Friday, July 2, 2021

Washington Daily News Publishes OBGYN Circumcision Misinformation Piece

I’d never heard of the Washington Daily News until today, when I saw this scroll up on my Facebook news feed:




I wanted to see if anything had changed in terms of the misinformation dispensed on American mass media. I clicked, and sure enough, it's a self-serving doctor repeating the same myths and misinformation regarding male infant genital cosmetic surgery.


I'm not sure exactly what kind of article this is supposed to be. Is it a news article? An opinion piece? It's not immediately obvious what this is supposed to be. It looks a lot like a paid advertisement. The user allowed to publish is one "Vidant Health." Scroll further down and it's one "Dr. Bonnie Corley of Vidant Women's Care." Presumably she's a doctor working for Vidant and she is plugging the business and attempting to justify a practice OB/GYNs hold the lion's share for; male infant circumcision.




One would think that a publication that calls itself "Washington Daily News" would be interested publishing factual, accurate, verifiable information they've thoroughly investigated.

You know? What most of us would call "journalism."

Instead, it seems they've given this "doctor" a carte blanche to publish self-serving lies and nonsense.

Why is an OB/GYN talking about male genital surgery?

First, it must be asked why a doctor whose purview is WOMEN’S HEALTH is pushing male infant surgery. It should strike readers as odd that a doctor who is supposed to deal in gynecology, the female reproductive system and women's health is pontificating on male anatomy and care.

This is supposed to be the territory of pediatricians and urologists. Yet here she is, spewing garbage she just doesn't know what she's talking about. Could they have not asked an actual expert in the field?




Pontificating in a field one has no business in has got to be against medical standards somehow. Why is this woman defending male infant genital mutilation? The answer is, as an OBGYN who attends pregnant women, they’ve got first dibs.


Not mentioned here is how much she makes per mutilation. Some hospitals charge up to $7,000 a pop. It is estimated that 1.4 million American baby boys are being circumcised a year. This means that, at $7,000 per circumcision, American hospitals can be making as much as $9,800,000,000 annually on circumcision alone. It's no wonder doctors and nurses gush on and on about male infant circumcision; there is money to be made, and OB/GYNs, pediatricians and urologists are in competition.


When Someone Says It's Not the Money... it's the money. It's always the money.


What Dr. Corley Omits and Why

As stated above, circumcision brings in a pretty penny, so there is financial incentive for American doctors to highlight all what's good and wonderful about circumcision to parents, while downplaying, if not omitting all the downsides. Upton Sinclair once said:

“It’s difficult to get a [wo]man to understand something when [her] salary depends on [her] not understanding it."

In other words, doctors who perform circumcision have a conflict of interest in actually conveying factual information to parents. Honest doctors worth their salt would outright say there is no medical reason for performing surgery on a healthy, non-consenting minor. They would refuse to perform surgery on healthy children. In the United States, male infant circumcision is the one exception to this rule. In all other cases, reaping profit from elective non-medical surgery on healthy, non-consenting individuals constitutes "medical fraud."

 I'm going to go down the article refuting all the lies Dr. Corley tells, and filling in all the information she omits.

First, male infant circumcision is no "small procedure." It is the removal of up to 50% of the penile skin. In babies, the foreskin may be a few square centimeters, but in adults, it can be as big as a 3x5 card. 


How much skin is removed is different in every circumcision as there is no real way to tell how much skin to remove. This, in and of itself is a problem; a circumcision could result in too much skin being removed, resulting in painful erections and sex. Or, a circumcision could remove too little skin, resulting in a foreskin that heals itself to the head of the penis, needing correction later on. Parents ought to be informed that male infant circumcision botch jobs are so common that there are actually doctors who specialize in circumcision corrections; children going in for circumcision revisions because the first doctor screwed it up are not unheard of.

Even in a circumcision that goes "according to plan," the head of the penis is permanently exposed, where it would have been covered and kept warm and moist by the foreskin. This results in layers upon layers of keratin, necessarily resulting in desensitization. Not talked about here is the Sorrells study that showed that circumcised men were desensitized by a factor of four. Lack of a foreskin dries out the head of the penis and surrounding mucosa, necessitating the need for artificial lubrication, like K-Y, vaseline or astroglide for masturbation and sex.

To contrast with the fact that 80% of American men are circumcised from birth, the doctor should have mentioned that 70% of men are intact globally. American parents ought to know that most men in the world are not circumcised and live their lives just fine. She doesn't talk about the fact that, according to the CDC, male infant circumcision rates in the US have dropped to about 56%, and still falling. But of course she doesn't say this; Corley is appealing to the "everybody's doing it" alibi.

This focus on “parents having circumcision performed on their children for perceived medical benefits in the US” is wrong.


DOCTORS push this non-medical surgery on parents for these reasons and then absolve themselves from this medical fraud by asking them to sign a consent form.


Male infant circumcision is the only cosmetic, non-essential surgery American doctors will perform on healthy, non-consenting minors. All other medical procedures require medical indication. Otherwise it’s medical fraud.

Let’s talk about the so-called “benefits,” shall we?

“Urinary tract infections are 90% less common in males who have been circumcised.”

How much less?

It takes around 100 circumcisions to prevent a single UTI, and UTIs can be treated easily by other less invasive ways, like antibiotics. Not to mention, it is easily prevented with basic hygiene. 

“Circumcised men have a lower risk of developing cancer of the penis, HIV and probably herpes," Corley says.


First off, again, what is this difference? Is the doctor going to cite any medical literature?


Here is what the American Cancer Society has to say about the matter:

"In the past, circumcision (removing the foreskin on the penis) was suggested as a way to lower penile cancer risk. This was based on studies that reported much lower penile cancer rates among circumcised men than among uncircumcised men. But in some studies, the protective effect of circumcision wasn't seen after factors like smegma and phimosis were taken into account. Still, some experts have said that circumcision prevents penile cancer.

In the US, the risk of penile cancer is low even among uncircumcised men. Men who aren’t circumcised can help lower their risk of penile cancer by practicing good genital hygiene."


Scrutinize the medical literature; a causal link between having a foreskin and a “higher risk of HIV” simply does not exist.

Looking at world HIV data, the United States has one of the highest rates of HIV transmission in the world in spite of 80% of men being circumcised from birth. We have more HIV than Mexico.

The CDC reports the US has higher STD rates than European countries where circumcision is rare or not practiced.

Research actually shows circumcised males are at a higher risk for HPV. In case you are “probably” worried about herpes or cervical cancer.

What’s more, and here is the kicker, is that there simply isn’t a global epidemic for all of these things. 70% of men are intact globally and there simply isn’t a world epidemic of men’s penises rotting off, or women with cervical cancer in non-circumcising countries. Boys and men aren’t lining up at urologist’s office clamoring for circumcision.

She’s right about penile cancer being rare and there now being HPV vaccines. In which case, what’s the point?

She minimizes the risks as "usually not serious."


The risks include infection, a botched circumcision that may have needed correction later on, loss of part or all of his penis, hemorrhage, septic shock, a penis that was mutilated beyond what is deemed “acceptable, , painful erections and death, not to mention the inevitability of keratinization and eventual desensitization. Hemorrhage is THE MOST common complication that sends circumcised children to the ER.


Injury to the penis has not only been reported, there have been very public million dollar lawsuits. Just Google them. “Appear very rare” to whom? A greedy OB/GYN with dollar signs in her eyes? Serious complications are COMMON. SO common that there are lawyers who specialize in taking circumcision cases.


The following is a comment taken from the comment section, written by known circumcision David Llewellyn:



"As a lawyer I have represented many boys and men who have either lost too much shaft skin or lost part of the end of the penis (and in one case all of the end) as a result of a botched circumcision or bad post circumcision care. From what I can tell I expect that 30% or so of boys and men who were circumcised at birth have had too much skin removed from their penile shafts. So, even though there are no really good studies on errors, I think the error rate is quite high. In my experience deposing doctors I have found that few docs understand the penile skin system. Also,the article is in error when it states that there are no studies showing a decrease in sensitivity. The article by Sorrells, et al. in BJU International in 2007 showed that the foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. This article has never been refuted. It defies common sense to think that you can remove the protective covering of the glans, tissue that is full of specialized nerve endings, and not reduce sensitivity. A study from Belgium by Bronselaer, et atl in BJU Int'l in 2013 showed a decrease in sensitivity. In fact, reduction in sensitivity was one of the initial reasons given for circumcision in this country in the late 19th Century. In summary, circumcision is risky and damaging and should not be performed unless there is a real medical necessity, which is very, very rare. Most of the world is not circumcised and gets along just fine. Uncircumcised Europe has less STDs and other penile problems than does the heavily circumcised U.S. Sadly, this article merely repeats the prejudiced views of circumcised U.S. doctors who profit from the continuation of this needless and damaging surgery."

His website is: David J Llewellyn: The Circumcision Lawyer


“The risk of not having a circumcision in infancy is largely related to difficulties in keeping the uncircumcised penis clean,” says Corley, but again, real world data shows that this simply isn’t a problem. Care during menstruation is more meticulous and complex. Boys and men in the world simply have no difficulty cleaning themselves.

“When bacteria and debris are trapped between the foreskin and glans, infections can result causing scarring known as phimosis, which prevents the foreskin from being retracted.” she continues.

This speaks to Corley's ignorance, willful or genuine, on the matter.


Phimosis is a fibrotic ring caused by lesions as a result of an infection of balanitis xerotica obliterans, or BXO for short. It is not caused by “bacteria and debris being trapped between the foreskin and the glans.”

And this can’t happen to newborns and children, where the foreskin is adhered to the glans until puberty by a bio-preputial lamina known as “synechia.” The foreskin not retracting during infancy is not “phimosis” but a normal stage in male development.

True phimosis is vanishingly rare, at less than 1%, and it occurs in adults.

“Another condition is paraphimosis, in which the foreskin retracts and cannot be returned to its normal position," Corley says.

This is usually caused by the doctor or the parents he instructs, insisting a child should have his foreskin retracted for “cleaning.”


Please see this post for information this doctor SHOULD have been taught and SHOULD BE telling parents. 

“These conditions may need to be eventually treated with circumcision, and the procedure is likely more painful and traumatizing to older children and adults than it is for infants,” Corley goes on.

Self-serving scare tactics.

These conditions are rare, iatrogenic and completely preventable.

Note; 70% of men are not circumcised globally. The rest are usually circumcised out of religious or cultural custom. Where is the epidemic of “problems” causing world-wide circumcise demand?

And the “more painful and traumatizing” canard is appeal to emotion; ALL surgery is traumatizing to an older child or an adult. Let’s imagine, for a moment, a reality where all surgery a child may go through as an adult is administered to him in infancy to “spare him the pain.” Ridiculous.

Very few men have conditions for which circumcision is medically indicated. In children it should NEVER be a problem; children who “need to be circumcised” are usually GIVEN their problems by American doctors and their harmful advice. As already mentioned before, there isn’t an epidemic of children or men with “problems” in non-circumcising countries.

“There is no data available on the number of males who are circumcised for medical reasons after the newborn period.”

Which is a testament to how vanishingly rare these cases are. And here, Corley is lying, because yes there is, albeit limited.

“Uncircumcised boys should be taught the importance of washing beneath the foreskin on a regular basis once the foreskin is fully retractable.” says Corley.

Just as uncircumcised women must be taught to clean out their labia and vulva. Actually, male hygiene is much simpler. This doctor is an OBGYN. She ought to know.

“One of the best arguments against circumcision is that the child is being subjected to a surgical procedure that he cannot consent to and which is often being performed as a culturally accepted cosmetic procedure.” Corley continues.

Let’s talk about FGM. That’s also a culturally accepted cosmetic procedure where it is performed. And let’s talk about a doctor’s duty to medicine, not cultural brokerage.

Lack of consent for elective, non-medical procedure is quite possibly the biggest problem for doctors like Corley; in any other case, reaping profit from non-medical surgery on healthy, non-consenting individuals constitutes medical fraud.

But this isn’t the only problem; the risks of infection, partial or full ablation, hemorrhage and even death are also important arguments against circumcision. Because male infant circumcision is elective, cosmetic surgery, any risk above zero is unconscionable.

“Some opponents of circumcision suggest that the procedure should not be performed until the child is old enough to understand the risks and give consent to the procedure. However as previously noted, at that time it will be more painful and expensive, and the recovery period needed after surgery will be longer.” - More self-serving promotion.

The pain and recovery are true of any surgery. Medically necessary circumcision is vanishingly rare. In contrast, complications are common. A child could end up with an aesthetically displeasing penis, lose it completely, or his life.

“Because there are known health benefits from male circumcision, its use has been supported by the American Academy of Pediatrics in 2012, and also by the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists.”


In 2012, the AAP concluded that the “benefits” of circumcision were “not enough to recommend the procedure.” In the same policy statement, they said that “the true incidence of complications after newborn circumcision is unknown.”

And ACOG only support it because it’s a money maker for them. The AAP released a policy statement in 2012 after a review of all existing medical literature on the matter; ACOG did no such review and only ever cite the AAP for “support.”

“Overall it is seen as potentially beneficial and rarely harmful, but every family should weigh the risks and benefits of this procedure and decide if it is right for them,” she continues.

Absolving the doctor of any responsibility.

Isn’t “weigh the risks and benefits” of a medical procedure and determining its necessity the DOCTOR’s job?

And where does Corley get “rarely harmful” from?

Let me repeat; In 2012, the AAP concluded that the “benefits” of circumcision were “not enough to recommend the procedure.” In the same policy statement, they said that “the true incidence of complications after newborn circumcision is unknown.”

How are lay parents expected to come to a more reasonable conclusion?


“In the end most people probably make the choice based on cultural values," Corley concludes.

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

Without medical or clinical indication, how is it doctors are performing surgery on healthy, non-consenting minors? Let alone giving parents any kind of choice?

This OB/GYN is nothing more than a charlatan, and this is nothing more than a paid ad.

Washington Daily News is colluding with a charlatan in perpetuating blatant misinformation. Rather than merely publish a self-serving business plug, the Washington Daily News ought to engage in journalism and publish the truth about this matter.

“It’s difficult to get a [wo]man to understand something when her salary depends on [her] not understanding it.”

Publishing circumcision information from a woman who makes her living performing them is probably not the best idea for neutral, objective, unbiased, dispassionate reporting.

Do better, Washington Daily News.

Related Posts:

The Circumcision Blame Game


When Someone Says It's Not the Money...


Circumcision Botches and the Elephant in the Room


CIRCUMCISION "RESEARCH": Rehashed Findings and Misleading Headlines


Where Circumcision Doesn't Prevent HIV II


PHIMOSIS: Lost Knowledge Missing In American Medicine


AAP: Around the Bush and Closer to Nowhere

External Links:

Washington Daily News - Health Beat: What to know about circumcision


American Cancer Society: Can Penile Cancer Be Prevented? 


US News: America's STD Rate at Record High Again: CDC 


Healio: Circumcised men at twice the risk for cancer-causing HPV, study shows 


National Post: Ontario newborn bleeds to death after family doctor persuades parents to get him circumcised 

Atlanta lawyer wins $11 million lawsuit for family in botched circumcision

David J Llewellyn: The Circumcision Lawyer

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.

Related Posts:

Pro-Circumcision Jewish LGBTs - The Height of Hypocrisy?

External Link:

Sunday, June 13, 2021

TikTok Mother Claps Back at “Mom-Shaming” With American Idiocy

To quote a certain mother on TikTok, “So I was going to leave this alone, but, I’m not.”

You know, I used to be one of those intactivists who would hop on each and every time some mother posted about their son’s genital mutilation online. Back when I used to be an angrier intactivist, I would wait on Twitter, wait in Facebook intactivist groups for others to post links to mothers talking about their son’s circumcision. I would go and lay into them, pulling out all the stops, making sure I did every thing I could to make sure it stung.

But then, I realized my time could be used more productively.

Once a child has been mutilated, there’s nothing we can do about it, and chances are a parent’s mind is already made up and their ears are deaf to anything we tell them. So why bother?

There is merit to posting on these threads though; while the mother may be trying to justify herself and may be hardening herself to any information we post, there are other moms reading this, and somebody’s got to be setting the record straight.

So while I no longer go “circumcision mom hunting,” if I see BS, I will call it out when and if I can. Sometimes I go on there, and there are already others commenting, which is great. And sometimes, what can I say, I’m a busy family man and I can’t get sucked in to every circumcision shit-storm some attention-seeking mom whips up on social media.

Still, if I see straight up verifiable idiocy, I can’t help but dig in.

I’m going to be polite about it, I’m going to refrain from making personal attacks, but I’m still going to call BS out whenever I see it.

Mother on TikTok Doubles Down on Idiotic Alibis
So like, I was scrolling down my Facebook newsfeed, and I saw this video that someone decided to take from TikTok and upload to YouTube.

I thought “TikTok? Not TikTok…” I had never had a TikTok account, mind you, I swore I’d stay away from that place if it’s the last thing I did.

But there I go, like the weak idiot that I am, and I click on the link. I watched the whole thing and I was like “No. This shit just can't fly.”

Her TikTok handle is right there for everyone to see. (I'm not going to post it on here... if anyone wants to go comment, I'm'a let you do the work.)

So there I go, downloading the app for this shit, making my Joseph4GI profile just so that I can comment. Thoughts going through my mind are… "what if I get banned like on Twitter because my posts are reported as 'harassment' or what not?"

Whatever, I thought, I’ll just post and leave.
 Like, I’m not going to call her names for doing this, I’m going to give this mother the benefit of the doubt; I’m a father too, and I completely understand that we all just want the best for our children. But she is repeating verifiable bullshit and I just have to call it out.

I went in the comments section for this video, and while there were some voices of reason there, there were also other moms repeating the same old BS to justify themselves.

I went to town making my comment, which on TikTok has to be made in a series because of the character limit.

TikTok is a funny place, because even after a user has blocked you (I can tell she blocked me because I could no longer see the video…), TikTok still notifies you when others reply to your comment on the video that supposedly “doesn’t exist.”

I decided I’d log out of TikTok and never log in ever again, because it just seems like another black hole I can get sucked into, but other intactivist users I know tell me that, as is usually the case with mothers flaunting their son’s circumcision on social media, the mother is intent on calling whenever someone tries to present her with information “mom-shaming,” and she’s blocking users and deleting comments that don’t agree with her.

Well, I may not be able to post to the TikTok video anymore, but nothing will prevent me from calling this woman out here.

Again, keeping it respectful.

Point by Point Response
What I’m going to do is post the transcript to her short video here, addressing what she says point by point.

Let’s begin with her opening lines:

“So I was going to leave this alone, but, I’m not.”

She should have left well enough alone. I could have left this alone too, but, as with her, I’m not.

“We’re not gonna mom-shame on here. OK?”

This is an interesting opener; it’s almost as if she was expecting backlash. But I ask, what does she consider “mom-shaming?” On the one hand, calling her names would be wrong. That’s no argument and no one deserves that. But is “mom-shaming” hurling insults? Or merely posting information that does not validate her position? There is a difference.

As parents, we can only make informed decisions, and make better future decisions from hearing newer, better information. Sometimes we make mistakes, and it’s only human. But good parents should want to hear new information so as to not make the same mistake in the future. The presentation of newer, better information so that we could make better decisions in the future should not be construed as “mom-shaming.”

Yet it seems to be “mom-shaming” any time a mom makes the decision to circumcise, and others present information that debunk her reasons for allowing it to happen.

“We’re not gonna mom-shame here” seems to be code for “Don’t post anything that makes me have to second-guess my decision, because it makes me feel ashamed.”

No one ever wants to learn we made the wrong decision, especially something as irrevocable as cutting off part of our children's’ genitals, but how are parents supposed to make better decisions if this information is forbidden from being presented?

 “If you wanna get your son circumcised, that’s fine. If you don’t, that’s fine.”

Invariably, mothers that are trying to justify their own position of having had their sons circumcised want to frame it as “just another parental decision.” Diapers or cloth, processed baby food or food made in-house, circumcision or intact organs, tattoos and piercings or clear unpierced skin. Zelda ears or not. You know? The usual.

Though it’s true that parents must make many decisions for their children, not every decision parents make in regards to their children is justified merely because “parents must decide everything for their children.”  A parent may decide to give cigarettes and booze to their children. And why not, “my child, my choice,” right?

But talk of “the big parental decision” is a red-herring.

Reaping profit from performing elective, non-medical surgery on healthy, non-consenting individuals already constitutes medical fraud. Without medical or clinical indication, how is it doctors are performing surgery on healthy, non-consenting minors, let alone giving parents any kind of “choice?”

This mother is under the delusion that she’s entitled to a “choice,” as are many others. It benefits doctors who perform male infant circumcision.
The question must be asked, what other elective, cosmetic, non-medical "options" can doctors offer parents for their healthy, non-consenting child?

Now begin the alibis:

“My issue is, I got my son circumcised because I don’t want him to have any issues in the future because I’m not that ‘what if mom.’ I don’t want that “We’ll we’re gonna let this happen and then see how it goes. NO. We’re gonna go ahead and take care of the situation, while we can.”

So much to unpack here.

First off, what “situation?”

A disease indicating a cure is a situation. An injury or deformity requiring surgical correction is a situation. Anatomically correct organs every child is born with are not a “situation” that needs “taking care of.”

Her “issue” is hypothetical non-issues.

In essence, the “issue” is imagined.

It’s interesting she wants to frame herself as not being a “what if” mom. There are so many “what ifs” that she chose to ignore when she put her son through this.

What if her son got an infection?

What if her son started hemorrhaging?

What if her son went into septic shock?

What if her son grows up to have painful erections?

What if her son grows up to resent that his penis was cut to assuage the concern for “issues” that may not even manifest in the future?

Did she stop to think about that?

No. This whole video is mostly about justifying what she did and not feeling “ashamed” for having made a permanent decision on her son’s body. That’s what’s kinda frustrating about this video; she wants to make it about “him.” The poor child doesn’t have a say in what happens to his body. This is all about getting validation on social media.

“And he did perfectly fine. Dr. said he didn’t cry or anything like that.”

The doctor would tell her that. Why does she believe him at face value? Has she not seen videos of the procedure on YouTube? Children don’t just “not cry” during the procedure. And even when they don’t, who is she trying to fool? There are videos on YouTube of mothers changing their children’s diapers for the first time and the uncontrollable crying that ensues after the local numbing wears off. She’s either dense or she hopes her viewers are.

“But do you really trust your teenage boy to wash down there and, get all in where he needs to get to make sure it’s clean? NO. I’m sorry, I’m not gonna trust my son to do that…”

This is probably the most telling part of the video.

It’s almost as if she has forgotten the hygiene issues she has to worry about as a woman every month. A teenage girl needs to learn to wear pads or insert tampons, how to dispose of them properly, not to mention clean up after herself and her surroundings. But she “can’t trust a teenage boy to wash down there.” Right.

Perhaps we should assume good faith; after all, she doesn’t have a penis, let alone an intact one.

“…and on top of that, when he’s like 80 or 90 years old, I don’t trust the nursing home, the nurses or himself to take care of himself, cuz I have known people that work in nursing homes, and they don’t wash themselves properly down there and get multiple infections.”

This last part is rather convoluted bunkum.

Men AND women struggle to clean themselves in old age, especially if they become senile and unable to care for themselves. If you can’t trust the nursing home and the nurses working there to do their job and look after the elderly interned there, who can you trust? If a nurse is incompetent and won’t clean an intact man, shouldn’t she be fired for not doing her job?

No. Grandpa should be circumcised and geriatric caretakers shouldn't be expected to learn natural male anatomy.

Like nurses must clean up feces, urine, and vomit, and they must clean out grandma's vagina, but don't make them come near grandpa's intact penis. Oh, no!

She says she has known people that work in nursing homes and “they don’t wash themselves properly down there and get multiple infections.” She probably means to say that according to the people she knows, the *men* don’t wash properly and get multiple infections.
In all honesty, I think she's just making this up as she goes along. Every mother who wants to justify herself for doing this knows *someone* who has had, or whose child has had “problems,” or "someone" who "works in a nursing home" with horror stories. Like 80% of men in the US are circumcised. Where on earth are all the intact boys and men coming from?

Another reality; only boys and men with problems go to hospitals. You won't hear of all the intact boys and men who aren't "suffering" because they don't go to the doctor. Doctors and nurses will tell you about other problems they see in patients. Appendectomies and gall bladder removals day in and day out. Every patient that goes to the doctor goes there for some sort of "problem." But no one says "You should have his or her appendix out because I see tons of patients at the hospital who need it." Or "It's better to remove his or her gall bladder right now. So many patients come in to get those removed."
All of these "I know someone who blah blah blah" stories are nothing but ad-hoc/post-hoc special pleading non-sense.

For those of you who don't understand logical fallacies by name, ad-hoc/post-hoc means "justification after the fact." "Special pleading" means when you want to make a special case for yourself.
But let's just give this mother the benefit of the doubt; this raises the question of why weren’t the nursing home workers doing their job properly to begin with.

She doesn’t mention anything of what happens when women get infections and have hygiene problems.

It is common for older women to get hysterectomies, as having a uterus and ovaries is a risk for fibroids (noncancerous growths inside the uterus), endometriosis (a painful disorder in which tissue similar to normal uterine lining grows outside the uterus), and cancer of the uterus, ovaries, fallopian tubes, or cervix. Does it make sense to perform a hysterectomy on a newborn to prevent problems for her near the end of her life?

No. It doesn’t.

The foreskin has function. It protects the glans in the uterus and in early childhood years. It has the most erogenous part of the penis. It keeps the glans moist and supple; without the foreskin, the glans becomes dried out and desensitized under layers of keratin. The foreskin provides a buffer zone during masturbation and helps stimulate a woman during intercourse. The expanding foreskin accommodates the shaft; removal of the foreskin can result in painful erections if too much skin is removed.

How does it make sense to destroy these functions and possibly ruin a man’s sex life so that caretakers “don’t have to clean it in his 90s?”

It’s nonsense.

Of course, we’ve heard the whole “when he’s 90” canard before.

Can she be forgiven for not actually having researched the prevalence of circumcision globally, and how intact men fare in geriatric care in the UK, Germany, Norway, Sweden, Finland, Netherlands, Switzerland, Italy, Belgium, France, pretty much the rest of Europe, not to mention Mexico, Brazil, Argentina and pretty much the rest of South America?

Maybe she can be forgiven for failing to notice the absence of an epidemic of “issues” in the rest of the world where most men, upward from 70%, aren’t circumcised?
She is American after all, and information in America seems to gear American parents toward circumcision.

And that’s the other thing that bothers me about this whole thing. All over her thread she repeats over and over “I’ve done my research, I’ve done my research,” when clearly she hasn’t.

If she did, she would know that not a single medical organization in the world recommends male infant circumcision, not even the American Academy of Pediatrics. She would know that in 2012 the AAP reviewed all existing medical literature on the topic and concluded that “the benefits are not great enough to recommend male infant circumcision,” and that “the true incidence of complications after male infant circumcision is unknown.” You can’t “do your research” and arrive at a more reasonable conclusion than the most respected medical organizations on the planet.

But you know, she can't even be blamed for this; it shouldn't be a parent's job to be on the up-and-up regarding global medical consensus. That should be the job of the doctor. What on earth are they paid millions for? So they can flout being held professionally responsible?

Parents trust doctors in their white lab coats to be the most informed resource regarding healthcare, and it's a shame that American doctors are abusing this trust to reap profit on an elective, non-medical procedure.

She can be forgiven for not knowing what goes on outside of America, she can be forgiven for not doing her own research and trusting her doctor, but can she be forgiven for doubling down on her ignorance and calling it "mom-shaming" every time people try to educate her?

I don’t mean to shame anybody, but willful ignorance is not a virtue.
Making mistakes doesn't make you a bad parent; refusing to acknowledging them does. As parents we should always be ready to admit we've made a mistake, and make better decisions based on newer, up-to-date information.
You can't post a spicy video on social media about something as controversial as male infant circumcision and then claim to be a victim of "mom-shaming" when others react and you don't get the validation you were hoping for.

She ends with this:

“So, we’re not gonna mom-shame on here. Stop thinking it’s mutilation, it’s NOT.”

What she means to say, of course, is she does not want to be made to feel ashamed for having gone through with an irreversible decision. She wants others to stop thinking it’s mutilation because it makes HER feel ashamed.

I hate to say it, but how others feel or think has no bearing; facts are objectively true by virtue that they can be observed and verified.

Without medical or clinical indication, “mutilation” is precisely what slicing off a normal, healthy part of a healthy, non-consenting minor is.

She needs to stop calling naming facts “mom-shaming.” That the facts are what they are do not blame those pointing them out.

And, to coin a phrase, she needs to stop thinking circumcision isn't mutilation; it is.
Private Parental Decisions Aren't Private on Social Media
Finally, I want to close with this, because it seems some parents don't seem to understand the way the internet works:
If you don't want others "shaming you" for your poor parental decisions, if you don't want others “getting in your business," posting said "business" on social media, where others are likely to comment, is prrrrrobably not a good idea.
C'mon. This should have been a lesson learned from the MySpace era. 

This isn't meant to be a "mom-shame."

It's meant to be educational.
It may be too late for this mother's child, but it's never to late for other children.

This post is full of links to legit news articles and resources for parents who are actually looking into this issue.

I hope this mother finds this post and learns something, and if she still refuses to learn, I hope other parents find this post and that they learn.
If at least one parent becomes informed and spares their child needless risk and mutilation, I will be glad to have written this post. If she finds this, I genuinely wish you and your child the health and happiness.

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.

The risks of male infant circumcision include infection, partial or full ablation, hemorrhage and even death. (See links above and below.) Since male infant circumcision is elective, cosmetic procedure on healthy, non-consenting individuals, any risk above “zero” is unconscionable. 

Related Posts:
External Links: