Catching Up - Important News I've Missed

I'd like to apologize to my readers; I haven't been as active on this blog as I'd like to be. Believe it or not, your blogger has a life outside of intactivism, as intactivism isn't making me rich, and I need to maintain a family. I wish there was some sort of way to be active in this movement, AND make the money that I need for me and my family to survive while doing it.

In the mean time, while I don't have the time to dedicate to long, well-thought-out blog posts, I do post my thoughts often on Twitter. If you're interested, please follow me @Joseph4GI.

Recent News
There have been a lot of important things in the news regarding circumcision. Every time I see something I tell myself "I'll write a blog post about it today," but hardly ever have the time to actually do it.

Today, what I will do is, I'm just going to go down a list of recent pieces of noteworthy news and briefly comment on them.

Iceland Ban
I already posted my thoughts on this in my last blog post, but in short, I don't think it's realistic, and like the San Francisco attempt, it is going to fail. We just aren't ready for a ban yet. We were ready for a ban on FGM because the West already pretty much agreed that they hated it, unlike with MGM, where it's become pretty much ingrained in American culture. They say that in big movements like these, laws are the very last things to change. There will be a ban when we get most of the world on-board the idea that forcibly cutting the genitals of healthy, non-consenting individuals is a violation of basic human rights.

Recently Published Studies
A number of studies that throw a monkey wrench in the pro-circumcision narrative have been published.

A study that showed circumcised men are at a higher risk for cancer-causing HPV was published last year in May, but it didn't really make the news until the latter part of the year. The usual claim by male infant circumcision advocates is that HPV prevalence is higher in intact men, supposedly making them a risk-factor for cervical cancer in women. If this study is correct, then the exact opposite is true.

In another study that was published relatively recently, findings showed that male circumcision greatly increases the risk of urinary tract problems. Again, this goes contrary to the pro-circumcision slogan that male circumcision is supposed to reduce problems with UTIs and the like. This wouldn't be the first study to show this, however; other studies have showed an increase in UTIs post-circumcisions. Studies in Israel here, here and here suggest that circumcision may actually be causing UTIs in infants.

Finally, a new and recent study suggests that that circumcision complications are much higher than circumcision advocates would like parents to believe. Typically, circumcision advocates minimize the number of complications due to circumcision, citing numbers as low as 2% if not lower. The AAP itself in 2012 actually said in their policy statement on circumcision that ''the true incidence of complications after newborn circumcision is unknown." 

There are a few factors contributing to the lack of information on the true incidence of the adverse effects of circumcision. For one, there is a predisposition in American researchers in trying to find only "benefits" in circumcision, and aren't really interested in finding adverse effects; as circumcised males, fathers or mothers of circumcised children, and/or spouses of circumcised husbands, they're simply not interested in looking. Additionally, doctors who profit from the practice are probably not interested in publishing information that would likely lead to infant circumcision being banned, not to mention lawsuits. At least in the US, doctors and hospitals aren't required to publish information regarding adverse outcomes of male infant circumcision. Until the release of this information is made a requirement, we may never know the true incidence of complications of circumcision.


What this latest study goes on is a regional claims database. Because some adverse outcomes of circumcision go unreported, this can only be a conservative estimate.

"American Circumcision" Wins Yet ANOTHER Award
I did manage to post about the film "American Circumcision" winning the Best Documentary Film Award at the Lone Star Festival. Well sir, it looks like the film has managed to nab yet ANOTHER award, this time, the Silver Jury Prize at the Social Justice Film Festival.


Congratulations to the film maker Brendon Marotta for yet another award for his film.

Public Muslim Man Advocates for Choice
When I first saw this tweet, I just couldn't believe my eyes. I'm so glad that, Jews, as well as Muslims, are speaking out against forcibly cutting children, even under religious pretext.

"My community will see me as a traitor for what I'm saying" - @MaajidNawaz on male circumcision for religious reasons #ThePledge pic.twitter.com/LWv2eHMJpJ

— The Pledge (@ThePledge) March 1, 2018

I'm so glad to see people from circumcising faiths speaking out like this!

Well, that about wraps it up for this post.

Until the next time!

CIRCUMCISION LEGISLATION: All Eyes on Iceland

It's been a while since I've written, and I don't have time to write a post dedicating the time and effort that this issue deserves, so I'm going to make this quick.

The long and the short of it is that there is a ban on circumcision being talked about in Iceland, and predictably, religious groups, those who practice the forced circumcision of non-consenting boys and some who don't, are clutching their pearls.

The bill rightly describes the forced circumcision of healthy, non-consenting minors to be a violation of basic human rights, and suggests a 6-year prison term for anyone found guilty of "removing sexual organs in whole or in part."

There is an exception in the bill for medical necessity, which is actually how all other surgery works; under any other circumstance, reaping profit from performing non-medical surgery on healthy, non-consenting individuals constitutes medical fraud.

Addressing religious traditions, it insists the "rights of the child" always exceed the "right of the parents to give their children guidance when it comes to religion."

The move follows advice from doctors in Denmark, who have said boys under the age of 18 should not be circumcised; the Danish Medical Association said it had considered suggesting a legal ban on the procedure for children.

Backlash From Religious Advocates
As almost anyone would have guessed, the move to ban the forced circumcision of healthy, non-consenting males is already being condemned as "an attack on religious freedom."

One of the first critics of the proposal actually came from the President of the Catholic Church in the European Union.

“Protecting the health of children is a legitimate goal of every society, but in this case this concern is instrumentalized, without any scientific basis, to stigmatise certain religious communities. This is extremely worrying,” Marx said in a statement.

It is interesting that he cites lack of "scientific basis," seeing as religious groups circumcise as a matter of religious conviction, which has zero to do with science.

I should also inquire about the validity of his claim, whether he has a degree in urology, pediatrics, surgery or even in medicine at all.

The reality of the situation is that not a single respected medical organization recommends the practice of forced male infant circumcision.

All of them, including our very own AAP, cite that "the benefits are not great enough."

Not surprisingly, Muslim and Jewish groups are already condemning this as an attack on their religious freedom.

We've been here before

7 Years ago, a similar ban was proposed in San Francisco, and although it was put on the ballot, religious groups made enough noise to have it struck off before anyone could even vote on it.

In a rare display of alliance, Jewish and Muslim groups actually coalesced, cooperated and spoke unanimously against the ban. I don't think they quite agree that female circumcision should be protected as "religious freedom," however.

Which brings us to the crux of why there is a problem with a lack of a ban on male infant circumcision to begin with.

Sexist, self-serving double-standards
Mention male infant circumcision, and it seems to be this given; that suggestion that it should be banned is "an attack on religious freedom."

Mention that female infant circumcision is seen as a religious obligation, and suddenly the "religious freedom" argument flies out the window.

In most Western countries, the forced genital cutting of girls and women is banned, and there is no exception for people who see it as a religious conviction.

Actually, there will be no shortage of people saying that since female circumcision isn't written in say, the Koran or any major holy book, that it can't "really" be considered "religious."

The term "special pleading" comes to mind.

Male circumcision wouldn't be mentioned in the Koran either.

It is "fitrah," mentioned in Hadith, but not once does it appear in the Koran.

Which is funny, because the same is also true for female circumcision.

I think it's funny, that self-serving people who want to justify their own "religious tradition" of forcibly cutting the genitals of boys have the nerve to pretend to dictate to others what their religious beliefs will be.

For better or for worse, the great majority of Muslims in South East Asia believe that female circumcision is as Islamic a virtue for girls and women as male circumcision is for boys and men.

And who are others to tell them what their beliefs will be?

If Jewish scholar Leonard Glick is correct, male infant circumcision as a "covenant" does not appear in the first manuscripts of the Torah; it would appear that this mitzvah was grafted out of the blue at the very last minute. The case can be made that "male infant circumcision wasn't originally part of the covenant."

Ah, but then Jewish defenders of the practice will turn around and say "Non-Jews shouldn't tell Jews how to practice their religion."

Isn't it funny how the same people  say "Well female circumcision isn't actually Muslim practice," will turn around and tell you to mind your own business when you dare scrutinize their religion?

The bottom line
It boils down to this; either "parental choice," "religious freedom" and/or "my culture/tradition" works to justify the forced genital cutting of children, or it doesn't.

It is inconsistent and sexist to have a ban that protects girls and only girls, regardless of the religious conviction of their parents, but allow the forced genital cutting of boys "for religious reasons."

The forced genital cutting of healthy, non-consenting minors needs to be allowed, or condemned for all.

You can't have it both ways.

A long way to go
I end this post by saying that, while I think there ought to be a ban, that if there is a ban on female genital cutting with no exception for religion, it only follows there needs to be a similar ban for male genital cutting, it's simply unrealistic and it's going to backfire.

Recall the attempt to ban forced male infant circumcision in San Francisco; not only were religious groups successful in getting the measure off the ballot before anyone could cast their vote, opportunist politicians also made names for themselves by legally preventing any further attempts at a ban.

Female circumcision was easily banned in Western countries because people already saw female circumcision with disdain.

At the moment, most people simply don't see forcibly cutting a healthy, non-consenting male child's genitals as a big deal.

It is often said that in a huge movement like this, laws are the very last thing to change.

During the times of slavery, when there were calls to outlaw the practice, those who wanted to continue to keep slaves, doubled-down on their intentions and enacted legislature that "protected" their "rights."

People who are hell-bent on preserving this practice of forced genital cutting are not going to give up without a fight.

But it's going to take time to get people on our side and finally legally condemn the forced genital cutting of healthy, non-consenting minors.

I predict that the measure in Iceland is going to fail.

Icelandic leaders are going to cave to pressure to "protect religious freedom."

But this should be of no surprise, and it should in no way be used to measure our progress as intactivists.

That this measure is actually being considered is progress enough.

Even if this measure fails, we shouldn't be discouraged, I'm not going to be discouraged; I'm still going to be right here speaking out against the basic human rights violation that is the forced genital cutting of minors.

Related Posts

San Francisco Circumcision Ban on November Ballot

San Francisco Circumcision Ban

SAN FRANCISCO: Democracy Hits A Brick Wall

One Intactivist's Opinion: The SF Circ Ban Ought Not to Pass

LEGISLATION: A Possible Solution?

Circumcision is Child Abuse: A Picture Essay

CIRCUMCENSORSHIP: Scholarly Circumcision Articles Being Censored on Facebook

It's happened to me before; I post a link to a news article on a legit, valid news source, or to medical literature on a reputable journal on Facebook, only to have it immediately labeled as "spam" and deleted no sooner than I had clicked "post."

I would sit there and wonder if this was something that was happening only to me, but earlier today, I ran across a post in my news feed confirming to me that that I'm not the only one.

I've taken screenshots of the post on my news feed and have posted them below.

Facebook users can see the post on the matter, and the conversation ensuing among other intactivist Facebook users here (last accessed 1/15/2018).

SCREEN SHOTS:

I've downloaded the screen shot referenced in the conversation above and posted it below:

The conversation continues...

The screenshot referenced just above has been posted below:

The conversation continues...

The final screen shot mentioned can be seen here:

It is quite evident that there are people at Facebook who have decided to take the liberty to censor intactivism by labeling news articles or research papers that don't speak favorably of male circumcision as "spam" and immediately removing them.

This puts intactivists in the awkward position of not being able to substantiate the facts we post; in essence, Facebook is blocking access to verifiable information.

This wouldn't be the first time a social media outlet has made it difficult for intactivists to post; not too long ago, Twitter was keeping me from posting the following:

 

I tried to post this over and over again from different devices to no avail.

I kept getting error messages.

Finally, I took a screen shot which is the only way I could post what I wanted to say.

I talk about what happened me on Twitter on a different post, here.

All I can say is that, the information we post must be powerful and intimidating, if people at social media outlets are going as far as trying to censor us.

They may succeed temporarily, but not for long.

"Truth suppress'd will find an avenue to be told."

"Three things cannot remain long hidden; the sun, the moon, and the truth."

Good News From Israel

HERE'S something I was glad to see in my Facebook news feed today.

Baruch Hashem!

Link to the actual article in the Forward can be accessed here.

REPOST: Preemptive Heart Surgery - A Thought Experiment

Hey there, readers... It's been a while.

Happy New Year, by the way.

I'm still here, but life gets in the way of my intactivism.

I wish I had more time to devote to this. If could, I'd be here 24/7.

Unfortunately, I'm not so blessed when it comes to time and money. I have to go to work to support a family like a lot of you.

Perhaps one day I'll have more time to devote to this important cause.

For now, I'd like to repost a thought experiment I saw on Facebook.

When I read it, it reaffirmed to me just how fucked up doctors pushing male infant genital mutilation as "medicine" really is.

Until the next time, stay safe.

All the best for a happy and prosperous 2018.

Thought Experiment - Preemptive Heart Surgery

Imagine you went to your doctor for a routine check-up. Your doctor becomes concerned and tells you, you immediately need heart surgery. There is no second to waste. He tells you the longer you wait, the riskier and more complicated the surgery will become.

You go under the knife the next day.

You wake up with a huge scar in the middle of your chest and a new pacemaker.

Now imagine you find out you didn't actually need that surgery. The surgery was 100% optional and there were much simpler and safer ways to maintain your good health.

The doctor shrugs off your concerns. "Well I suppose it wasn't strictly speaking, 'necessary.' You could have been cured by simply cutting down on red meat and going for a walk once a week. But I figured you wouldn't be responsible enough to do that. And since I decided you wouldn't be responsible enough, I decided it would be better to go through surgery now rather than later when you might really need it."

How mad would you be?

Think about that. Think about your response. You bear a permanent scar on your body and your heart is forever changed just because one person thought you wouldn't be responsible enough to maintain your own body and health.

Wouldn't you feel mutilated? Wouldn't you feel forever violated?

Now look to the circumcised men and children in your life. Can you really explain to them why they needed surgery to alter their genitals when they could have been better protected by simply learning the correct (and much easier) way to bathe?

Surgery, when there are easier and safer ways to attain the same or better result is unethical, and is in fact, criminal.

Routine Infant Circumcision is not ethical.

Circumcision Censorship at Twitter?

I've been very active on Twitter recently (@Joseph4GI if you're interested).

All had been going more or less very well.

That is until this morning, when I tried posting the following:

The first time I tried posting this was on my phone, but I kept getting the error message "We're sorry, something went wrong. Please try again in a minute."

I must have kept trying for about a half an hour, when I realized something was wrong.

Then I went to my tablet and tried re-typing my message and posting there.

Same deal.

Finally, I went to my PC and tried posting again.

This time, I only get the message "Sorry, something went wrong."

Then I take the above screen shot and tweet that.

That went through just fine.

I try retyping the above tweet again, and I get the same error message.

I think something is amiss, and I'd like to know what it is.

FACEBOOK: Two Close Calls on my News Feed

Just posting the latest tragedies, or near-tragedies that surfaced on my Facebook news feed.

(Unless there is medical or clinical indication, all male infant circumcision is a tragedy.)

First up, another story where a child nearly bleeds to death. The child is put in the NICU and the doctors had to cauterize the wound to stop the bleeding.

Another child turns black and blue, and is given urine retention problems by his circumcision. Apparently, the boy's bladder had to be drained with a neonatal feeding tube as a catheter.

This happened at Dothan, Alabama.

The poster "doesn't know what they did to cause these issues" (Really? You don't think the fact that the child was needlessly circumcised had ANYTHING to do with it?), but apparently the child now has iatrogenically induced UTI at 4 days old.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again.

I say these things every time I post tragic stories on here.

The risks of male infant circumcision include infection, partial or full ablation, hemorrhage and even death.

Unless there is medical or clinical indication, circumcision is purely cosmetic, non-medical surgery.

Under any other circumstance, reaping profit from performing non-medical procedures on healthy, non-consenting minors constitutes medical fraud.

Being an elective, non-medical procedure, any risk is unconscionable.

In 2012, the AAP admitted in their circumcision policy statement that the true rate of circumcision risrks is unknown.

What I post here are only stories that have surfaced on Facebook, but doctors and hospitals are not required to report on adverse circumcision outcomes, doctors have financial incentives to misatribute deaths and complications due to circumcision to something else, and parents agree to be complicite to hide their shame.

The risks and complications of circumcision are real, and it should concern Americans that organizations like the AAP are not interested in documenting them.

List of Deaths and Complications Documented on This Blog:
FACEBOOK: Another Baby Fighting For His Life Post Circumcision

MADERA, CA: Another Circumcision Complication

CIRCUMCISION BOTCH: Another Post-Circumcision Hemorrhage Case Surfaces on Facebook

LAW SUIT: Child Loses "Significant Portion" of Penis During Circumcision

CIRCUMCISION BOTCHES: Colombia and Malaysia

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: This Time in Russia

FACEBOOK: KENTUCKY - Botched Circumcision Gives Newborn Severe UTI

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

GEORGIA: Circumcision Sends a Baby to the NICU

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: This Time in Italy

FACEBOOK NEWS FEED: A Complication and a Death

INTACTIVISTS: Why We Concern Ourselves

MALE INFANT CIRCUMCISION: Another Baby Boy Dies

CIRCUMCISION: Another Baby Dies

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

Another Circumcision Death Comes to Light

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

FACEBOOK: Two Botches and a Death

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

ONTARIO CIRCUMCISION DEATH: The Plot Thickens

Joseph4GI: The Circumcision Blame Game

Phony Phimosis: How American Doctors Get Away With Medical Fraud

FACEBOOK: Two More Babies Nearly Succumb to Post Circumcision Hemorrhage

FACEBOOK: Another Circumcision Mishap - Baby Hemorrhaging After Circumcision

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

FACEBOOK: Child in NICU After Lung Collapses During Circumcision

EMIRATES: Circumcision Claims Another Life

BabyCenter Keeping US Parents In the Dark About Circumcision

DOMINICAN REPUBLIC: Circumcision Claims Another Life

TEXAS: 'Nother Circumcision Botch

New York Herpes Circumcision Problem:
NYC: More Herpes Circumcision Cases Since de Blasio Lifted Metzitzah B'Peh Regulations

BUSTED: Agudath Israel of America's Antics Revealed

NEW STUDY: Ultra-Orthodox Mohels Don't Give Babies Herpes

NEW YORK: Two More Herpes Babies, One With HIV

NEW YORK: Metzitzah: Two mohelim stopped after babies get herpes

NEW YORK: Yet Another Herpes Baby

Rabbis Delay NYC's Metzitzah B'Peh Regulations - Meanwhile, in Israel...

While PACE Holds a Hearing on Circumcision, Another Baby Contracts Herpes in NYC

Israel Ahead of New York in Recommending Against Metzitzah B'Peh

New York: Oral Mohel Tests Positive for Herpes

Herpes Circumcision Babies: Another One? Geez!

Mohels Spreading Herpes: New York Looks the Other Way

Circumcision Indicted in Yet Another Death: Rabbis and Mohels are "Upset"

Related Post:

INTACTIVISTS: Why We Concern Ourselves