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.


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.

"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."

"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."

"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!

"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.

"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.

"...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.

"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...

"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."

(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.

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


"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.


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

"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!!!

"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...

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

That's what he said, Fuambai...

"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...

"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...

"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...

"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.



"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...

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


"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...

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

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

"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

Sunday, December 12, 2021

AUSTRALIA: One Child Dies, Another Nearly Bleeds to Death Post Circumcision


Hey readers... I know it's been a while, but as noted earlier, I just don't have time to post anymore. I felt this was worth posting and I wasn't going to let it get away.

Every once in a while, a circumcision mishap makes the news. I say this, because as a follower of circumcision stories on Facebook, there are a lot of stories that just don't. When I can, I post on here, but it's not always possible.

Even this post is going to be rather brief because I need to get ready for work and I don't have the time to write in all the details as I'd like. Instead I'm going to post links to various articles so readers can go check out the story for themselves.

At any rate, one child has died in Perth, Australia, and another has nearly bled to death.

As is the usual case, doctors and reporters are already trying to shift blame away from circumcision and are studiously avoiding talking about the fact that as male infant circumcision is cosmetic, non-medical procedure in healthy, non-consenting individuals, and that these deaths should have never happened.

Here is a list of news articles; I'll let the reader make their own judgement:

Toddler dies, baby fighting for life after allegedly botched circumcision at Perth medical clinic 

Likely cause of WA toddler’s death after circumcision revealed

Toddler dead, infant rushed into life-saving surgery after medical procedure goes wrong in Perth 

Perth toddler who died after circumcision had adverse reaction to anaesthetic, officials say

Toddler dies and baby brother left in serious condition after circumcisions at Perth clinic 

Boy dies after circumcision in Perth's southern suburbs

Toddler dies, baby fighting for life after 'botched circumcision' at Australian medical centre

At least one doctor has his head on straight:

Parents are warned against circumcising their children after a toddler, 2, died 'of a reaction to anaesthetic' and his baby brother almost bled out 

The spin of these news articles seem very suspicious.

As a follower of circumcision stories, I observe a tendency for news reporters, especially reporters in countries where circumcision is a normalized procedure, to want to shift blame away from and vindicate male infant circumcision.

"It was an allergic reaction."

"The child suffered from bleeding problems."

"The doctor was incompetent."

All these reasons and excuses as to why readers should overlook the fact that a child has died from medically unnecessary procedure.

Shouldn't have doctors known before?
A few things aren't adding up here.

Let's just assume for the sake of argument that the children were undergoing medically indicated surgery. (Which they weren't.)

An allergic reaction to general anesthesia, even local anesthesia is, or should be a serious concern, and so should a history of hemophilia, as these could prove fatal.

So what is the reason the doctors involved, the anesthesiologist, the surgeon, the doctor who consulted these parents, did not order tests and analyses to make sure the children would survive the surgery?

Why are these even to blame?

From experience, I recently had to have knee surgery to have my anterior crucial ligament (ACL) repaired. At least in my case, in addition to questioning my family history for hemophilia and allergic reactions to drugs and anesthesia, the doctor ordered blood tests and analyses weeks ahead of my surgery.

Is this not standard procedure at all hospitals or clinics?

What is the reason these have become the culprit and not the incompetent doctors?

And it isn't it convenient that the first child died of an "allergic reaction" while the other nearly bled to death?

The two children are related; why was only one found to be allergic to anesthesia but not the other?

I'm no expert or coroner, but I suspect the OTHER child died of uncontrollable bleeding too, except doctors want to save their skins, avoid malpractice lawsuits while keeping male infant circumcision as a source of income, so they shifted the blame, and, as is the usual case, reporters, who may be circumcised and/or parents of circumcised children themselves, are complicit.

The elephant in the room here, however, is that without medical or clinical indication, doctors have no business performing surgery on healthy, non-consenting minors, let alone giving parents any kind of a "choice."

Whether or not blood tests or allergy analyses were conducted are secondary, as far as I'm concerned, because these surgeries were not medically indicated, and should have never happened in the first place.

The Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP) policy statement on male circumcision states:

 "After reviewing the currently available evidence, the RACP believes that the frequency of diseases modifiable by circumcision, the level of protection offered by circumcision and the complication rates of circumcision do not warrant routine infant circumcision in Australia and New Zealand."
This is in sharp contrast to the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) circumcision policy statement of 2012, which attempts to vindicate, but never quite coming to a recommendation circumcision, saying both that "the benefits outweigh the risks," and that "[the benefits] are not enough to recommend circumcision."

It should be noted that Australia and the US also have starkly different rates of male infant circumcision, Australia, fewer than 20% according to BetterHealth, and at about 56%, according to the CDC.

While the trend in other English-speaking countries is to recommend AWAY from male infant circumcision, American physicians strive to hang on.

What's it going to take for American doctors and world medicine in general to recognize that male infant circumcision is needless and potentially life-threatening?

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 circumcision include infection, hemorrhage, partial or full ablation 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.

Related Posts:

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


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


FACEBOOK NEWS FEED: A Complication and a Death

INTACTIVISTS: Why We Concern Ourselves


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


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

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