This is my 2nd blog post on Matt Walsh. In my first, I talked about how, if people didn't know any better, they'd think he was an intactivist.
It's amazing to me how he is basically making every intactivist point, but still somehow manages to have a blind spot, either unwittingly or quite deliberately, in regards to male infant circumcision.
Right-wingers do this all the time; they go on and on about how they abhor child abuse and genital mutilation but then twist themselves into knots to insist male infant circumcision is "different."
It's like they've got all of the logic that should allow them to arrive at the conclusion that male infant circumcision is genital mutilation and child abuse, but then refuse to make that leap. They struggle with cognitive dissonance, and somehow the belief that "male infant circumcision is not mutilation" is more important.
By their own definition, male infant circumcision should be wrong, and we should be calling for the practice to stop, but then they move the goal post and change the criteria of what constitutes "mutilation" in order to say that male infant circumcision is "different."
I can only guess it's because they've got vested interest in continuing their double-think.
I'd bet a dime to a dollar Matt Walsh is circumcised and has gone on to circumcise his own male children, so he cannot allow himself to be guilty of his own critique of other procedures performed on healthy, non-consenting minors.
If he is intact and didn't do this to his own children I'd be extremely surprised. If this is the case, he may have other reasons for refusing to criticize male infant circumcision with the same scathe he reserves for double-mastectomy and castration in children, such as not wanting to upset Ben Shapiro, a co-worker of his at the Daily Wire, who's Jewish and has a religious conviction to defend the practice. Candace Owens apparently has managed to upset Ben Shapiro by criticizing the actions of the Israeli government in the on-going Israel/Hamas war, which has led Ben Shapiro actually telling Candace Owens she should quit. So *if* Matt Walsh is critical of male infant circumcision, not wanting to rock the boat at work may be a reason to conceal it.
I do believe it's the former, rather than the latter, however. More than likely Matt Walsh has to reconcile his criticism of what he calls "child genital mutilation" to what has happened to him as an infant, and what he may have allowed on his own male children.
Matt Walsh really goes after Chris Christie in this video, namely his response to Megyn Kelly's question to Christie, in which she asks why he doesn't support a legal ban on "gender affirming care," reminding him that it involves castrating, sterilizing and removing healthy body parts from children who are too young to give consent.
Christie begins to respond by saying "Republicans believe in less government, not more." To which Matt responds by questioning Christie's logic, which seems to be that "Less government is a universal principle that we should apply to every situation."
"Should we have less government when it comes to other forms of violence inflicted on the innocent? Should there be less government involved in policing murder or rape? Would you call for a repeal on laws forbidding sexual assault on the basis that Republicans want less government, not more?" ~Matt Walsh to Chris Christie
This scathing criticism from Matt Walsh comes as a surprise to me, because I was also under the impression that Republicans believed that "Less government is a universal principle that we should apply to every situation." It's nice to know this isn't the case. It is technically true that "less government" is not necessarily "no government." I mean, there should be law and order, otherwise intactivists have no hope of ever holding charlatan doctors who perform non-medical surgeries on healthy, non-consenting minors accountable.
"[F]orget about laws here in the United States. You want American government involvement all over the world, suddenly your "less government" principle disappears when it comes time to defend Ukraine or some other foreign country that's irrelevant to most Americans. Our government is very involved in sending billions of dollars to Ukraine and yet you have no issue with that. So is that the principle the American government can be involved in protecting Ukrainian children, but not American children? Is that how the formula works in your thick skull? Or is the whole "less government" thing just a meaningless smoke screen that you deploy whenever you need to find a way to avoid engaging with an issue that you find politically inconvenient? Yes, I think we've figured it out now."
"I trust parents," Chris Christie told Megyn Kelly.
"What do you mean you 'trust parents?' that's like saying 'I trust uncles' or 'I trust cousins.' 'I trust step sisters.' It doesn't make any sense. Obviously we don't have complete blind absolute trust in any group of people just based on their biological relationship to other groups of people."
I am impressed with this logical take-down. Matt Walsh is absolutely right. I have always argued through this entire blog that not everything you do with your children is justifiable merely because you are the parent. Parental rights are not absolute. If they were, there'd be no need for child protective services.
But it gets better. Matt continues:
"The trust we have in anyone is conditional just as our rights are conditional. You can lose trust and you can lose rights. That's what going to prison is all about, and one way to lose both of those things as a parent is to physically abuse your child. As Ron DeSantis pointed out at the debate, making a statement that should never have needed to be said at a presidential debate, parents don't have the right to abuse their kids. If you treat your kid that way, you lose trust and you lose rights. Everybody understands this basic concept and agrees with it. The only question is whether sterilizing, castrating and removing body parts from a child counts as abuse, but that's not a question at all. In fact, if that doesn't qualify as abuse, then nothing qualifies. If it's not abusive to have your child's body mutilated, then what the hell is abusive? What fits the bill if that doesn't? There is no gray area here and Chris Christie knows that.
Everything he says is, of course, spot on. I'd like to take Matt's words and apply them to intactivism:
"The only question is whether slicing part of a child's penis off counts as abuse, but that's not a question at all. In fact, if that doesn't qualify as abuse, then nothing qualifies. If it's not abusive to have your child's body mutilated, then what the hell is abusive? What fits the bill if that doesn't? There is no gray area here."
It really is this simple. If only Matt Walsh could stick with this logic, and carry it through, he would oppose male infant circumcision and call for it to end in rallies as he does with child transition. But, of course, I'm sure Matt has found away to reconcile his cognitive dissonance and define the forced genital cutting of baby boys in such a way that he, in his own words used in the past, is "rescued."
He'll call it a "little piece of skin," minimize the complications and latch onto "medical benefits," though he himself doesn't think "minimal complications" justifies operations to destroy normal, healthy body parts otherwise. I'm very sure he would oppose the removal of the same amount of skin in baby girls, no matter how "beneficial," and "minimal complications" would be immaterial to him.
To quote him again:
"The primary complication of cutting off a woman's healthy breasts is that, *you've cut off a woman's healthy breasts.* The complication is that you've removed a piece of her body, a piece of her, and you've done it on the theory that it will help her be a man, even though, she could never be a man, and chopping off her breasts will bring her no closer to manhood, than she was when she still had them.
The fact that there are, allegedly "only," "additional complications in 12% of cases" does not rescue you from this fact, it's the surgery itself that's the problem. Even if everything goes "perfectly well" when you're cutting the breasts off of a woman, you're still cutting her breasts off, and that's the issue. You are removing healthy body parts, and often you're doing this to young girls who would not even be allowed to legally get tattoos, because they've been judged "too young" for it."
(YouTube of this is available here.)
primary complication of cutting off a baby boy's healthy foreskin is that,
*you've cut off a baby boy's healthy foreskin.* The complication is that
you've removed a piece of his body, a piece of him, and you've done it
on the theory that it prevents diseases and makes him "cleaner," even though, lacking a foreskin can never immunize a boy against any diseases, and even if you chop off his foreskin he'll still need to wash with soap and water to keep clean.
The fact that there are, allegedly "only complications in 2% of cases" does not rescue you from this fact, it's the surgery itself that's the problem. Even if everything goes "perfectly well" when you're cutting the foreskin off of a boy, you're still cutting his foreskin off, and that's the issue. You are removing healthy body parts, and often you're doing this to young boys who would not even be allowed to legally get tattoos, because they've been judged "too young" for it.
It would be nice to see Matt Walsh stick to his own logic, carry it through and oppose the genital mutilation of infant baby boys at birth.
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.
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.