about intactness and circumcision. Not too long ago, I saw another video clip by a guy named Andrew Schulz.

I don't know too much about this guy either, but that name "Schulz" sounds rather Jewish.

I can't be sure, though, so don't quote me on this.

Why would this be a big deal?

I imagine that if criticizing circumcision is difficult for anyone, it has got to be for a Jewish man, as male infant circumcision is seen as divine commandment for Jewish people.

But who knows, maybe he's not even Jewish.

It's still a big deal, because male infant circumcision is ingrained in American culture.

I'm going to post a transcription of the above clip here, because I think it's just awesome.

"I heard this girl say 'I would never hook up with a guy with an uncircumcised penis.'

I was like 'You *do* know what a pussy looks like, right?'

A pussy looks like a bucket of foreskin, that's what a pussy looks like.

How DARE she say 'Ah, uh, it's this little extra skin at the top.'

'You got a JELLYFISH floppin' between YOUR legs... Never complained about THAT...'

We LOVE your vaginas. Both types.

That's the sound of a room full of women sayin' 'There's two types of vaginas? What type of vagina do I have?'

I'll let you decide; there's two.

One are the 'innies,' right?

Those are the ones that are, they're all tucked in, they look like a, like a... like a pork bun. All tucked in and neat...

Like if they could talk, they'd be like, real bashful.

They'd be like 'What are we doing? I don't even know you! Okay!'

And then there are the 'outies,' right?

And those are the ones that look like someone took a picture if it on a roller coaster...

'Ah!!!!!' Burble burble burble...

That shit's floppin' around for no reason... Is this a vagina or a balled up fruit roll-up? WTF is going on? I love fruit roll-ups, though, so it's not a problem for me."

 

Yes, yes, YES!

Finally someone's saying it!

Yes, it looks like the culture is finally changing...

This reminds me of that whole Taylor Swift/ Harry Styles breakup.

Women are always balking at intact penises, it's about time people start talking about intact vaginas.

Related Posts:

Harry Styles Says "No" To Taylor Swift

CIRCUMCISION BOTCHES: Colombia and Malaysia

Colombian boy left in a vegetative state after a circumcision

It seems that recently, reports of circumcision botches are coming to light all over the world.

Just a few days ago, on January 17th, there was a report on a Colombian news show, 90 Minutos, about a child who was left in a vegetative state when he was circumcised 3 years ago.

The mother is trying to press charges on the doctor who has been since, nowhere to be found.

Not much detail is given about the boy's necessity to be circumcised, only that this was supposed to be an outpatient procedure, and that apparently, the doctor used too much anesthetic.

The YouTube video can be seen here:

It is not clear whether there was an actual medical indication, but given the recent history of circumcision, where doctors give phony excuses to circumcise healthy children, it may be possible that there was in fact none.

Another botch also made news reports earlier, this time in Malaysia.

According to Nation, 3 cases of botched circumcisions have come to light, and the Health Ministry is urging the child's parents to take the cases to court.

In South-East Asian countries like Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei, etc., both boys and girls are circumcised as a matter of religious course, as genital cutting is seen as religious sacrament there due Islam.

Unlike in America, boys in Muslim countries tend to be circumcised at later ages instead of as newborns.

According to one Dr. Subramaniam, "Hundreds of thousands of circumcisions were carried out every year in the country and that minor complications were bound to happen, but there were never any serious cases like these, even when traditional methods were widely used."

One of the victims, a 10-year-old boy, has to use a catheter and a urine bag after suffering severe damage to his penis. A portion of the boy’s private parts was severed by an assistant medical officer at a mass circumcision ceremony at a surau in Sungai Buloh on Nov 25.

The bleeding could not be stopped and the victim was rushed to Hospital Selayang.

The doctors were unable to reattach the head of the boy’s penis, which had already turned black.

The boy was then sent to a private hospital and underwent three surgeries, which were also unsuccessful.

In a different case, a nine-year-old boy had the glans of his penis severed during a circumcision at a private clinic in Jalan Ipoh on Dec 15.

And five days later, a 10-year-old boy lost the head of his penis as he was undergoing laser circumcision at a Taman Cheras Utama clinic.

The YouTube video for this report can be seen here:

It must be noted that both male and female circumcision are an ingrained part of the culture in South-East Asia.

These are cultures who, like America, should be used to this custom, and whose doctors, having done thousands of circumcisions, should be assumed to be well-trained.

In cases like these, circumcision advocates like to chant the old adage "Well if the circumcisions were performed by trained professionals, this wouldn't happen."

I don't think there could be any better trained professionals to do this than those who do it thousands of time for a living.

And they STILL happen.

It happens to trained doctors in America (The AAP gives a complication rate of 2%. What's 2% of 1.3 million babies a year?), it happens to Jewish mohels, it happens in the hospital, it happens when using the best equipment.

And the question must be repeated; how is this conscionable considering that circumcision is non-medical surgery, performed on healthy, non-consenting minors?

These are healthy children with no medical need for surgery we're talking about.

How is the complication rate anything above ZERO???

Instead of questioning the method, the persons who did it, where it was done, what setting, age, sex, WHATEVER, why aren't we questioning the need to circumcise ITSELF???

These children are going to suffer for the rest of their lives.

All for needless genital cutting.

Circumcision has risks.

The risks include infection, partial or full ablation, hemorrhage and even death.

Are these worth it for non-medical surgery?

For "benefits" already easily attainable through non-surgical means?

Related Posts:

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: This Time in Russia

FACEBOOK: KENTUCKY - Botched Circumcision Gives Newborn Severe UTI

FACEBOOK: Circumcision Sends Another Child to NICU - This Time in LA 

GEORGIA: Circumcision Sends a Baby to the NICU

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: This Time in Italy

FACEBOOK NEWS FEED: A Complication and a Death

INTACTIVISTS: Why We Concern Ourselves

MALE INFANT CIRCUMCISION: Another Baby Boy Dies

CIRCUMCISION: Another Baby Dies

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Yet Another One (I Hate Writing These)

Another Circumcision Death Comes to Light

 CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Yes, Another One - This Time in Israel

 FACEBOOK: Two Botches and a Death

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

ONTARIO CIRCUMCISION DEATH: The Plot Thickens

Joseph4GI: The Circumcision Blame Game

 

Phony Phimosis: How American Doctors Get Away With Medical Fraud 

FACEBOOK: Two More Babies Nearly Succumb to Post Circumcision Hemorrhage

 

FACEBOOK: Another Circumcision Mishap - Baby Hemorrhaging After Circumcision

 

What Your Dr. Doesn't Know Could Hurt Your Child

 

FACEBOOK: Child in NICU After Lung Collapses During Circumcision

 

EMIRATES: Circumcision Claims Another Life

 

BabyCenter Keeping US Parents In the Dark About Circumcision

 

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC: Circumcision Claims Another Life

 

TEXAS: 'Nother Circumcision Botch

FGM NEWS: Gynecologysts Urge a "Nick" as Compromise for FGM

As of 1996, federal law condemns the forced cutting of female genitals in any way, shape or form, and there is no exemption for any form of female genital cutting for religious purposes.

Even the smallest "ritual nick" constitutes "female genital mutilation" (FGM) under the law, and it is a punishable criminal offense.

In contrast, male infant circumcision can be freely performed by anyone, from a doctor with a scalpel, to a parent wielding an X-acto knife. The arguments are that parents have "parental choice," and/or "religious freedom" to cut off their child's foreskin.

For whatever reason "parental choice" as an excuse to cut up a child's genitals seems to be privilege bestowed upon parents, only if their religion is Judaism, and/or only if the child is male.

If you happen to be Muslim and you believe your religious beliefs command you to cut up your daughter, or if you happen to be a parent from Africa, whose tribe dictates that female members must undergo some sort of genital cutting ritual, you're out of luck.

But a couple of gynecologists have just published a paper in the Journal of Medical Ethics urging for compromise, proposing what they call a "nick."

The argument is that this could be a substitute for "more severe" forms of FGM.

Several news sources have already started weighing in on the matter.

Perhaps thanks to intactivism, the comparison of female genital cutting and female genital cutting is becoming almost compulsory in news outlets, if but only to insist that there actually be no comparison.

On some news articles, the authors seem to have forgotten the history of male circumcision in this country, or simply didn't bother to check.

And then, almost as if by clockwork, the obligatory reference to the WHO or AAP giving their non-committal endorsement of male circumcision is made, forgetting the fact that, at least in the case of the WHO, male circumcision is endorsed on males who voluntarily comply to be circumcised, which is slightly different than forcibly performing ritual cutting on a non-consenting minor.

From the CNN article:

"...all forms of FGM are rooted in the control of female sexuality. Male circumcision has its roots in cultural and religious practices involved in enforcing cleanliness, practices that have since been validated by the World Health Organization and the American Academy of Pediatrics."

Actually, male genital cutting, or "circumcision" as the authors prefer to euphemize it here, has roots in cultural and religious practices involved in attempting to curb masturbation in males, and to make them "more focused on god." The "validation," if one can even call it that, is a relatively recent phenomenon.

What is the implication here?

That it's merely a matter of changing the motives?

That if those who wished to perform female genital cutting would do it under pretense of "cleanliness," it would be more acceptable?

And why are the WHO and AAP invoked here?

I think it is interesting that they do; is the difference between female genital cutting and male genital cutting really whether or not the WHO and/or AAP "validate" it?

Or would female genital cutting be morally reprehensible regardless?

Incidentally, it seems organizations like the WHO and AAP are precisely the kind of people they're trying to woo.

These women better be careful what they wish for, or they just might get it.

Newsweek has this to say on the matter:

"Despite being perceived as a practice linked to Islam, FGM is a cultural practice that has no basis in religion. No religious texts prescribe FGM, according to the World Health Organization (WHO), while Human Rights Watch says the practice is “erroneously linked” to religion and “is not particular to any religious faith."

This is rather ballsy to be dictating people's beliefs, is it not?

The religiosity of male infant genital cutting seems to be off limits as a discussion point.

The WHO and HRW, however, will not hesitate to dictate what the beliefs of those who practice female genital cutting will be.

To be sure, the Qur'an makes no mention of either male or female genital cutting as a religious sacrament.

Female genital cutting, along with male genital cutting is, however, discussed in Hadith:

Abu Hurayrah said: I heard the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) say: “The fitrah is five things – or five things are part of the fitrah – circumcision, shaving the pubes, trimming the moustache, cutting the nails and plucking the armpit hairs.”Bukhari 5891; Muslim 527

(Note that gender is not specified.)

Abu al- Malih ibn `Usama's father relates that the Prophet said: "Circumcision is a law for men and a preservation of honour for women."
Ahmad Ibn Hanbal 5:75; Abu Dawud, Adab 167.

Narrated Umm Atiyyah al-Ansariyyah: A woman used to perform circumcision in Medina. The Prophet (peace be upon him) said to her: Do not cut severely as that is better for a woman and more desirable for a husband.
Abu Dawud 41:5251

So note, women should be cut, just not "severely."

Well. At least according to Hadith.

So the claims that "no religious texts prescribe FGM" and that it is "erroneously linked" to religion, and "not particular to any religious faith" are wishful thinking and categorically false.

The question is, however, does it really matter?

Dr. Gillian Einstein is on to something.

This is an excerpt from the article at Global News:

“I think there’s a confusion over who controls the practice. So it’s women who control the practice, not men,” she said. 

“The practice itself does give women a lot of power. And so figuring out other sources of power is a culture change, and I think cultures that have thought about it from that perspective had been a lot more successful in changing the practice.”

Who controls the practice of male genital cutting?

Who would necessarily feel "power" by practicing it?

If males used this model of "power," what would stop females from the same society from adopting the same principle, only on their daughters, as fathers and male members with their sons?

Sadly Adwoa Kwateng-Kluvitse, head of global advocacy at the charity FORWARD, which campaigns against FGM in Africa and Europe, repeats falsehoods to serve her own ends:

“This is very different to male circumcision. With male circumcision there is no intention to attenuate sexual desire, control sexuality or enforce chastity.”

No, these were precisely the goals of John Harvey Kellogg and Sylvester Graham, the champions of male genital cutting in America.

Rabbi Maimonides tells us that desensitizing the male organ was precisely the purpose of male genital cutting as this would make its owner focused on more important things, like god and religious scripture.

This bold-faced, self-serving revision of history is appalling.

Arianne Shahvisi, a lecturer in medical ethics at Britain’s University of Sussex, drives home the point that "It comes down to women and girls being able to have a say in what happens to their bodies. One must not cause irreversible changes to the body of another person without their consent."

This is precisely our argument as intactivists.

Aurora and Jacobs, the authors of the paper advocating for the "nick" are actually inadvertently helping intactivists.

How?

They're actually coming out and admitting on a published journal that there are forms of female genital cutting that are less severe than male genital cutting as commonly practiced in the US and elsewhere.

An excerpt from Raw Story:

Arora and Jacobs have proposed new sub-categories of genital cutting.

Category One would entail procedures with no long-lasting effect on the appearance or function of the genitalia, such as a “small nick” in the skin.

Procedures under Category Two may affect appearance, but not reproductive capacity or sexual enjoyment, they said. This could include removing the “hood” or skin-fold covering the clitoris or trimming the labia (labiaplasty).

The first two categories, they said, should be reclassified as female genital “alteration” (FGA) rather than “mutilation”.

“These procedures are equivalent or less extensive than male circumcision in procedure, scope and effect,” they wrote.

“Indeed, they are equivalent or less extensive than orthodontia, breast implantation or even the elective labiaplasty for which affluent women pay thousands of dollars.”

It took long enough, but finally people, notably women, in the academic field, are actually coming out and saying it.

This has all happened before.

Not too long ago, the AAP also tried to endorse a "ritual nick."

The arguments were identical; allow a less-severe form of female genital cutting, even less severe than male genital cutting as practiced in the west, in lieu of more severe forms.

The move was short-lived, as a world outcry caused them to renege.

Aurora and Jacobs go a step further and play the name game.

"Call it alteration instead," they say.

Does calling it something else really change what it is?

A forced, permanent violation of another, unwilling person's body?

The forced cutting up of a healthy, non-consenting person's most private, most intimate organs?

Should there be a compromise?

I think readers already know what my position on the subject is.

I'll end this one here and let you ponder for yourselves.

Related Posts:

Politically Correct Research: When Science, Morals and Political Agendas Collide

Male and Female Infant Circumcision: Which One is Worse?

Circumcision is Child Abuse: A Picture Essay

AFGHANISTAN: A Soldier's Tale Challenges Circumcision Allegations

A friend of mine posted the following on his Facebook wall:

"My coworker, a 32 year old, intact, Hispanic male who has two intact boys, is against circumcision and is serving as a 2nd Lieutenant in the US Army recently returned from his deployment to Afghanistan.

Being that he knows I'm an intactivist, I asked him a few questions regarding their Muslim culture. He was stationed in the Zabul province of Afghanistan. He told me that the area where he was stationed reeked of feces, sweat, and sewer. The people in the area are very poor, lack adequate facilities for proper hygiene, and yes, defecate outside. He mentioned that there were small oases where men would bathe completely nude in groups using their hands to scoop up the water, which was everyone's previous wash. I asked him if he knew what these tribal, circumcised Muslim men thought about intact penises. To my complete surprise and shock, he said that all the Muslim men there were intact. I pushed a little more and asked how he knew for certainty. He said that he'd see them bathe every day and that it was clear that all were intact men. Since this soldier worked with the medical team, I asked him how many men presented with issues relating to their foreskins being that this is a sandy area. His answer? None. He mentioned that if anything women had more complaints regarding UTIs due to improper hygiene than all the men combined.

So as you can see, a man can live in complete squalor while lacking basic resources and hygiene and still have very few to no problems with his foreskin.

What do you think?"

I must say, I'm rather surprised and shocked to hear about this myself.

If this story is correct, then circumcision isn't universal among Muslims, as circumcision advocates would like others to believe. This account also puts the lie to the myths that men with anatomically correct genitals are prone to problems in the desert, and that having a foreskin makes hygiene difficult, making men prone to problems, not to mention the allegation that circumcision is a requirement for American military.

A sheathed glans and meatus is better in sandy and dusty conditions than a bare one, because the foreskin helps protect the glans and urethra. Additionally, ensuring transudated natural moisture and emollients are retained on the mucosal surfaces of the penis is optimal for dry and/or cold conditions. There simply isn't a situation in which having anatomically correct genitals isn't preferable. The preputial space just isn't the Petri dish of pathogens that circumcision advocates would like others to believe, all of this is in addition to the fact that the foreskin is highly functional tissue in its own right.

Related Links:
The Sand Myth: "He Might Have to Fight in the Desert"

Germany "Protects" the Forced Genital Mutilation of Boys

"For the right to circumcise little boys."

Well, it appears that Germany chose to cave to political blackmail and pass a law to "protect" the so-called "religious right" to take a child and mutilate his genitals.

I've already commented on this before, so instead of repeating myself, I'm just going to dissect a Reuters' article reporting this turn of events, since they're not publishing comments.

"The ban - imposed on the grounds that circumcision amounted to "bodily harm" - triggered an emotional debate over the treatment of Jews and other religious minorities, a sensitive subject in a country still haunted by its Nazi past," begins the article.

The Cologne ruling was not mistaken; unless there are medical indications, circumcision DOES amount to bodily harm, and the boy involved in the ruling was one of many cases in point.

What's interesting is that one bodily harm, circumcision, is being defended by alluding to the bodily harm German Nazis imposed on Jews. A bit of an oxymoron. "Shame on Germany for wanting to protect children from bodily harm; remember what they did to Jews sixty years ago." (?)
 
"The outcry prompted Germany's centre-right government and opposition parties to draw up legislation confirming the practice was legal - overruling the decision by a court in the western city of Cologne."



As if the legality of forced genital mutilation on minors was something to confirm. I'm afraid German Common Law is rather clear on this, as are the laws of many other industrialized nations. Germany's government was faced between upholding its Common Law, and divorcing themselves from Nazi labels.

"The new law passed by an overwhelming majority in Bundestag lower house said the operation could be carried out, as long as parents were informed about the risks."

This may actually be a light at the end of the tunnel for human rights activists; ultra-orthodox rabbis in New York are fighting to keep the City from passing a law that demands precisely this.

Still, Germany would never allow female circumcision "as long as parents were informed about the risks."

"Jewish groups welcomed the move."

In New York, Jewish groups are fighting to keep the city from requiring them to inform parents about the risks, as this is seen as an "infringement of  their religious freedoms."

"This vote and the strong commitment shown ... to protect this most integral practice of the Jewish religion is a strong message to our community for the continuation and flourishing of Jewish life in Germany," said Moshe Kantor, President of the European Jewish Congress.

 Jewish life, yes. Muslim life? Only if your child is male; some Muslims see female circumcision as "an integral practice of the Jewish religion." Take a look at what's happening in South East Asia;
 the Malaysian Health Ministry wants to medicalize female genital cutting.

Germany's Catholic Bishops Conference said it hoped the bill would help safeguard religious freedoms. No comment was immediately available from the country's Central Council of Muslims.



SOME religious freedoms. Actually, only this particular "religious freedom" as it applies to healthy, non-consenting boys.

Does the new law protect these "religious freedoms?"

A father slashes his child's head for the Holy Day of Ashura

Muslim women perform "sunat" (ritual genital cutting) on a girl

Child marriage in India

"PAIN MINIMISED
The May ruling centered on the case of a Muslim boy who bled after the procedure and the ban only applied to the area around Cologne."

But this forced lawmakers to consider a change in the law, as, actually, the Cologne ruling reinforces German Common Law.

"But some doctors in other parts of Germany started refusing to carry out circumcisions, saying it was unclear whether they would face prosecution."

Actually, they stopped because it was rather clear to THEM that they would.

"Under the new law, a doctor or trained expert must conduct the operation and children must endure as little pain as possible, which means an anesthetic should be used. The procedure cannot take place if there is any doubt about the child's health."

No such provisions and exceptions exist for female genital cutting.

Female genital cutting is always wrong, and it doesn't matter if a doctor or a "trained expert" conducts the ceremony, and that the children "endure as little pain as possible."

For most other surgery as performed by doctors and physicians, surgery is performed AS A RESULT of a doubt in the child's health. i.e., there is medical necessity that prompts it. This seems to be the only case where a child must be HEALTHY to undergo surgery.


"Justice Minister Sabine Leutheusser-Schnarrenberger said no other country in the world country had made the religious circumcision of boys an offence."

Plenty of laws to make religious circumcision of girls an offence though...

"In our modern and secular state, it is not the job of the state to interfere in children's' upbringing," she said.

Except if the child is a girl, I'm sure.

Child welfare group Deutsche Kinderhilfe disagreed, saying the government had "(pushed) through the legalization of the ritual of genital circumcision ... against the advice of child right campaigners and the medical profession."


And they are right.

This is purely a political move, and everybody knows it.

German Common Law is rather clear on this matter, and the Cologne Ruling serves to make it even clearer. German lawmakers are choosing to look the other way because they fear Nazi labels.

All double-standards, self-contradiction and beating around the bush. Let's see how this move plays out, as it flies in the face of Germany's Common Law. Special pleading. What's next? "Protecting" female circumcision? Sharia Law to appease the Muslims?

I've asked before; how far are "parental rights" and "religious freedoms" protected?

As long as doing so doesn't label you Nazi, it seems.

Closing Remarks
Most of what I have to say on this matter I've already done so on past post, but I wanted to copy and paste the closing remarks here.

Intactivists, do not despair; to those of you who do, you should have this coming. We shouldn't despair when politicians with agendas change the laws to appease voters and preserve popularity. Laws don't change anything. They never do. In a social movement, laws are the very last thing to change. What we need to work on is changing people's attitudes. Female circumcision was swimmingly outlawed because our country already viewed the practice with disdain. History shows us that laws reflect social change, not bring it about. And, it looks like, judging by news articles and reports, the fact that more and more people are openly talking about the practice, the very fact that it's being questioned in courts, change is already happening.

Do not despair, and keep educating. More and more people listen every day.

 "Truth suppress'd, whether by courts or crooks, will find an avenue to be told"

~Sheila Steele

 "Do nothing secretly; for Time sees and hears all things, and discloses all"

~Sophocles

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




Related Post:
The Cologne Ruling and the Limitations of Religious Freedom