TEXAS: UTMB Debates the "Pros, Cons and Contexts of Male Circumcision"

It's been a while since I've been able to sit down and blog. I plan to sit down at some point and tackle some very important subjects. I've been holding off on the Colorado saga because I think it merits time and consideration. But for now, I wanted to comment on a so-called "symposium" that's happening at the Univeristy of Texas.

So according to the Daily News, the University of Texas Medical Branch is hosting a symposium titled "Cutting Edge Debate: Pros, Cons and Contexts of Male Circumcision."

It's always a good thing for conversation regarding circumcision to be happening, as, up until recently, it was a very taboo subject. But I wonder whether this will actually be a worthy symposium, or merely a meditation session for those who chant the "infant circumcision has medical benefits, and therefore a religious freedom and a parental right" mantra.

"Is male circumcision a medical procedure or a ritual? Why is it important religiously and historically? Should it be performed, and if so, how should it be performed?", begins the Daily News article. What about the ethics of performing amputative surgery on the genitals of a healthy, non-consenting child? Will those be addressed?

Given who is on the "panel of experts," I can only hope so. It includes a Jewish mohel "who is also a pediatrician." No direct conflicts of interest there. Then we have "two physicians with differing views on the ethical questions surrounding the performing of routine infant circumcision," one who happens to oversee the UTMB Pediatric Residency Training program in circumcision, the other who has actually stopped performing circumcisions because of the ethical concerns. So, in actuality, we have two physicians who are pro-circumcision (if you include the mohel) against the one with a differing view. I can already guess what the outcome of this "debate" will be.

Or what kind of a debate is it where a bunch of "experts," most of whom share the same beliefs, figuratively look under a rock and say "Hrm... No violation of medical ethics or basic human rights here..."?

The mohel/pediatrician will talk about "the place of circumcision in the Jewish tradition, the unique features of religious circumcision and his many years of experience performing the brit milah ritual with families throughout in the southwest region." And, as if this were of any importance, the Daily News article mentions "...he often is contacted by non-Jewish parents actively seeking out a mohel to perform circumcision on their sons. His discussion will include reasons some of these parents have shared with him for seeking a ritual circumcision instead of a purely clinical one."

Yes, because the context in which adults abuse a child makes all the difference...

Another panelist will talk about "a social and historical framework for thinking about the ritual of circumcision" as well as "larger contexts within which circumcision is performed and debated."

All in all, it sounds like the University of Texas Medical Branch wants to engage in what appears to be an "academic debate" regarding the forced circumcision of male infants.

But would there ever be an "academic debate" on the "Pros, Cons and Contexts of Female Circumcision?" Would Dr. Hatem Elhagaly, who happens to be an advocate for female genital cutting be allowed to be one of the panelists? Would we allow a pediatrician to proudly boast how many sunat procedures he's performed on baby girls? Could we have an "academic debate" and discuss the questions"Is [fe]male circumcision a medical procedure or a ritual? Why is it important religiously and historically? Should it be performed, and if so, how should it be performed?" Could we discuss "a social and historical framework for thinking about the ritual of circumcision" as well as "larger contexts within which circumcision is performed and debated?"

The answer is no, we would not.

The answer is, the forced genital cutting of female minors is seen as a violation of basic human rights, and we do not beat around the bush with "academic debate" and the "pros and cons" of female circumcision.

There would never be enough "research" or enough "medical benefits" to justify forced genital cutting in female minors, in any context, "medical" or "religious."

Bottom Line
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.

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

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.

When male infant genital mutilation is seen for the gross human rights violation that it is, the University of Texas will be among the guilty for perpetuating it in this country.

UGANDA: Circumcision Promoters Turn to Stigma and Misandry

It's something you would only expect to see on circumfetish websites like CircList.

But here it is in living color.

The level of sexism and ridicule that circumcision advocates are employing to get men in Africa to circumcise themselves is reaching new levels of absurdity.

The mixed messages and misinformation in this soundbite are horrendous.

First the sexism.

"A woman is entitled to cut penises; just the way she likes them," this poster seems to say.

An African woman has the power to refuse sex with a man unless he is circumcised; that is unless she is getting raped in Africa.

If she had a chance at getting her rapist to wear a condom, now she doesn't. Which means she's screwed in more ways than one.

What would be the world outcry if the poster was one of a man complaining of the circumcision status in a woman?

 This screen shot is from an actual video, visible here.

The creator of the next poster must seriously believe Ugandans are complete idiots:

Is Annette planning on having her husband cheat on her?

With an HIV+ partner?

Without a condom?

Is that what she's so "proud" of?

What chances of getting HIV do you have if you're faithful and use condoms?


"Stand proud," but get circumcised to please a woman that balks at your penis?

Because she can't trust you to keep your penis in your pants, let alone use a condom?

Really?

Way to tell a man to be proud of the man he is.

Way to tell him how much you trust him.

Should a woman sleep with a circumcised man regardless of his HIV status?

What if the man is intact, but knows he is HIV negative?

Should the woman still negate sex with him and demand he be circumcised?

Every day, we are told that women's bodies should be respected.

We hear that violence against women in Africa is a big problem.

So the solution is to encourage the disrespect, ridicule and genital mutilation of men?

In very tiny letters, one can barely read the disclaimer of this poster which reads:

"Even with circumcision, having sex without a condom puts you at great risk for contracting HIV/AIDS."

Even if you're married and faithful, apparently...

Which leaves one wondering, if you still have to wear a condom either way, then what's the fucking point?

What IS the point of these campaigns if not the disrespect, ridicule and abject humiliation of men with anatomically correct genitalia using a pseudo-medical front?

Would that "researchers" could produce "studies" that showed the "60% reduction of HIV transmission" in women who had their labia removed, would the WHO approve campaigns in Africa to encourage women to get labiaplasties?

Would you then see posters of men balking at anatomically correct female genitalia?

Because there are actually "studies" that show a "lowered risk," here, here, and here.

Somehow I doubt that even the most "convincing" of "studies" would ever be used to endorse posters like these stigmatizing women.

The circumcision/HIV charade is getting to be absurd.

Sooner or later the WHO is going to have to be held responsible for the endorsing genital mutilation and the disrespect and ridicule of males in Africa.

Never.

There would never be enough "research" or "studies" that could be used to justify the same poster with the sexual roles reversed.

African organizations ought to be ashamed for promoting misandry in the name of public health.

 Addition (5/19/2012):

A poster outside a clinic offering free government-funded circumcision.

You may as well forget about the rest of him; a dildo might do the job better.

Depicting African women as superficial idiotic airheads who have a fixation with genital cutting does not do African women any favors either.

Coming Soon:
The conclusion in Colorado.

COLORADO: Jewish Circumcision Protection Bill Moves Forward

It sounds very noble to proclaim that you are acting in the interests of "equality" and "public health." As a politician seeking to secure support, you can't go wrong with rambling on and on about "helping the poor."

It's dishonest and self-serving, however, to be claiming to be "helping the poor," when, in fact, you are actually only helping yourself.

Last year, Colorado became the 18th state to drop Medicaid coverage for routine infant circumcision. In response to this, Senator Joyce Foster introduced a bill to reinstate Medicaid coverage on the platforms of "disease prevention," "fairness," "social justice" and "parental choice."

These sound like noble causes, however they fall apart upon closer inspection. 

An Unfounded Position Against the Best Medical Authorities in the West
It certainly makes you appear to have a moral high ground to claim to want to provide society with something as basic as medicine and public health. Contrary-wise, it makes you a villain to want to deny the public, especially the poor, such a basic need. The dubious premise that sneaks past observers unnoticed is the assumption that having a foreskin is some sort of disease, circumcision is the one and only "cure," and cutting funding for it is a public disservice.

The question is, is circumcision an absolute medical necessity in healthy children, and should the taxpayer have to pay for it?

In reality, the trend of opinion on routine male circumcision is so overwhelmingly negative in industrialized nations that it would be quite surprising were male circumcision to be recommended in the United States. No respected medical organization in or outside the United States recommends circumcision for infants, not even in the name of HIV prevention. They must all point to the risks, and they must all state that there is no convincing evidence that the benefits outweigh these risks. To do otherwise would be to take an unfounded position against the best medical authorities of the West.

Medical bodies that agree that there is not enough evidence to recommend infant circumcision include the American Medical Association (AMA), the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP), the American Academy of Family Physicians (AAFP), the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), the College of Physicians and Surgeons of British Columbia, the Canadian Paediatric Society, the British Medical Association, the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, the Australasian Academy of Paediatric Surgeons, and the Royal Dutch Medical Association.

Senator Foster's platform appears to defy the whole of Western medicine.

The arguments of "fairness," "social justice" and "parental choice" collapse upon making this realization.

The purpose of Medicaid is to help pay for medically necessary procedures, not helping families that want non-medical procedures for their children keep up with the Joneses.


Joyce Foster's Arguments Fail to Mask her True Intentions
Despite trying to argue from a "social justice" platform, Foster can't seem to be able to keep her ulterior motives from spilling out. In the preliminary hearing for the bill, after getting served by her opposition, Foster feels the need to explain her conflict of interests:

"Let me clarify... I had my sons circumcised because it was a health issue and a religious issue."

In a recent article, she says:

"This bill will have absolutely nothing to do with the Jewish community of Colorado... [I am] most persuaded by the medical evidence." ("Evidence" that couldn't persuade respected medical organizations in and outside the US to endorse the practice?)

 The Jewish Daily Forward betrays her true motives for the Colorado bill, however:

Foster, the main backer of the Colorado bill, said she believes that cutting Medicaid coverage for circumcision sent a message of support to anti-circumcision activists who want see the procedure outlawed nationwide. She is determined to push back against that effort. 

"Ultimately, I think when the anti-circumcision people begin to see so many states denying benefits... it will be easier for them now to make their case that circumcision should be banned altogether."

Conclusion
So there you have it. This measure has nothing to do with "public health," nor a genuine interest in "helping the poor." This is nothing more than a self-serving bill aimed at safeguarding a historically controversial religious ritual that has come ever under scrutiny. It is a law aimed to cater to a particular religious establishment, and Joyce Foster a self-serving politician with a religious agenda.

All things considered, the bill ought not to pass. If it does, it will be a waste of taxpayer dollars with no actual basis in medicine.

The Bottom Line
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.

Without medical or clinical indication, doctors have no business performing non-medical surgery on healthy, non-consenting individuals, let alone be giving parents any kind of a "choice," let alone be expected to be reimbursed by the public's coffers.

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.

Where the bill stands now
The Colorado Senate Health and Human Services Committee held a hearing for Senate Bill 90 (AKA SB 12-090), where the bill passed 6-3. Senate Appropriations Committee voted to move the bill forward onto the full Colorado Senate, where it was approved by a vote of 21 to 14 without debate.

The House Health and Environment Committee holds a hearing on the bill today (May 3) at 1:30pm.

UPDATE:
The bill passed at the House Health and Environment Committee hearing 7 to 6. It's unfortunate that Coloradans dare defy Western medicine, but at the very least the margin was slimmer than before; the bill can still be defeated at the house.

Intactivists need to remember that laws are nothing, and they change with time. Remember that up until 1996, female circumcision was perfectly legal in this country, and insurance companies like Blue Shield paid for it. A human rights violation is a human rights violation, whether or not it is recognized by law. The day will come when the forced circumcision of minors will be seen for the human rights violation that it is, and those who advocated it will be too embarrassed to ever admit it.

Truth suppressed, whether by crooks or courts, will find an avenue to be told.
~Sheila Steele (1943-2006)

Earlier posts:
COLORADO: Conflicts of Interest Plague Medicaid Circumcision Coverage Bill 

COLORADO: Senator Aguilar Circumvents Circumcision Debate

CIRCUMGATE: UK Circumfetish Czar Finally Caught Red-Handed

Intactivists had known about about Vernon Quaintance and  Gilgal Society for years. Intactivist groups had been trying to warn British authorities about this man and his activity, but it seemed this was a hot potato they wanted nothing of. And now, it looks like our prayers have been answered. According to this source, it looks like Vernon Quaintance has been finally caught in his tracks!

Who is Vernon Quaintance?

Why is this event significant? To all intactivists in the know, Vernon Quaintance is circumcision fetishist extraordinaire. The Gilgal Society is the worldwide NAMBLA of circumcision fetishism, and Vernon Quaintance is/was the head. Aside from heading the Gilgal Society, Vernon Quaintance was also a moderator at Circlist, another social group for circumcision enthusiasts, which has been around since the dawn of the internet, as well as a member of Acorn Society, another group of exactly the same nature. He was also a writer of erotic stories that include graphic descriptions of circumcising young boys while others masturbate.

The following is a piece of poetry written by Vernon Quaintance himself:

Decision
Some people claim that foreskins are fun
And keep the 'muzzle' on the gun.
But many doctors do declare;
'It's healthier with the glans laid bare'
So, mum & dad, we say to you,
You must decide what's best to do,
Your son will benefit throughout his life,
As, incidentally, will his wife;
If you make the choice that's always wise
and do decide to circumcise.

(It must be noted, that the above prose was quoted by none other than Professor Brian J. Morris in the October 2007 issue of HPV Today, pages 12-13, who is also a prominent advocate of circumcision, particularly infant circumcision, a prolific author of circumcision "studies" and "appraisals," and also happens to be a very proud and prominent member of Gilgal Society.)

Correction:
The poetry does NOT appear in the article on HPV Today. However Brian Morris still attributes it to Vernon Quaintance on his website, here. (Last accessed 4/23/2012)

Vernon Quaintance is also the owner of circinfo.com as well as gilgalsociety.org, websites which glorify circumcision and try to sound authoritative on the subject. The following quotes can be found on his website:

"Like the appendix, the foreskin is a remnant from our evolutionary past and now serves no essential purpose. Unlike the appendix, which is buried deep inside the abdomen, the foreskin is easily and safely removed as a preventative measure."

"An additional hazard of having a redundant foreskin is the ease with which it can get caught in a zipper. Many women complain of a lack of stimulation because a long or tight foreskin can stick to the walls of the vagina..." 

It is now irrefutable that he has further interests in circumcision and youth than just public health.

Caught Red-handed

According to this source, police raided Quaintance's home on April 11 of last year, after receiving a tip-off. Movies seized included graphic footage of child abuse, which ranked at the second-highest level of severity. Of the five tapes seized, three were found to contain indecent images. They comprise a total of seven to nine hours. The children were estimated to be between 11 and 16 years old.

According to the report, Quaintance claims to have been celibate his whole life, and that he gained no sexual gratification of any kind from the videotapes, something the judge has a hard time believing, considering the fact that he had kept the videotapes found in his possession up until today.

Intactivists have known of this man's antics for years, and are relieved to hear he has finally been caught in his tracks. We can already guess what was on those videotapes.

What is Gilgal Society?

There are those on the Internet who have a sexual fixation for the circumcised penis, and/or derive sexual gratification from the act of circumcision itself. Some call them circumfetishists. They gather in groups to discuss the erotic stimulation they experience by watching other males being circumcised, swap erotic fiction and trade videotapes of actual circumcisions, and justify circumcision and their enthusiasm for it by wrapping it in pseudo-scientific jargon. Gilgal Society is one such group, based in the UK.

Other circumfetish groups exist, such as Circlist, Acorn Society, and the Cutting Club, and they openly admit to a morbid fascination with circumcision to the point of sado-masochistic fetish. These groups advertise that doctors are among their members. Furthermore, there are anecdotal accounts of doctors becoming sexually aroused when circumcising boys. Circumcision certainly provides an opportunity not only to handle boys' penises without the condemnation that a sexual assault (in the sense that phrase is normally used) would attract, but also the opportunity to exercise power over another human being, to alter the penis and to control it and the boy's future sexual life.

(The paragraph above is an excerpt from "In Male and Female Circumcision, Medical, Legal, and Ethical Considerations in Pediatric Practice," Denniston GC, Hodges FM and Milos MF eds., Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers, 1999, New York; 425-454)

Gilgal Erotica

A piece of erotica published by Gilgal Society can be read here.

Readers who have the stomach to read to the very end will find:

"-- Acknowledgements to VQ"

These initials belong to Vernon Quaintance.

The Plot Thickens

Vernon Quaintance is only the beginning. It ought to concern people that many prominent "circumcision experts" are members of, or closely associated with Gilgal Society, and/or other circumfetish groups. It ought to concern people that, groups such as Gilgal Society and Circlist are being referred to as respectable authorities on circumcision. Very recently, the New York Times actually dared to cite Circlist as an actual resource on circumcision.

Some circumcision "experts" would like their audience to believe that they are "objective," "impartial," and/or "dispassionate" authorities on the matter of circumcision, when, in fact, they are passionate circumcision enthusiasts, quite a few who are members of circumfetish groups, such as mentioned above.

Brian Morris

Brian Morris of the University of Sydney, Australia, is one of these individuals. Brian Morris is the most vocal circumcision promoter in Australia. Brian Morris is no expert on circumcision (though he likes to market himself as one, and the Australian media has swallowed the act, hook, line and sinker), but merely an enthusiastic circumcision fanatic of long standing. He neither holds degrees (nor genuine interests) in surgery, urology, pediatrics, nor epidemiology, and his field of study is only remotely related to medicine (he is a molecular biologist and professor of molecular medical sciences). He is in no way an authority on circumcision, much less male genitalia, child care, nor disease prevention.

And yet, Morris is constantly producing publications for parents compelling them to circumcise their children, and the Australian media is constantly giving him the spotlight, oftentimes uncontested by any real authority on the matter. Furthermore, he is a prolific publisher of "studies" and "appraisals" of circumcision, which are basically Brian Morris quoting himself, and repeating inconclusive or flawed circumcision "research," and calling for the RACP to instate "mandatory circumcision" for all males in Australia.

Morris is also an outspoken member of Gilgal Society, and his name can be found in pamphlets, alongside the Gilgal Society logo. Two such publications can be seen here, and here. In one paper he wrote regarding circumcision devices, which was published in Biomedical Engineering, he actually collaborates with Circlist (methinks he invited them on-board his project), as if they were any sort of reliable authority on circumcision. I wonder if the University of Sydney is aware that their name is being used by Brian Morris to give himself, and the groups he associates with, an air of authority in the literature he writes.

Brian Morris also runs a website which he uses to promote circumcision. He does his best to market the website as a legitimate circumcision resource, but upon closer inspection, is really no different than Circlist's website. His website was at one point hosted on University of Sydney servers, but he was recently asked to move it elsewhere, as the University of Sydney found content on it that was inappropriate. We believe that the inappropriate content was a picture of a naked child, with a folding cellphone clamped onto his foreskin, dangling from the end of his penis, on the humor section of his website. (Be warned, it is rather tasteless, if not off-putting.) Clearly, an adult put the cell phone there and took the picture. The picture seems to still be there. (Accessed 4/22/2012) Brian Morris links to Gilgal Society, as well as eight other "recommended" circumfetish websites and he also includes a list of places to get circumcision devices. (For an in depth analysis of Brian Morris' website, go here.)

Circumcision Tourism

Morris has gone as far as Africa to satisfy his morbid obsession.

Brian Morris Watching Masai Boys During Circumcision Ritual in Kenya, 1989

I have some wonderful photographs of a group of Masai boys in their early teens that I met in Kenya in 1989 dressed in their dark circumcision robes, with white feathers as headwear, and white painted facial decoration that stood out against their very black skin. Each wore a pendant that was the razor blade used for their own circumcision. The ceremony that they had gone through is a special part of their tribal culture and was very important to these boys, who were proud to show that they were now ‘men’. In other cultures it is associated with preparation for marriage and as a sign of entry into manhood.

What's interesting is that on many occasions Brian Morris has accused intactivists of having a fetish for the foreskin. One of Morris' most prominent traits is his incorrigible projection. The trash he talks of human rights activists against the forced circumcision of healthy, non-consenting minors is true of himself!!!

Jake Waskett

Robin to Brian Morris' Batman, intactivists have been keeping an eye on Jake Waskett for a few years now, and we know him to be a circumfetishist who got himself circumcised in adulthood to fulfill a childhood fantasy. We have him on record confessing this to none other than Vernon Quaintance himself:

FROM: Jake H. Waskett 

TO: Vernon Quaintance 

SUBJECT: Circed at last

Hi Vernon
Thank you!
Yes, I recall our correspondence. I find it difficult to believe that I would regret something that I've regretted *not* having done since age 5!
...
 --Yahoo Circlist. Message #26333, 2003 July 30th

Waskett has since latched onto the idea that circumcision of healthy individuals, both infant and adult, can be justified by citing enough scientific "research."

Intactivists have saved records of him exchanging on Circlist. He is also known to lurk on parenting forums and news commentary threads, trying to convince parents to circumcise their children (examples here and here), citing all the usual "research," when we know for a fact that his true interests lie elsewhere.

Despite what is publicly known about him, Jake likes to portray himself as being "objective," "unbiased," and "dispassionate." His actions, however, speak louder than his words.

Why Wikipedia is an Unreliable Resource on Circumcision

Jake Waskett is a computer engineer who has been around since Wikipedia's inception. He is a favorite among the Wikipedia crowd, and he has used his clout at Wikipedia to make himself the sole gatekeeper on any and every article that has anything even remotely related to circumcision. He spends a considerable amount of time editing articles in Wikipedia to reflect a pro-circumcision bias (though he claims he's only making them "neutral"). As of early 2011, Waskett has made almost 14,000 edits on Wikipedia, more than 1,275 edits to the Circumcision article alone. Waskett's first edit to the article was on the 18th of October 2004, and his last edit was today. (You can monitor Jake Waskett's activity, here.) Waskett now averages about one edit every 1 days, 20 hours, 29 minutes and 21 seconds, for the Circumcision article. If Wikipedia appears to have a pro-circumcision bias, it is due entirely to this man.

Jake Waskett has full control of any and every page related to circumcision, to the extent that he allows or disallows whatever edits he desires. He likes to use the rules at Wikipedia to allow or disallow whatever sources he deems to be "acceptable." If the rules don't agree with his whim, he will actually bid to change them so that they do. He only allows sources that put circumcision in a positive light, however flawed and/or refuted they may be, but disallows sources that are devastating to circumcision. He does not allow others to post authoritative sources regarding the foreskin, or the flaws in circumcision "research," not even if they have been published in peer-reviewed journals. He will always find some sort of rule or reason why a paper or study that he doesn't like should not be allowed. Only his resources, or resources that support circumcision are "valid"; resources or studies that run contrary to his views are not. Jake Waskett quotes his own website, circs.org, as a resource on circumcision on Wikipedia.

Other intactivists have observed his activity on Wikipedia, and it continues, though it is seemingly against the rules on Wikipedia. He has been observed in shady behavior, such as getting people that can argue successfully against him permanently banned along with their IP, and getting clear rebuttals against him that reveal his ineptness stricken from the history record at Wikipedia.

All articles at Wikipedia related to circumcision are under Jake Waskett's complete control, and he only allows edits that suit his pro-circumcision bias.

For readers that would like to observe Jake's behavior first-hand, his Wikipedia profile can be found here. His latest edits can be observed here.

Jake also maintains his own pro-circumcision website, circs.org.

Are these the actions of someone who is "unbiased" and "dispassionate?"

Laymen Should Be Dismissed... Except For This One.

Jake Waskett is not a doctor nor medical professional of any kind. He is a computer software engineer in his mid-30s, located in Radcliffe Manchester England. He is neither a surgeon, nor a urologist, nor a pediatrician, nor an epidemiologist. He is no medical authority of any kind, and yet, his name is beginning to appear on scientific papers, as if he were any kind of authority. His name appears in scientific journals any time Brian Morris' does. (This can be observed here, here, and here, though there may be other papers I don't list in this blog post.)

I speculate that, despite not being any actual authority, Brian admires Jake Waskett's pro-circumcision work on Wikipedia and on his own website. He is enamored by Jake's ability to clothe his circumcision bias in scientific jargon, that including his name on Brian's work is his way of paying tribute to one of his favorite circumcision advocates (which in turn feeds Jake's ego). As another example of Brian Morris' projection, he himself has accused intactivists of being nothing but lay people with no scientific authority.

There's more, lot's more...

It's relieving to hear that a known circumfetishist has finally been exposed for the pervert that he really is. But this barely scratches the surface; there's more, lot's more. The floodgates to the greatest medical hoax of all time are but beginning to collapse.

Look at the pamphlets put out by Brian Morris viz Gilgal Society (Two such publications can be seen here, and here.); you'll find the names of many prominent circumcision "researchers" and people who claim to be "experts" on circumcision.

Bertran Auvert, Robert Bailey, and Daniel Halperin appear as authors. These are some of the prominent men who are flooding the medical literature with "studies" that say circumcision "reduces HIV transmission," as well as other diseases.

Thomas Wiswell, author of debunked circumcision/UTI "research" that has been long dismissed by authorities such as the AAP, appears as an author on one of the Morris/Gilgal pamphlets.

So does Edgar Schoen. (Incidentally, Schoen has also written circumcision poetry.)

So does Jake Waskett.

Daniel Halperin has corresponded with Circlist, and apparently so has Edgar Schoen. Daniel Halperin has actually recommended Circlist as well as Brian Morris' website as authorities on circumcision.

Very recently, Brian Morris published another pro-circumcision paper where Jake H Waskett, Robert Bailey, Daniel Halperin, and Thomas Wiswell all appear simultaneously. An earlier such paper can be seen here, and although Robert Bailey does not appear in this one, it mentions "Jake H. Waskett is with the Circumcision Independent Reference and Commentary Service, Manchester, England." This "service," also known as "CIRCS" is nothing more than the acronym to Jake's pro-circumcision website.

These are the people responsible for all the recent circumcision "research." These are the people shaping the WHO's opinion. These are the people to whom media outlets look to as "experts." These are the people to whom others look to as "authorities" on the subject. These are the people helping shape policy in California and Colorado.

Can they be trusted to provide "impartial," "dispassionate," and "unbiased" information?

Is this about "public health?"

Or is "public health" and "research" a front for something darker and more sinister?

How far does this rabbit hole go?

The world is about to find out.

Calling All Intactivist Wiki Editors
For the time being, Wikipedia is a lost cause. The truth will never be known as long as Jake Waskett is hijacking Wikipedia for his own agenda. As a direct result of Jake's activity, important and factual information is currently being omitted from Wikipedia regarding human genital anatomy, and so concerned individuals have felt the need to create a resource where this omitted information can be found.

In response to the situation at Wikipedia, a number of concerned individuals have come together to create "Intactipedia" as an alternative wiki resource on the foreskin and circumcision. The objective is to archive all the information that Jake won't allow on Wikipedia, so that perhaps in the future, when he too is exposed, it would be easy to move information over to Wikipedia with the ease of Wiki markup language.

Please visit Intactipedia and help contribute, if not help shape its direction.

Disclaimer:
Some may argue that I am engaging in ad hominem. However, pointing out conflicts of interest is not ad hominem. The following is an excerpt from Wikipedia's entry on ad hominem (4/22/2012):


Conflict of Interest: Where a source seeks to convince by a claim of authority or by personal observation, identification of conflicts of interest are not ad hominem – it is generally well accepted that an "authority" needs to be objective and impartial, and that an audience can only evaluate information from a source if they know about conflicts of interest that may affect the objectivity of the source. Identification of a conflict of interest is appropriate, and concealment of a conflict of interest is a problem.

Holistic Circumcision: A Blatant Oxymoron

Some mohels use the term "holistic circumcision" to market themselves to gentile clientele. Google the term and you'll find a long list of mohels that offer the service, particularly, and ironically, to Christian parents. (The Bible expressly forbids circumcision to gentiles.) 

"Gentle, compassionate, natural, caring," reads one slogan, adding more to the irony.

Perhaps female circumcision would be permissible in this country if it were performed in a "holistic, gentle, compassionate, caring" manner?

So how did this mash-up even occur?

The rabbis that coin this oxymoron probably use the term to mean a circumcision that is not performed in the hospital, but instead in, what they claim to be, the "gentle, compassionate, caring" environment of the services they provide. (Isn't that convenient!)

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

But the true meaning of the term "holistic" makes its combination with the term "circumcision" (in this case the forced amputation of a healthy, non-consenting child's foreskin from his penis) truly an oxymoron. Like "fireproof match." It doesn't work.

According to the entry for "holism" in Wikipedia: 
Holism (from ὂλος holos, a Greek word meaning all, whole, entire, total) , is the idea that natural systems (physical, biological, chemical, social, economic, mental, linguistic, etc.) and their properties, should be viewed as wholes, not as collections of parts. This often includes the view that systems somehow function as wholes and that their functioning cannot be fully understood solely in terms of their component parts.

Interesting, for tradesmen who consider the foreskin to be "extra" and/or "superfluous" to the male organs, and whose sole services are its extirpation at the expense of the most basic rights of the child.

"Holistic?" Impossible. 

"Gentle?" If you consider holding a child down while you cut off part of his most sensitive and intimate organs "gentle." 

"Compassionate?" If you consider ignoring the child's cries and disregarding his rights to self-autonomy "compassionate." 

"Natural?" Only if you also consider amputating a normal, healthy part of the human body "natural." 

"Caring?" Not for a healthy, non-consenting minor, that's for sure.

All things considered, the juxtaposition of the terms "holistic" and "circumcision" couldn't be any more oxymoronic. A mohel is about as "holistic, gentle, compassionate, natural" and "caring" as a doctor.

So why are mohels reaching out to a Christian clientele?

I can only speculate that the increasing scrutiny of circumcision and the growing intactivist movement has intimidated them (IE, the San Francisco circumcision ban), and they hope to establish strength in numbers.

Perhaps these mohels have never read the New Testament. Or, at the very least, they count on Christians never having read it.

"Stand fast therefore in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not entangled again with the yoke of bondage. Behold, I Paul say unto you, that if ye be circumcised, Christ shall profit you nothing. For I testify again to every man that is circumcised, that he is a debtor to do the whole law.
Christ is become of no effect unto you, whosoever of you are justified by the law; ye are fallen from grace."
Galatians 5:1-4

"Peaceful", "holistic," "painless," "bloodless" circumcision?

Is that anything like a "peaceful," "holistic," "painless," "bloodless" female circumcision?

How can I get one of those for my daughter?

Because you know, I'm the parent, I decide, and it's my choice what I do with my children.

New York: Oral Mohel Tests Positive for Herpes

I've already written extensively on the subject of mohels infecting their subjects with herpes via oral suction.

Defenders of the practice have tried to argue that there is no way to know whether or not mohels actually gave their subjects herpes.

"Across the board, the infection rate for circumcisions is less than one half of one percent... The baby could have gotten herpes from a relative or someone in the Hospital, or many other people... You can't say for sure it was the circumcision."
~Philip Sherman, "Mohel to the Stars"

Well, now there is simply no doubt.

According to The Jewish Week, Yitzchok Fischer, one of the mohels who has been tied to several neonatal herpes infections has tested positive for the herpes virus.

'Nuff said.

The ball is in New York's court to act accordingly.

Labiaplasty and Pastrami Sandwiches

What sort of images or thoughts did reading the title of this blog post conjure? Did it pique your interests? Did you think "That's such an interesting title, I have *got* to read what this is about."?

Perhaps that was the idea behind the blog "Domestic Diva."

Apparently, the author's mother "raised the perfect housewife... then she went to med school."

Perhaps she was trying to allude to the theme of her blog, which seems to be to create humor by mashing up completely unrelated topics of conversation.

Just look at some of her post titles:

Sex after Surgery and Spinach Pesto
Alter Boys and Roasted Garlic
Revenge, Glitter, and Asparagus with Eggs
Traumatic Births and Spring Risotto

(She's a med student, but doesn't know how to spell altar... Maybe she's just obsessed with altering boys? Mmmbah-hah-hah... Get it?)

Perhaps she was trying to go for shock value?

Well, whatever. To each their own.

People are free to say and write whatever they want.

This *is* the internet, after all.

In one of her recent posts, however, she chose the wrong thing to joke about.

Circumcision and Mac and Cheese
I never expected to see these two things together in the same breath. Never in my life. And yet, there it was! If Domestic Diva was hoping to achieve shock value, she did not fail to deliver.

But what follows is more shocking.

It was so disgusting and so revolting I couldn't believe it.

In one instance, this person is trying to make fun of infant genital mutilation for her reader's amusement, and in the next, as if nothing had happened, she proceeds to give her readers a recipe for macaroni and cheese.

Imagine me poking fun at a baby girl as I cut off her labia. No, not her clitoris, just the extra flaps of skin that resemble chewed up bubblegum. (This might sound out of whack, but ask yourself, what choice words do people have to degrade the male foreskin? Read more about labiaplasty, here.)

Imagine me gazing at a baby girl's vulva to judge whether it's sexually mature enough before I cut into it. Imagine me making jokes of stimulating her in a sexual manner.

Now imagine me posting a blog about it with a recipe for pastrami sandwiches on the internet.

What would you think of me?

What would you think if I ever tried to trivialize and even try to draw laughter from the fact that I have taken a knife and cut off part of a baby girl's genitals?

You would think I was sick, disgusting and despicable, not to mention, unprofessional.

I'd like to dissect some of this horrendous entry:

Domestic Diva writes:
"...my current patient was a "feeder and grower" premie (some babies are too tiny to go home right away and they need to learn how to eat). We were seeing him that morning when mom and dad informed us that they wanted a circumcision."

How she nonchalantly mentions the fact that her patient was already in a precarious position, having struggled to survive, speaks to her disinterest in the patient's well-being. More important is the fact that she is checking one more thing off on her to-do list to advance in her career, and the parents' wishes to have this child circumcised, the risks of operating on a fragile child be damned.

"My attending stated that we’d have to check the size of his penis since he was such a teeny munchkin, to which his mother bragged proudly, "Oh, it’s big enough."

We all looked while mom smugly looked on, and my attending then said, "Wow, it is."

And the fun didn’t stop there!"

The fun?

What was fun?

The fact that this child's mother invited her to gaze at her son's penis in a sexual manner?

And that she actually LOOKED?

Oh how funny!

Oh rapture!

Oh hardy har har!

But the "fun" didn't stop there, apparently...

The "fun" continues with deliberate misinformation.

"Now, for the sake of my male readers, I’ll spare you most of the details about this procedure. However, I will say that you need to make sure that you make a clean cut and then remove any extra skin to prevent an awkwardly bent penis later in life (and no one wants that!)."

First of all, the foreskin is not "extra." It is normal, healthy tissue with which every male is born. And second, removing too much skin may actually CAUSE the very complication she mentions! Removing too much skin may cause the wound to reopen later in life because the left-over skin cannot accommodate the shaft. (Read one man's story, here.) She is either not informed of the risks, or she is conveniently forgetting to mention them.

On with the "fun":
"To describe this method on a particularly difficult piece of extra skin, my attending said to the senior resident and me: “Now you just use this towel and rub it out.”

Dad, sitting in the corner, burst out laughing.

My attending’s face went instantly red and she started blabbering, "Oh my god, I can’t believe I said that! It sounds like I was talking about jerking him off! OH MY GOD WHY AM I STILL TALKING! I’m sorry!!!"

Actually, she was "jerking him off." In order to give the doctors an idea of what they're working with, it is necessary to give the child an erection. The attending was quite literally jerking the child off.

A child goes from experiencing pleasurable sensations to excruciating pain. Isn't that funny?

Hah hah.

I nearly died.


"After taking a brief break to recover, we managed to perfectly finish the circumcision and took him back to mom. Dad walked in, pointed at my attending, then said to his wife, "You’re not gonna believe what she said back there."

It was at that point where we found it best to disappear from the room."

And come right out and write a blog post about it online, of course.

Outrage
I can't say how absolutely outraged I was when I read that disgusting, insulting piece of work. Followed by a recipe for mac and cheese? Really?

But the story doesn't stop there.

Oh, no, no, no.

Many of us intactivists, outraged by this sick, disgusting filth, tried posting commentary on her blog post, only to have it promptly removed.

And, as if this weren't enough, she provides a link to a Facebook page where she markets her blog. Others try to comment, and the same actions ensue, our comments deleted.

Well, all I've got to say is, she may refuse to publish dissent, but she cannot stop others from calling her out on her tasteless, disgusting sense of humor elsewhere. She is absolutely mistaken if she thinks she can just write something so revolting and insulting and not hear back from us.

The plot thickens
Determined to get to the bottom of this, I decided I'd investigate to see who this "Domestic Diva" was, and I was appalled at what I found. (Her blog gives a link to her blog's page on Facebook.)

Apparently, the "Domestic Diva" is one Megan Gayeski, and she is the Vice Chair for the Medical Student Section of the American Medical Association.

This is eerily disconcerting.

These are the kind of people who eventually end up working at high positions in major medical organizations.

Is this the kind of people they have working at the AMA?

Does Gayeski know what the AMA has to say about infant circumcision? Even the AMA must acknowledge that the trend of opinion on routine male circumcision is overwhelmingly negative in industrialized nations, and that no respected medical board in the world recommends circumcision for infants.

"The British Medical Association has a longstanding recommendation that circumcision should be performed only for medical reasons... Recent policy statements issued by professional societies representing Australian, Canadian, and American pediatricians do not recommend routine circumcision of male newborns."
~AMA Report 10 of the Council on Scientific Affairs

The Bottom Line
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 normal, natural, healthy, functioning tissue, with which all boys are born.

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.

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

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.

Amusement at expense of defenseless children, at the expense of the most basic of human rights, is sick, tasteless and disgusting, not to mention out of line and unprofessional.

Megan Gayeski ought to be ashamed of herself.

Her post "Circumcision and Mac and Cheese" was insulting, disgusting and deplorable.

To make fun of a child and make sexual innuendo as you mutilate his organs.

And then to try to make it an interesting blog post about it for others' amusement.

How absolutely revolting!

"Genital mutilation is no joke."

~Christopher Hitchens

Rest in peace, Hitch...