Joseph4GI: Judaism

Showing posts with label Judaism. Show all posts

Wednesday, December 15, 2021

RABBI ANDREW SACKS - Intact Boys Born to Jewish Mothers are Jewish

Who is Jewish?

What is Jewish?

Well, as a goy (what racist Jews call non-Jews), I would think it would be as simple as, if your parents are Jewish, then you're Jewish too.

If your dad is white and your mom is Chinese, then you're half white and half Chinese. You have double-heritage.

If your dad is Jewish and your mom isn't, or vice-versa, then you're at least half-Jewish.

But of course, it isn't as simple as that.

Being Jewish, it seems, is more than just being born to parents who are descendants of one of the twelve tribes of Israel.

Is Jewish a religion or is it an ethnic group?

At one point it used to be one and the same; people who were Jewish followed Judaism, but nowadays things aren't so clear cut, pardon the pun.

If I'm following correctly, anyone can convert now.

If you're male, go get circumcised by a rabbi (EECH.), get his blessing and you're Jewish now.

If you're a woman, a rabbi blesses you and you're now Jewish.

And therefore your children are Jewish, if we look at Halakhic law.

Pardon my racism, but this creates a whole ethnic mess.

It muddies the waters.

In any other case you can't just be "blessed" into an ethnicity.

No matter how hard I try, I can never be Irish. Or Danish. Or Chinese. I am who I am.

My DNA makeup is what it is, and there is nothing I can do to change this, so it is difficult for me to conceive of just anyone "converting" to Judaism, "becoming" a Jew.

Who is Jewish?

I'm not Jewish, I can't speak, really, but in MY book, someone who is "truly" Jewish can trace their lineage to, well, actual Jews.

One of the 12 tribes.

My goyism aside, it's refreshing to see an actual rabbi from Israel setting the record straight.

I just saw the following video on Facebook and I thought it was relevant to share here:

(Last visible as of 12/16/2021)

Rabbi Andrew Sacks, Director of the Rabbinical Assembly of the Conservative movement in Israel says that there is no question that Jewish males who have not been circumcised are fully Jewish and, further, they can participate fully in synagogue and ritual life, including bar mitzvah.

Sacks reiterates what I've always known; that a person is Jewish by virtue of having a Jewish mother.

(Does this include converts? Can a Japanese couple suddenly birth a Jewish baby if the mother decides to convert to Judaism?)

I appreciate the inclusion, but the man is still adamant that the "tradition" be continued.

Furthermore, he comments on what I am almost certain is not his area of expertise; he's a rabbi. Why is he commenting on "medical benefits?" "Benefits" that are contested and fail to manifest in the United States where we have the highest rates of STDs, including HIV, even though 80% of male are circumcised from birth?

But hey, at the very least Brit Shalom and the existence of intact Jewish males is being acknowledged.

External Link:

Bruchim Online - Leading Israeli Rabbi: Jewish Males to be Included Regardless of Circumcision Status

Wednesday, June 30, 2021

Mohel Uses Pride Month to Shamelessly Plug on Facebook

I get it.

Intactivists face an uphill battle.

You’re not going to convince a Jewish mohel to stop mutilating baby boys anymore than you’re going to convince a Malaysian imam to stop mutilating baby girls.

Yes, traditions die hard, and really, short of stomping our feet, there is nothing we can do to stop an intrepid adherent of a violent religion intent on carrying out his faith.

It’s not illegal, at least yet, and as long as they can get away with it, cutters gonna cut.

And hey. Mohels gotta eat too.

I get it.

I should point out that up until 2018, there was a federal ban on female genital mutilation (was), and for a while, yes, you could face federal charges for mutilating a girl, without religious exemption. This is the way it is in many Western countries.

Thanks to the naturalization of male genital mutilation in this country though, mohels get a pass. It is my speculation that this shield of protection from criticism and scrutiny is a big reason why Jewish “researchers” help put out “studies” saying circumcision “prevents disease,” why Jewish doctors in American medical organizations protect it by codifying it in medical policy, and Jewish lawmakers block any measure condemning the practice.

But here is something I don’t get.

Scrolling down my Facebook feed, I see that some mohel actually took the opportunity of Pride Month to push his business.

I’m not Jewish, never could be, thank my lucky stars I wasn’t born to Jewish parents. But, is it just me, or is this not just a little bit hypocritical?

On the one hand, we have this mohel, and he wouldn’t be the first, plugging his business of infant genital mutilation, preaching to the Jewish gay community that they ought to have their children mutilated to fulfill religious obligation. Genesis and all that.

But on the other hand, if I recall correctly, Jewish gays are already in trouble with Adonai, as they are an abomination who should be “put to death.”

Like, am I missing something?

Adonai wants you dead, but you still need to fulfill your religious obligation to have any male children you adopt, mutilated.

The same guy who is morally obligated to kill you wants you to pay him to mutilate your baby boy.

How does that make any sense?

How are these two things reconciled?

We’ve all heard it before.

The rationale goes something like this:

“Well, it’s the 20th century, and obviously there are things in the Torah we just don’t do this day and age. We no longer sell our daughters into slavery nor do we sacrifice bulls at the altar.”

And this is exactly right.

There are things we just don’t do this day and age.

So then the bigger question is, why even circumcise children as a religious obligation in the first place?

Things change.

And thankfully so.

Some Jewish families are opting for a bris shalom instead of a mutilation ritual that may or may not result in the child losing his penis, getting infected with herpes or bleeding to death. (Google these things. Herpes is exclusively a risk of ultra orthodox Jewish circumcision.)

This is 2021.

Why is this still happening?

It’s hypocritical cringe to see this mohel shamelessly trying to capitalize on Pride Month to shamelessly plug his business of infant genital mutilation.

Like how do you announce your business of the “sacred and ancient tradition” to Jewish gays, the very people the sacred and ancient Torah says god hates and should be put to death? On Pride Month?

Am I the only one who sees the audacity of a mohel reminding Jewish gays they have an obligation to uphold?

“The Torah says you’re an abomination to Adonai and that you should be put to death. But bring me your male babies so that I may mutilate them as the sacred and ancient Torah says.”

It just doesn’t compute.

Don’t get me wrong.

I think it’s abhorrent that there are actually people dedicated to the business of child ritual mutilation in and of itself.

Plugging to the very people your holy book says you’re obliged to kill is on a whole ‘nother level.

The wording is so audacious!

“Every Jew who requires a bris whether for themselves or their children, regardless of gender identity or orientation deserves equal access to the sacred and ancient tradition.”

All the progressive buzz words are included here.

How do you “require” a bris for someone other than yourself?

He’s just not going to mention that little fact that, HELLO, if you’re gay, Adonai thinks you’re an abomination that should be put to death?

What if you or your child identify as female? Would he then not be committing female genital mutilation?

What does the Torah have to say about trans folk with top and bottom surgery?

Here. I can help.

Love the nod to “equity.”

“Equal access to the sacred and ancient tradition.”

What would we say about an imam or African shaman offering “equal access” to female genital mutilation?

And what do Jewish LGBT folk who take their children to this guy to have them mutilated hope to achieve?

Some sort of redemption?

Having your male children mutilated hoping Adonai will forgive you for being gay or trans just adds a whole ‘nother level of cringe.

This whole thing stinks any way you look at it.

In the end it’s just another entrepreneur capitalizing on Pride Month to push his business of infant genital mutilation.

The way he’s trying to frame this “sacred and ancient tradition” as “progressive” and “equitable” to push it on Jewish gays, but more importantly, at the expense of baby boys is absolutely despicable.

Jewish LGBT folk, the Torah already says Adonai hates you and you should be put to death.

If you’re going to dismiss passages that call for the end of your existence as just “a relic of times past,” you might as well opt for a bris shalom.

I’m sure you condemn parents trying to give conversion therapy to their children. Why would you force a covenant your child can’t even comprehend on them? If you respect their autonomy, their identity, their bodies and their choice to do what they want in life, you won’t do this.

What an absolutely shameless plug by a guy whose business is infant genital mutilation.

Pro-Circumcision Jewish LGBTs - The Height of Hypocrisy?

Jews Circumcising Adopted Children

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

Intactivism: It's Not Just for Gentiles Anymore

External Link:

Wikipedia entry on Brit Shalom

Sunday, May 23, 2021

“Doctor at your Door” Facebook User Feels Intactivist Heat

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

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

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

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

She also decided to post this little gem:

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

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

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

A quote by Upton Sinclair comes to mind:

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

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

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

"Dr. Carole Gedenberg" appears instead.

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

Why is this important?

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

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

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

She can't.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Isn't it.

Such dishonesty.

I wouldn't want her at my door.

I close with my mission statement:

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

The foreskin is not "extra skin." The foreskin is normal, natural, healthy, functioning tissue, present in all males at birth; it is as intrinsic to male genitalia as labia are to female genitalia.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

UPDATE:

Apparently she posted this elsewhere as well:

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

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

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

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

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

Related Posts:
The Circumcision Blame Game

Intactivism: It's Not Just for Gentiles Anymore

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

The "Anti-Semite" Card No Longer Washes

Edgar Schoen Showing His Age

UNITED STATES: Infant Circumcision Fails as STI Prophylaxis

Where Circumcision Doesn't Prevent HIV II

PHIMOSIS: Lost Knowledge Missing In American Medicine

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

Circumcision Botches and the Elephant in the Room

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

"Doctor At Your Door" Homepage

Carole Keim, MD's Linked In Page

Men Do Complain Webpage

BBC News: My Son Killed Himself After Circumcision

BBC News: Circumcision - My Penis Causes Me Constant Pain

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

Saturday, May 22, 2021

Jews Circumcising Adopted Children

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

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

At any rate, I ran across this on Facebook:

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

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

Look.

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

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

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

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

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

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

I've written a post about this.

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

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

I know that Jewish people speak out with us.

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

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

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

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

Like an elephant in the room.

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

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

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

Genital mutilation is wrong.

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

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

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

Fine.

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

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

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

OK, I get it.

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

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

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

These children are yearning to be taken in and loved.

NOT TAKEN IN AND HAVE THEIR GENITALS MUTILATED.

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

This is just wrong on so many levels.

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

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

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

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

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

I'll fucking own it.

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

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

Those who mutilate foster children ought to face severe punishment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

This is reality in the US.

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

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

And this is horrifying.

This is what's next.

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

We need to decide right here and now.

What matters more?

The basic human rights of the child?

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

What about the child's religious freedom?

The website "My Jewish Learning" says:

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

THEY CAN'T REJECT THE GENITAL MUTILATION.

THIS IS THE BIGGEST PROBLEM WITH "CONVERTING CHILDREN."

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

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

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

This is wrong in more ways than one.

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

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

EDIT:

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

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

I wish this weren't so.

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

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

~Joseph4GI

Jewish LGBT Leaders Against SF Circ Ban - Ignorance or Hypocrisy?

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

The "Anti-Semite" Card No Longer Washes

Edgar Schoen Showing His Age

Circumcision is Child Abuse: A Picture Essay

So Where's the "Sunat Party?"

External Links:

Female circumcision part of Malaysian culture, says DPM

My Jewish Learning: Converting Infants and Children

Monday, April 19, 2021

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

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

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

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

In the words of one person:

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

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

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

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

Even if you "can't remember," it's still there, reminding you every day.

Even if he can't actually remember, the scar is there day in and day out to remind him for the rest of his life.

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

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

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

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

Male infant genital mutilation jokes need to stop.

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

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

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

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

Male infant circumcision is not unique to Judaism; in the US, 80% of males are circumcised, only 0.6% or so who are Jews circumcised at a bris. It's disingenuous to paint criticism of male infant circumcision as "an attack on Jews and Judaism" when it has become such an ingrained part of American culture.
This day and age, not all Jewish men are circumcised, and not all Jewish families circumcise their children. Some of the most outspoken people in our movement happen to be Jewish. Alternative ceremonies exist, such as the Bris Shalom, for families choosing to forgo the ritual cutting. I myself am an appreciator of Jewish tradition, music and culture.
If I'm pointing something out, it's not out of hate for Jewish people, it's out of disdain for the forced genital cutting of minors and the violation of the most basic of human rights.

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

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

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

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

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

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

And who could forget Robin Hood: Men in Tights?

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

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

I think I can understand why; self-preservation.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I want readers to note the stark contrast and double-standards with which we judge male and female genital cutting. "Religion, custom and tradition" justify only male infant circumcision. The "little snip" narrative disappears when comparing the flesh removed side by side. Religious doctors attempting to clothe their tradition and religious believes can't pass muster this day and age. But yet, no one seems to think it's a problem when "studies" showing the "benefits" if male infant circumcision and medical policy based on them are written by adherents of a religion where male infant circumcision is seen as divine commandment.

"I circumcised him myself on my parents’ kitchen table
on the eighth day of his life. But I did it for religious,
not medical reasons. I did it because I had 3,000 years
of ancestors looking over my shoulder."
~Dr. Andrew Freedman, AAP Circumcision Taskforce 2012

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

Screenwriter Daniel Barnz is no exception.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fantasy.

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

So what's the message here?

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

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

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

"Doesn't being uncircumcised mean dick cheese? Tee hee..."
"Isn't everyone circumcised?"
"No, they don't do it in France. But that's because they like stinky cheese."

That's not a direct transcription; I really don't want to watch this again to get the exact quotes, but the joke went something along these lines.

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

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

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

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

See how that's not funny?

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

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

Could you imagine the outrage???

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

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

We do not body-shame people.

We do not attack an entire ethnic group.

We do not joke about male infant genital mutilation.

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

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

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

The whole reason male infant circumcision continues in this country is because we treat the issue of male infant circumcision with kid gloves. Nobody wants to criticize male infant circumcision because once you do, you're Hitler. So when Jewish comedy authors write circumcision jokes, the correct response is to laugh. Maybe nervously, but yes, you must laugh. Or else. Or at least not mention the fact that joking about this makes one uncomfortable.

When authors of medical literature to the effect that circumcision prevents Ebola virus just happen to be Jewish, no-one better point out that conflict of interest, you Nazi.The lynchpin preventing male infant circumcision from being stricken from American medicine for the elective, non-medical mutilation that it is, is Holocaust guilt and the fear of being perceived as an anti-Semite. People are afraid to point out the confirmation bias in medical literature written by Jewish authors because that is "anti-Semitic." And this lynchpin is held in place by this steady drizzle of Jewish circumcision humor in American media.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We would NEVER allow the medicalization of FGM.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Genital mutilation is no joke. ~Christopher Hitchens

DISCLAIMER:
The views I express in this blog are my own individual opinion, and they do not necessarily reflect the views of all intactivists. I am but an individual with one opinion, and I do not pretend to speak for the intactivist movement as a whole, thank you.
~Joseph4GI

PLANNED PARENTHOOD: Mutilated is the New "Normal"