Sunday, May 23, 2021

“Doctor at your Door” Facebook User Feels Intactivist Heat


Also known as Carole Keim, MD, the Facebook user who runs the page "Doctor at Your Door" recently faced backlash from intactivists for a video she posted about the supposed "pros and cons" of male infant genital mutilation. (Also known as "male infant circumcision.") The video can be found here (on Facebook), but I've taken a snapshot and posted it below in case she takes it down.

She spouts the usual "pro-and-con" BS, framing it as a "parental choice," as most male infant circumcision advocates do.

Once intactivists made the scene, however, she started blocking users and deleting comments, leaving up only those who were favorable to her, including comments that appear to be from circumfetishsts spouting pro-circ non-sense.

Her videos are now locked for comments (at least to me, anyway), she has allowed only pro-circ comments to remain.

She also decided to post this little gem:


It's interesting she describes her "stacnce" on circumcision as "neutral," given her credentials on Linked-In.

"Neutral?" Or inherently biased?
Her latest "Experience" entries reveals just how "neutral" she actually is:



You can't have a "neutral" stance on male infant circumcision when it's one of the main things you do for a living.


A quote by Upton Sinclair comes to mind:

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



Religious Bias?
There is yet one more thing that makes me question Dr. Keim's "neutrality"; a quick google reveals that Keim is an Ashkenazic (Jewish) surname.


Also, if one looks carefully at her Linked-In page, there seems to be mismatch between her current surname and what is listed as her page address. Check it out:


"Dr. Carole Gedenberg" appears instead.

Looking up "Gedenberg" does not really yield much in terms of Jewish connections, save for obituaries here and there, although anything ending in "-berg" sounds suspiciously Jewish to me.

Why is this important?

Promoting male infant circumcision for its "health benefits" while also belonging to an ethnoreligious group whose very identity is founded upon the forced genital cutting of children is a glaringly obvious conflict of interest.

As with the financial conflict of interest, you can't have a "neutral" stance on circumcision if you've got a religious conviction to protect what is seen as a "divine commandment." It would be difficult if not impossible for her, to say anything that would result its demise. 

For example, in her "neutral" video, she doesn't talk about the risk of infection, partial or full ablation, hemorrhage or death. She doesn't talk about how circumcision would negatively affect the child as a man, desensitization due to keratin build-up in the glans, reliance on artificial lubricant for masturbation and sex because circumcision dries out the penis and makes masturbation and intercourse difficult.

She can't.

Either because she needs parents to say "yes" to the mutilation she offers, or because she can't put what she might see as a sacred command in jeopardy.

Parental Choice is the Pretext
I've already written about this, but relying on "parental choice" as a defense is an escape hatch that relieves doctors of professional responsibility.

It is inescapable that parents make decisions for their children up until they are eighteen; no one is challenging this fact.

However, parents make decisions when and if there is a decision to be made.

Doctors must first diagnose a problem and determine that conventional methods of treatment have been exhausted before finally recommending surgery.

Parents can't merely “choose” for their child be put on chemotherapy if the doctor hasn't diagnosed cancer in the child yet.

Parents can't merely “choose” for the doctor remove organs like the gall-bladder or the appendix; a doctor must make a diagnosis and determine that a child needs surgery.

Only then can parents be asked to make a “decision.”

Male infant circumcision is the only time a parent can ask the doctor to remove a normal, healthy part of a child's body without medical or clinical indication, and the doctor can comply.

It's the only time a doctor can treat non-medical surgery on a healthy, non-consenting person as a "choice" they can present to parents.

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

Medical Fraud
Without medical or clinical indication, a doctor has no business performing surgery on healthy, non-consenting minors, let alone giving parents any kind of "choice."

This doctor's career depends on our government's courts and legal system looking the other way at this very fact.

Perhaps Dr. Keim knows at some level that she is offering parents a false “choice?” Why else would she get defensive and start blocking people calling her out?

It's understandable that she would want to block intactivists; she must protect her business model of violating the basic human rights of children and then putting that blame on their parents.

She is, after all, a businesswoman; she must secure clientele and protect herself from lawsuits.

She and all doctors must know that they are profiting at the expense of the rights of healthy, non-consenting individuals under the pretext of "parental choice."

What doctors SHOULD be saying:
If Dr. Keim were an honest person, she would tell parents the truth; there is no medical need to perform surgery on healthy children's genitals.

She would tell parents that no respected medical organization in the world recommends male infant circumcision, not even the American Academy of Pediatrics in their 2012 statement.

She would tell parents that the true incidence of complications after newborn circumcision is unknown (AAP 2012), and thus a true risk/benefit assessment is not possible.

She would tell parents that 70% of males are intact globally, and that there simply isn't an epidemic of UTIs and "problems" in those countries where men are mostly intact.

She would tell parents that despite 80% of American males being circumcised from birth, we still have some of the world's highest rates of STDs, including HIV.

She would tell parents that even when circumcised, adult males must wear condoms for actual protection from any STD transmission.

She would tell parents that the risks of male infant circumcision include infection, partial or full ablation, hemorrhage and even death.

She would tell parents that the vast  majority of circumcised males often need the aid of artificial lubrication for masturbation and sexual intercourse because the head of the penis dries out over time.

She would tell parents that circumcised men often experience desensitization as a result of the naked glans penis building up keratin over time.

She would tell parents that painful sex for women is associated with a circumcised partner.

She would talk about all the adverse outcomes of circumcision, which include botched circumcisions which may need revision surgery later on.

She would tell parents about the possibility that their child might resent being circumcised as an adult.

She would tell parents about the possibility of circumcision causing painful sex and/or erections in adult men. (See BBC stories at the bottom of this post.)

She would treat male infant circumcision as she would any other surgical procedure; as a very last resort only after other methods of treatment have failed.

No doctor would discuss the "pros and cons" of "early appendectomy" or "early gall-bladder removal," "infant labiaplasty," and then "let parents make a choice."

Male infant circumcision is the only procedure doctors can get away with "letting parents decide" to have them perform on healthy, non-consenting infants without any kind of diagnosis.

If Dr. Keim were an honest, ethical person, she would tell parents she refuses to perform elective cosmetic surgery on healthy, non-consenting minors.

But then she'd probably lose business, and at the end of the day, that's any American physician's bottom line.

Isn't it.

Such dishonesty.

I wouldn't want her at my door.

I close with my mission statement:

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.

Genital integrity, autonomy and self-determination are inalienable human rights. I am against the forced circumcision of healthy, non-consenting minors because it violates these rights.

Genital mutilation, whether it be wrapped in culture, religion or “research” is still genital mutilation.

It is mistaken, the belief that the right amount of “science” can be used to legitimize the deliberate violation of basic human rights.

You're in the business of male infant genital mutilation and the violation of basic human rights, Dr. Keim.

The time is coming where the men your circumcised as children will hold you responsible, and the pretext of "parental choice" will not save you.


Apparently she posted this elsewhere as well:

No, doctors have the right to practice *medicine.* Their duty is to their patient, not his parents. Without medical indication, there is no treatment to prescribe, let alone any “choice” to make. Barring medical indication, that decision belongs to the owner of the penis.

When has a newborn child died because he had anatomically correct genitals? I’d like to see that medical paper.

I think it’s interesting how facts that are devastating to her business are “hate speech” now.

Pseudoscience and pseudomedicine spouted to convince parents to allow doctors to mutilate their children is hate speech.

Lo, it is scientific profanity not to mention medical fraud.

Related Posts:
The Circumcision Blame Game

Intactivism: It's Not Just for Gentiles Anymore
Daniel Barnz Mocks the French and Intact Men on HBO Max's "Generation" 
The "Anti-Semite" Card No Longer Washes
Edgar Schoen Showing His Age
UNITED STATES: Infant Circumcision Fails as STI Prophylaxis

Where Circumcision Doesn't Prevent HIV II
PHIMOSIS: Lost Knowledge Missing In American Medicine
Politically Correct Research: When Science, Morals and Political Agendas Collide

Circumcision Botches and the Elephant in the Room

External Links:
"Doctor At Your Door LCC" Facebook Page

"Doctor At Your Door" Homepage

Carole Keim, MD's Linked In Page

 Men Do Complain Webpage

BBC News: My Son Killed Himself After Circumcision

BBC News: Circumcision - My Penis Causes Me Constant Pain

Fine-touch pressure thresholds in the adult human penis - study

Saturday, May 22, 2021

Jews Circumcising Adopted Children


I had seen this phenomenon before, but I hadn't really given it much thought. Several years ago, my attention was brought to a blog of a Jewish woman outlining her adoption and circumcision of boys from Russia, and the thought of having been adopted by Jewish parents horrified me. Like, I can't recall the blog anymore, but if I remember correctly, these weren't even baby boys, these were older boys not older than 10.

How horrific to be yearning for parents, only to be adopted by strangers who immediately proceed to make arrangements to have someone forcibly cut off part of your most private, most intimate organs. I don't know what I'd do had I been one of those Russian boys.

At any rate, I ran across this on Facebook:

I don't know what to think when Jewish people actually flaunt having adopted male children and having them circumcised.

Like, it's horrifying enough that cutting off a part of a child's penis seems to be like, the defining cornerstone of Judaism. Now they have to mutilate the organs of a child who's not even Jewish?


I'm trying real hard not to be an anti-Semite here, but this is seriously getting to a point.

I grew up in a very conservative, pro-Israel, pro-Jewish church.

In becoming an intactivist, going against what is supposed to be the very tenet of Judaism, the "covenant" on which the entirety of Judaism is based, I knew I was going to become something I was taught in my church to hate and despise.

These are feelings I fight with every time I think about being horrified by doctors and mohels taking knives and cutting off part of children's penises.

But the more I read about this, the more I'm leaning to the "I don't like Jews" side.

I keep telling myself; some of our more outspoken voices are Jewish people.

I've written a post about this.

I know that not all Jewish people are proponents of male infant genital mutilation.

I know that Jewish people not mutilating their baby boys are increasing.

I know that Jewish people speak out with us.

I want to believe that not all Jews support this, and that some have even created the Bris Shalom ritual to replace the mutilation ritual.

But just, the more I look into how pro-circumcision Jews and Judaism influence this country, the more I read about how Jewish doctors are using pseudomedicine and pseudoscience to promote male infant genital mutilation, the more I see how Jewish proponents of male infant genital mutilation stand in the way of removing this blight from American medicine, the more I'm filled with hopelessness and rage.

There is at least one website that I've come across in the making of this post that outlines that male children that Jewish families adopt must be ritually mutilated.

It's just casually written there, and nobody is saying anything about it.

Like an elephant in the room.

Like, I admit it, this is probably going to sound real "anti-Semitic," but Jews, Muslims, ANYBODY who plans on ritually mutilating a male child should not be allowed to adopt.

And anyone who does this to an adopted child should lose custody of that child and they should never be allowed to adopt again.

And this isn't just Jews, because I've also read about American families taking an adopted male child and having him circumcised just after.

Genital mutilation is wrong.

It's wrong and it ought to be a crime to forcibly cut the genitals of children.

If it's wrong to forcibly mutilate the genitals of newborns, forcibly mutilating the genitals of children that AREN'T EVEN YOUR OWN should be RIGHT OUT.

I realize this is a hairy situation where we look the other way at ritual mutilators such as mohels.


If we must look the other way at Jews mutilating their own, at least for now, then fine.



OK, I get it.

At least for now, mutilating a child is considered a "parental choice." It's considered a "religious rite" that must be "protected."

OK, for your OWN CHILDREN. (Even then I think it's wrong.)

But these are children who aren't even YOUR OWN.

These children are yearning to be taken in and loved.


It ought to be a crime for strangers to arrange, facilitate, officiate, and/or otherwise participate in the genital mutilation of a foster child.

This is just wrong on so many levels.

We're not talking about medical necessity here. If a child needs surgery to correct a problem, that's one thing.

But mutilating the genitals of a healthy child as a matter of course for adoption is simply horrific human rights violation.

Forcibly mutilating a healthy child is a horrific human rights violation in and of itself. Full stop.

Letting a stranger mutilate the genitals of their own child is one thing, but arranging this to be done on a child that's not even your own flesh and blood is simply horrific abuse.

Yeah, I guess I'm an "anti-Semite" now.

I'll fucking own it.

It's bad enough Jews are mutilating their own children, now they have to mutilate the genitals of children that aren't even their own.

I'll say it; Jews who plan on mutilating the children they adopt should not be allowed to.

Those who mutilate foster children ought to face severe punishment.

Without medical or clinical indication, cutting off any part of a child's penis is genital mutilation and a gross violation of his basic human rights.

Could you imagine Muslim parents arranging the genital mutilation of baby girls they adopt?

And don't you come to me with this "female genital mutilation is not a Muslim practice." Yes it fucking is, you just don't want this to be true because you don't want to be put in the same category.

"Sunat" is a practice followed by Muslims in South-East Asian countries such as Malaysia, Indonesia, Brunei and Singapore. Muslims in Egypt and Sudan also have similar practices. It's also a tradition in many African countries.

For better or for worse, female genital mutilation is part of many religions including Islam, and many cultures including cultures from countries I've mentioned above.


I'm not sure how many of you reading are aware, but do you know that the federal ban on female genital mutilation has been lifted? All the arguments used in favor of male infant genital mutilation you could name were used. What was practiced was "minimal." "Less severe" than male infant genital mutilation even. It's an important part of the parent's culture and religion.

This is reality in the US.

What do we think of parents adopting female children and taking them to have their genitals mutilated by a ritual mutilator straight away?

If we accept this for boys, then we must accept this for girls.

And this is horrifying.

This is what's next.

We need to stop looking the other way because this is what's coming.

We need to decide right here and now.

What matters more?

The basic human rights of the child?

Or the "religious freedom" of parents wishing to practice their religion on the children they adopt?

What about the child's religious freedom?

The website "My Jewish Learning" says:


"Jewish law also allows those people converted as an infant or child to renounce the conversion when they reach maturity. After girls reach 12 or boys 13, converted infants and children can legally reject the conversion and go back to their previous religion. If they accept Judaism or are silent, they are deemed to be considered adult converts."



Genital mutilation isn't "for the children." This isn't something the children choose for themselves. The "conversion" is to satisfy an ADULT'S religious requirement.

The poor children are merely tools for adults to fulfill their religious duties.

Which only adds to the whole fucked-uppedness of the situation.

This is wrong in more ways than one.

It is horrifying for me to think about, to imagine poor children who need and want parents to be adopted by parents who want to physically abuse them the first chance they get.

I don't care what prepared dismissive moniker you have for me, this is WRONG and it needs to STOP.


Somebody I know read what I wrote and decided to remind me of this:

There it is in plain sight, and it's just so hard for me to believe.

I wish this weren't so.

I speak out against the forced circumcision of healthy, non-consenting minors in any way, shape or form. I make no exception for "religion" nor "cultural practice" of any kind. Please do not conflate my disdain for the forced circumcision of minors with a belittlement of circumcised men, or a hate for Jews.

The views I express in this blog are my own individual opinion, and they do not necessarily reflect the views of all intactivists. I am but an individual with one opinion, and I do not pretend to speak for the intactivist movement as a whole, thank you.



Related Posts:
Intactivism: It's Not Just for Gentiles Anymore

Jewish LGBT Leaders Against SF Circ Ban - Ignorance or Hypocrisy?
Daniel Barnz Mocks the French and Intact Men on HBO Max's "Generation" 
The "Anti-Semite" Card No Longer Washes
Edgar Schoen Showing His Age

Circumcision is Child Abuse: A Picture Essay
So Where's the "Sunat Party?"
External Links:
Female circumcision part of Malaysian culture, says DPM
My Jewish Learning: Converting Infants and Children

Monday, May 3, 2021

Equal Rights for Boys, Girls and Intersexed Children


My blog is primarily about male infant genital mutilation, and voices opposing the forced genital cutting of girls and women aren't in short supply.

Nobody talks about intersexed individuals, though.

What is an "intersexed individual?"

A very small minority of children are born with what are called "ambiguous genitalia." Their genitals don't take on a definite "male" or "female" look to them (the penis may be too small, the clitoris may be too large, the person's genitals might have both a visible shaft as well as a vaginal opening etc.), and doctors act as if they are entitled to a science experiment. They pressure parents to choose a sex for their child, and the child is forced to undergo a number of surgeries so that their genitals align with the sex chosen for them. If the person grows up to not like the sex chosen for him/her,  or maybe even just resent having had unwanted surgery, well, that's just too bad.

There is a growing number of intersexed children who grow up wishing people just left their genitals alone. A number of them reject their elected sex. I believe it is a basic human right for intersexed people to decide what gender they best align with, and to choose whether or not they want sexual assignment surgery, along the same lines as male infant circumcision.

Actually, perhaps even before male infant circumcision, I've always thought that sexual assignment surgery for intersexed babies and children was wrong. This was probably my gateway into thinking forcibly cutting baby boys was wrong.

Before male infant genital mutilation entered my consciousness, I remember having seen a talk-show with intersexed individuals were talking about having resented having had a doctor surgically alter their genitals and simply be told what sex they were going be. Since then I have always thought that forcibly cutting a child's genitals is wrong.

One day, I saw a video that really pissed me off. I don't remember exactly where I saw it, either on the Discovery channel, or on a news report; a boy had grown up with ambiguous genitalia. He had an ovary and a testicle, along with ambiguous genitalia, and doctors sought to make the boy a girl. They kept pressuring his parents that the child ought to be raised as a girl, but the parents refused. One day, one of the child's doctors said that the child needed to undergo surgery for whatever reason. I forget what that reason was, but it had nothing to do with the child's genitals. The parents agreed to let the child undergo surgery, but when the child had come out, they were notified that the child's testicle had been removed because it "had become cancerous." This was clearly a farce because no previous records of cancer existed. It was very clear, at least to me, that these parents were tricked into having their child undergo unwanted surgery. Doctors basically had their way with this poor child. The child was clearly a boy and liked to do the things boys did; play on bikes, play sports, liked rough-and-tumble play, and doctors removed one of his only sources for testosterone.

I not only oppose the forced genital cutting of boys and girls, I oppose the forced genital cutting of intersexed individuals.

A doctor is not entitled to a science experiment every time an intersexed individual is born.

As with cutting a boy's penis, as with cutting a girl's vulva, consent is at the crux of the argument.

Barring medical indication, a doctor has no business cutting the genitals of an intersexed individual.

Whether or not they want surgery to "fix" their genitals should be that person's choice.