Sunday, May 1, 2022

It Looks Like @Joseph4GI Is Back

 

It looks like my account at Twitter has been restored.

I wonder what could have happened?

Could it be Elon Musk is keeping his word?

Those of you who have been following me on here know that Twitter had suspended my account and it looked like I wasn't getting it back.

Well, following the purchase of Twitter by Elon Musk, I decided I would try logging back into my account, and lo and behold, it looks like I'm finally able to start tweeting again.

However, I'm not sure how active I'll be now that my account is back.

It was nice not having to worry about who was tweeting, responding to me, mentioning me etc.

Do I really want to go back to that?

Perhaps for now, I'll just stick to publishing any new posts I create on this blog.

My Thoughts on Elon Musk's Acquisition of Twitter

I'm of two minds regarding the recent series of events surrounding this social media platform.

On the one hand, I'm not sure how I feel about one man having the power to censor or allow information to be published.

That was the problem before, though.

It still IS the problem on platforms such as Facebook, who are owned by a single billionaire, namely Mark Zuckerberg.

Actually, as long as I've been an intactivst, there have always been people trying to label us "anti-Semites," and what we post "hate speech" or "disinformation."

How verifiable fact can be called any of these things is beyond me, and yet, for a while, it seems advocates of male infant circumcision were successful in having me silenced on Twitter.

It is not uncommon to hear from other intactivists that Twitter, Facebook or other social media platforms had suspended their accounts and put them on periodical bans.

 


 

It's rather sad, frustrating, scary, all of these things and more at the same time, that the factual information that intactivists have to share can be labeled "hate speech," "disinformation" etc. and banned, blocked, deleted, what have you.

So on the other hand, I'm glad that Twitter is now in the hands of someone that, at least for now, seems to be a champion of free speech.

It is a problem when truth and verifiable fact can be labeled "hate speech" and/or "disinformation" for the sake of censoring it.

It is my hope that Mr. Elon Musk is a man of his word and he protects the free speech of intactivists, although this would be construed as "hate speech" and/or "disinformation" by those who are inconvenienced by it and who would have us silenced.

WHO would be interested in silencing intactivists?

-Those who profit from this procedure performed on millions annually in the United States alone.

-Those who have religious or cultural conviction to protect what they see as an age-old custom.

-Those who have malpractice lawsuits for disseminating medical misinformation and reaping profit from non-medical procedures on healthy, non-consenting individuals to evade.

There are pocketbooks, reputations, religious beliefs and cultural customs to protect.

Arguments stand or fall on their own.

Given a proper hearing, it would be self-evident that arguments against male infant circumcision are robust, and arguments in favor collapse under their own weight.

The only way advocates of male infant circumcision *can* win is to find ways to make sure the conversation doesn't happen, whether it be by crying "hate speech," "disinformation" or by demanding platforms have us banned.

So I am glad that it sounds like we have a champion in Elon Musk.

 


 

A lot of people don't like this, but allowing the freedom of speech is a GOOD thing.

It allows us to have important, meaningful conversation, discuss difficult topics such as male infant circumcision, and to present the facts so people can see and verify them for themselves.

It's thanks to freedom of speech that we're allowed to question guidelines put out by male infant circumcision advocates at the CDC and AAP, which we know are deliberately misleading.

It is a logical fallacy to dismiss information when it's not being purported by "the experts" at medical organizations, and/or to prop it up when it is.

It's called "ad verecundiam," also known as "appeal to authority.

 

 

Information is either true or false based on its own merit, regardless of who is presenting it, and it is completely possible for even experts at prestigious organizations to be wrong.

It is those interested in suppressing information while maintaining a false narrative who are interested in having the power to decide what is "mis/disinformation" or not.

Intactivists have factual, verifiable information on our side, but what good does it do us if circumcision advocates on Twitter deem it "hate speech" or "disinformation?"

I'm SO glad Mr. Elon Musk decided to buy Twitter.

Only those who fear the truth need fear freedom of speech and eager to wield the power to silence others.

Those who fear actual lies and disinformation need not fret, for the truth shall set us free.

Related Posts:

The State of Affairs for Joseph4gi 
 
Twitter Censoring Joseph4GI
 
Circumcision Censorship at Twitter? 
 
Twitter Bans Award-Winning Circumcision Documentary Filmmaker
 
Politically Correct Research: When Science, Morals and Political Agendas Collide
 
OUT OF LINE: AAP Circumcision Policy Statement Formally Rejected
 
 

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: 7yo Dies in Bishek, Kyrgyzstan Post-Circumcision

 

This happened last month, and I've been sitting on it because I've been busy with life and work, but I figured, better late than never.

I can't read the original news article anymore because it's now behind a paywall, but the opening line says it all; A 7-year-old boy died in the Bishkek Children's Hospital, Bishek, Kyrgyzstan on April 2nd this year.

The headline says that an autopsy was not performed.

Outside of the United States, circumcision is performed on boys of varying ages. In Muslim countries, such as Kyrgyzstan, circumcision is performed on children between the ages of 7 and 13.

Some circumcision advocates love to say "death doesn't happen when it's performed on newborns." Jewish advocates love to say "death never happens when performed on the 8th day." Of course, they say this because this is when Jewish boys are customarily circumcised.

None of this is true, however.

Death is a risk of circumcision, and it doesn't really matter at what age the circumcision is performed.

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

Quite possibly the most common of all complications is the child bleeding to death because the wound has failed to heal properly, and this will happen to any male, any age, whether it's performed by a ritual circumcisor or doctor.

Please see the long list of links below.

In 2012, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) issued their policy statement on male infant circumcision, where they state that "the benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks," but at the same time, in the same policy statement, they say "the true incidence of complications after newborn circumcision is unknown." The statement concluded that "the benefits are not enough to recommend the procedure," while at the same time, that parents should be the ones to weight the risks and benefits for themselves, the risks of which are, by the AAP's own admission, unknown. In effect, the AAP absolves doctors who perform circumcisions on healthy minors of any responsibility, placing the onus on parents instead.

Because this is cosmetic, non-medical surgery, whether or not these risks are conscionable ought to be considered when performing it on healthy, non-consenting minors.

It is my view that, unless absolutely indicated, the decision of whether or not to circumcise should be left up to the individual in question, when he is of age, and after he has considered all the benefits and risks for himself.

The child was alive and well up until April 2nd last month, and had he not been circumcised he would still be alive.

Death is a risk of circumcision.

Are parents being properly informed about this?

Without medical or clinical indication, can doctors even be performing circumcision on healthy, non-consenting minors, let alone be giving parents any kind of "choice?"

Isn't it medically fraudulent to be profiting from non-medical procedures on healthy, non-consenting individuals?

And if one of said individuals dies, should doctors not be held liable?

Related Posts: 

So Where's the "Sunat Party?"

No World Record for "Circumcision Party"
 
External Link:
 
AKIPress:7yo in died in Bihsek after circumcision, autopsy not performed
 
Further Reading:
 
CIRCUMCISION DEATH: 13yo Bleeds to Death in the Philippines
 
AUSTRALIA: One Child Dies, Another Nearly Bleeds to Death Post Circumcision
 
 
 
Another Circumcision Death - Wound Would Not Stop Bleeding

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

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

Tuesday, March 29, 2022

CIRCUMCISION DEATH: 13yo Bleeds to Death in the Philippines

 

A report published on March 25th 2022 tells of a 13yo who died in Lucena, Quezon, The Philippines following his circumcision.

According to another report "24 Oras," the boy bled to death after bleeding would not stop after being circumcised at a "free circumcision event" organized by the Scout Royale Brotherhood.

Circumcision is a custom in the Philippine Islands, thought to be a holdover from their Islamic past. While Filipinos are mostly Catholic now, and the Bible prohibits circumcision for gentiles (Galatians 5), circumcision continues to be ingrained in Filipino culture.

 

Boys being circumcised at a "circumcision party" in Marikina, The Philippines

Unlike the United States where male infant circumcision is performed on newborns, in the Philippines it is a rite of passage, often performed on older boys. In the Philippines, circumcision can happen at a hospital, or a doctor's office, but it often happens at mass circumcision events, where boys are gathered and circumcised by organizations dedicated to circumcising boys.

Because it is stigmatized to remain intact, or "supot" as they say in the Philippines, most boys are geared toward getting circumcised from a young age, in the summer before going back to school.

While most circumcisions are performed "successfully," where the destruction of the glanular hood is intentional, there are risks that attend the procedure.

Various kinds of infection, including MRSA and galloping gangrene can occur, part or full ablation of the penis can happen, and hemorrhage or sepsis can occur. The most common complication of circumcision is uncontrollable bleeding.

Not to mention that even a circumcision considered "successful" will not always be an aesthetically pleasing result, often resulting in too much or too little skin removed, skin tags, uneven scarring and other misshaping.

And yes, death is a risk of male circumcision.

These risks attend male circumcision at any age.

In 2012, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) issued their policy statement on male infant circumcision, where they state that "the benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks," but at the same time, in the same policy statement, they say "the true incidence of complications after newborn circumcision is unknown." The statement concluded that "the benefits are not enough to recommend the procedure," while at the same time, that parents should be the ones to weight the risks and benefits for themselves, the risks of which are, by the AAP's own admission, unknown. In effect, the AAP absolves doctors who perform circumcisions on healthy minors of any responsibility, placing the onus on parents instead.

Because this is cosmetic, non-medical surgery, whether or not these risks are conscionable ought to be considered when performing it on healthy, non-consenting minors.

It is my view that, unless absolutely indicated, the decision of whether or not to circumcise should be left up to the individual in question, when he is of age, and after he has considered all the benefits and risks for himself.

Related Posts: 

So Where's the "Sunat Party?"

No World Record for "Circumcision Party"
 
External Link:
 
GMA News Online: Circumcision causes 13-year-old to bleed to death in Lucena 
 
Further Reading:
 
AUSTRALIA: One Child Dies, Another Nearly Bleeds to Death Post Circumcision
 
 
 
Another Circumcision Death - Wound Would Not Stop Bleeding

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

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

Tuesday, February 1, 2022

January 24, 2022: Circumcision Sends Another Baby Boy to "Heaven"

 

It's happened before. And it will all happen again. But this time it happened in Texas.

I grow tired of writing these, so I'm just going to post the picture exactly as I found it on Facebook:

 


There's something cringe-worthy about parents who willingly allow their otherwise healthy child to have their genitals mutilated by a perfect stranger trying to somehow tie in their religion and "the will of god" into the picture.

"God needed him more than we did," the mother wrote. Yes. And apparently the doctor needed your child's foreskin more than he did. And you wanted your child to have a mutilated organ more than you wanted your child.

"He was always meant to be an angel." The deliberate justification of infanticide. So why don't we kill all children then? So that they all "get to heaven?"

And what do you mean "little did we know?" Did the doctors not explain the risks and complications of circumcision? Or he did and you signed the form anyway? One of these two things has to be true.

"Why do other babies get miracles but mine didn't? Why did this happen to us?"

So you wanted to have your child mutilated AND you wanted a miracle? Wonders never cease.

This is about as much as I can write on this. I'm not sure how long we intactivists have to say it or how many more babies have to die before we realize doctors shouldn't be doing this. The following is cut and paste. I can't anymore with this story.

Closing 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.

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

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.

Because male infant circumcision is elective, cosmetic surgery, any death above "zero" is unconscionable.

May one day the circumcision of healthy, non-consenting individuals be recognized for the medical fraud and violation of basic human rights that it is.

Related Posts:

NEW "STUDY": "Circumcision Risks Low in Newborns"

The Circumcision Blame Game
 
List of Deaths and Complications Documented on This Blog:
 
 
 
 
Another Circumcision Death - Wound Would Not Stop Bleeding

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

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

Wednesday, December 15, 2021

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

 


Who is Jewish?

What is Jewish?

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

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

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

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

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

Is Jewish a religion or is it an ethnic group?

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

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

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

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

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

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

It muddies the waters.

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

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

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

Who is Jewish?

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

One of the 12 tribes.

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

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

 

 (Last visible as of 12/16/2021)

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

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

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

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

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

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

External Link:

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

Tuesday, December 14, 2021

Tucker Carlson and Fuambai Ahmadu Make the Case Against Male Infant Circumcision


Well, well, well! Would you look at this! I guess I'm on a roll after a long hiatus. Who knows how long it will last? Well, I guess I might as well ride the wave while I'm at it.

I was surfing Facebook and I came across an old video I hadn't noticed before. Fox's Tucker Carlson was interviewing Fuambai Ahmadu and her advocacy for female genital cutting. According to YouTube, the video was put up on May 4, 2017, around the time the federal ban on FGM was lifted due to a court case in Detroit.

I'll embed the video here. Today is December 15, 2021 and I can still see the video as of today, so if you can't see the video anymore, it was probably taken down. See the video below.



I decided to watch the whole video, and I couldn't help but notice that basically these two are making the case against male infant circumcision in the United States.

I think this back-and-forth perfectly illustrates the male infant circumcision slash female circumcision debate and how it usually goes down in this country because people are committed to the narrative that ignores and protects their cognitive dissonance.

I decided to type up a transcript of the whole thing and post it here. (I'm afraid there are some things that I couldn't quite hear clearly, please forgive me)

I'll be inserting my own commentary; if you want to hear the argument without any commentary, please feel free to watch the video.

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT:

Fuambai Ahmadu:
"I don't defend FGM. I don't mutilation. I would never defend the mutilation of anybody. I don't identify with the term 'mutilation.' I don't know anybody in my family who does, or my community. From over 25 years of research I've done on this field, I would say the great majority of women who are affected by what I call female circumcision practices do not see themselves as mutilated. I think we need to start interrogating how we use that terminology."

I'd like to draw a parallel here; she sounds precisely like an advocate for male infant circumcision. People who advocate and support cutting the genitals of boys never think it's "mutilation" and they feel "insulted" that anyone ever referred to what they do as such. Well THEY don't do "mutilation," it's those other people who do it. We're the innocent ones. And I think this is where the whole trouble of "female genital cutting is mutilation" begins, because the point is not actually to decry mutilation; if it were, we would talk about the elephant in the room, and we would have to talk about the very practice one is defending. In my opinion, the whole point of decrying genital cutting as it occurs in girls as "mutilation" is to diverge attention to the practice one wishes to defend. If "that other" thing is "mutilation," what we do is perfectly fine.

Tucker Carlson:
"I almost don't want to specify what it refers to because it's upsetting, but it's the removal of a kind of key female sex organ in a lot of cases and this is being done to girls who obviously can't give consent, and it affects them for life."

Notice here the arguments that Carlson is putting forward, because it will get him in the end.

He has a problem with cutting girls because they can't give consent, and it affects them for life.

The same is irrefutably and demonstrably true for male infant circumcision. The biggest problem any intactivist have with male infant circumcision are, as you can read throughout my entire blog is, consent, and the fact that a man has to live with the outcome, adverse or benign, for the rest of his life.


Ahmadu:
"This is why I think we DO need to have a discussion on what IT is. When we use the term "female genital mutilation, automatically a certain image comes to mind, an image that has been put out there for over 30, 40 years in the mainstream media through activists, efforts and women's groups. It's the idea of the most horrific of procedure, which is Type 3, the WHO's classified this as type 3 infibulation, that involves the suturing and sowing up of the labia majora. This is a very rare procedure that is confined, basically, to a specific part of sub-Sahara Africa, the horn of Africa. It makes up less than 10% of the entire prevalence of the procedures in sub-Sahara Africa and across various parts of the world.

A case I've made on here on several posts already (scroll to the bottom for links to other posts I've written on this subject).

Ahmadu is engaging in a classic tactic that advocates of male infant circumcision turn to, and that's blaming it all on the media and the negative image it has given it. It is forceful cutting of a healthy, non-consenting child, but that's not the problem; it's the negative attention it has garnered.

Can you imagine pedophiles arguing that nothing is wrong with what they do; it's the negative image the media and others have given them and they're being oppressed?

Actually, in the case of male infant circumcision, it's quite the opposite; for the past century it's been presented as this good and wonderful and harmless and "medically beneficial" thing.


We need to understand that over 90% of what we call 'female circumcision' involves what WHO classifes as Types 1, and that's divided up into types A and B, and Types 2, A and B as well. So for instance, the
Dawoodi Bohra case that has become quite talked about in recent weeks with the doctor, the female doctor, Dr. Nagarwala I believe, in Michigan, their community, their Shia Muslim, you know, quiet community here in the United States, their community performs, first of all they perform circumcision on boys, we'll get to that in a moment, and they perform Type 1 A circumcision, which is a nick, a nick of the prepuce, the foreskin of the clitoris."

Exactly. She's on point.

Advocates of male infant circumcision would like people to believe that female genital cutting is "much, much worse" without actually ever making comparisons. The argument usually goes something like this:

Male infant circumcision advocate:
"Female infant circumcision is so much worse."

Skeptic:
"So let's discuss it."

Male infant circumcision advocate:
"How dare you compare them! You just can't! So don't!"

I'm SO glad to see a woman discussing this; I'm usually shut down because I'm male. Well, here is an actual woman who has undergone so-called "FGM."

Carlson:
"That is not actually what is illegal as far as I understand. What I understand is the removal of an entire portion of the female sex organ without the consent of the child. Now, you underwent this as an adult; there's a quantum difference between making a decision to do something like that, and having that decision made for you that cannot be reversed as a child. That seems to me, probably the worst thing you can do to a child."

 

Here again, Carlson brings up the elephant in the room when it comes to male infant circumcision; the consent of the person involved for a decision that cannot be reversed. This is precisely it, Tucker! You've got it!


Ahmadu:
"OK, so back to the case of the
Dawoodi Bohra doctor who is now in prison waiting trial, she is accused, she's charged with FGM, mutilating 7yo girls , he performed nicks, nicks, Type 1 A to the clitoral foreskin. (Carlson tries to interrupt) But it's really important because what's happened it's the activists who have made the term female genital mutilation they've conflated it with all these different practices..."

 

Yes! It's a nick! So small! And she's completely right. This shouldn't be a problem. Not if it's OK to slice off a chunk of flesh from a child's penis.


Carlson:
"Some of these activists are victims of the practice itself. And we've interviewed them on this set. And they have said this has affected my life and my happiness, and my ability to experience happiness in a profound way, and it's totally barbaric, and guess I don't buy the 'hey it's a different culture,' well so is throwing widows on the pyre, and it's still wrong."

 
Tucker sounds like he could be on the intactivist team! Except when Fuambai actually throws his own logic in his face.

Yes, Tucker. "It's a different culture" shouldn't justify slicing parts of children's genitals without their consent. You are right on the money.


Ahmadu:
"...and I absolutely agree with you, Tucker, but there's one thing I want to correct. You've said it removes a vital part of the female genital anatomy, alright? And is it OK to say if I actually that part is? Because there's a misconception about actually, you know, what these surgeries entail. There is no female circumcision procedure that removes the clitoris of a woman. It is absolutely impossible to remove a woman's clitoris without killing her. What is exposed is a tiny fraction of what is actually an extensive organ.


Again. Fuambai is on point.

And here too is an argument that male infant circumcision advocates like to use; the foreskin isn't a VITAL part of man's anatomy, is it? Since it isn't "vital," then it should be OK for parents to have doctors remove it in their children. After all, they can still have fulfilling lives, sexual or otherwise, what's the real "harm?"

This argument works in the case of female genital cutting. If it's not actually removing anything "vital," what's actually wrong with it? Why can't parents choose to have doctors do this? It's the same argument.


Carlson:
"I'm going to stop you there and before we get too into it, I'm gonna just... lemme just say... (he's interrupting) Would you concede, because there are a lot of women who feel mutilated by this, this is being led by women, that maybe we should let adults make this decision and not imposed on six year olds? Is that fair?"


(Clap, clap, clap...) BRAVO, Tucker. Bravo.

Now if only you could agree to carry this argument through its logical conclusion...


Ahmadu:
"Well here's what I think. There are a lot of men, right? ...who have experience male infant circumcision who say that this is mutilation. In fact, in the courtroom, when Dr. Nagarwala appeared in court, there were protesters outside they were not anti-FGM protesters...

Jesus Christ! Who's side is this Fuambai woman on?

Intactivists could easily confuse her as one of our own.

She's completely right.

The one thing that I would have to say to this is that far from being an "experience," a lot of men have graphic evidence that circumcision has indeed harmed them, because their procedures resulted in severe deformity of their organs. It is verifiably, objectively true that, to many men, circumcision has resulted in "mutilation" as defined by opponents of FGM.

Of course, in my book, unless there is medical or clinical indication, slicing ANY part of a healthy, non-consenting person's body off is "mutilation."

Carlson:
(Interrupts again) But that's not an argument for female circumcision...

 
Tucker, yes it is. Readers, scroll back up. Did he, or did he not bring up that "there are a lot of women who feel mutilated by this, this is being led by women, that maybe we should let adults make this decision and not imposed on six year olds?"

Sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander, Tucker.


Ahmadu:
"What I'm saying is, you're saying to me that there are opponents to female circumcision...

Carlson:

"Look as you know, there's a lot of research, and I don't want to get into the circumcision debate on men, but there is research that shows that there are profound medical advantages in that, there is no research that shows there's any medical advantage in female genital mutilation.

 
Classic.

Notice here how his own argument of consent and letting adults make their own decision flies right out the window...


Ahmadu:
"First of all, that research is contested. There's a lot of research that shows that yes there IS harm, there IS risk. There are over a hundred deaths, a hundred deaths each year from male circumcision.

 
THIS WOMAN! Fuambai, you're an intactivist!!!


Carlson:
"Look, I don't want to... that's... that's a separate show... and I'm open-minded but, but, but what you're doing is not making...


Poor Tucker... walked into his own trap on this one...


Ahmadu:
"You're saying we're abusing girls...


That's what he said, Fuambai...


Carlson:
"But that's like saying... you know we can't ban weed because beer is legal... it's two separate arguments..."


Talk about attacking a straw man... what does weed and beer, two substances that adults choose to take out of their own accord, have to do with the arguments at hand, that of the severity of genital cutting and the consent of the individual...


Ahmadu:
"You are accepting that it is OK to perform a much more intensive or, invasive procedure on boys...

 
When she dies, Fuambai Ahmadu needs to be made an intactivist saint...


Carlson:
"No, I'm not accepting that I'm just saying that this is bad to do to little girls it's pretty simple...


But OK to do to little boys...


Ahmadu:
"I disagree. I think that if we accept it in American society that we do remove the foreskin on boys, we do practice genital cutting here, in the US, on boys, then it should not be impossible to understand that there are cultures and societies that practice what certain people are now calling gender inclusive genital surgery.

 
BINGO.


Carlson:

"Well I just don't want it in my culture, in my society, I guess it's what it all comes down to."


As his society mutilates 1.4 million boys annually...


Ahmadu:
"So what, it's OK to cut BOYS in your society?"

 
YOU GO, GIRL!!!


Carlson:
"I'm just saying I don't want THIS. I think it's awful."

 
Yes to this, but no to that.

The words "ad hoc" and "special pleading" come to mind...


Ahmadu:
"Well we don't in our culture we don't discriminate. You know, we have gender egalitarian surgeries. We do not discriminate."

Carlon:
"We're out of time I feel that we could finish the hour... I'd probably die of embarrassment but thank you very much..."

Ahmadu:
"You're welcome."


Poor Tucker... clearly here tripping over his own arguments, and clearly his attacking the straw men of beer and weed isn't working and he can't stand it so he's got to end the segment...

But see, neither of them is wrong. They're both absolutely correct.

Both of these individuals make the case as to why forcibly cutting the genitals of boys, and girls, is wrong.

Tucker Carlson, quite rightly so, points out that this is a decision that needs to be made by consenting adults, and he makes no exception for culture. He says "I don't want this in my culture," but then recoils when he is faced with the fact that his own culture already accepts the forcible cutting of minors.

Fuambai Ahmadu is on point when she talks about gender egalitarianism and non-discrimination, albeit in the wrong direction. She's right though.

"..if we accept it in American society that we do remove the foreskin on boys, we do practice genital cutting here, in the US, on boys, then it should not be impossible to understand that there are cultures and societies that practice what certain people are now calling gender inclusive genital surgery."

Absolutely on point.

However, conversely, if we oppose it in American society, the forced cutting of healthy, non-consenting girls without their consent, regard for culture or religion, then the same should be true of the forced cutting of healthy, non-consenting boys, regardless of culture, religion or otherwise.

Though it's on Fox, I thought this was an excellent interview and an excellent representation of how the circumcision debate usually goes, with the absolute meltdown when male and female genital cutting is discussed in the the same breath, the refusal to acknowledge that they are the same issue.

Spot on.

Related Posts:
Circumcision is Child Abuse: A Picture Essay

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

COURTROOM SHOWDOWN: Religious Freedom on Trial

DETROIT: Federal Ban on FGM Declared Unconstitutional
 
REPOST: Of Ecstasy and Rape, Surgery and Mutilation

 

Monday, December 13, 2021

Anne Rice, Willfully Ignorant Male Genital Mutilation Apologist Dies

 

Recently I ran across news that Anne Rice has finally kicked the bucket at 80.

And good riddance.

I couldn't stand how she threw children and men under the bus to pander to her feminist base and boost her book sales.

As more advocates of male genital mutilation croak, the world becomes a better place for current and future generations.

Fuck her.

Fuck anyone who insists on continuing to push the false narrative that "male and female circumcision aren't the same" and that men have all the attention when it comes to genital mutilation and that men attempt to "shove women to the back of the bus" in this regard.

It's feminists and anti-female genital mutilation activists and organizations that hog the limelight and piss on the rights of boys and men.

To push the narrative that "men bring up male circumcision while women suffering genital mutilation struggle to find a voice" as countless organizations dedicate themselves to raise awareness of FGM in Africa as they ignore boys and men who die in circumcision initiation rituals has got to be the ultimate misandrist grift.

Ding dong the witch is dead.

I can't wait until all willfully ignorant advocates of male genital mutilation die out.

Then the world will be a better place for ALL.

Willfully ignorant misandrist bitch.

Related Posts:
ANNE RICE: Misandrist Attention Whore

EDGAR SCHOEN: America's Circumcision Champion Dies
 
Circumcision is Child Abuse: A Picture Essay
 
Politically Correct Research: When Science, Morals and Political Agendas Collide

External Links:
Anne Rice, author of Interview with the Vampire, dies aged 80