ICELAND: Parliament May Cave to Pressure to Call Off Circumcision Restrictions

Not too long ago, I posted on the latest bill in Iceland to restrict circumcision to consenting adults.

Circumcision advocates want to call it a "ban," but if putting an age limit on circumcision is a "ban," then alcohol is "banned" in the United States.

Oh no! What to do. Children can't buy beer and those who sell or buy it for them are defying the law!

There are also laws against sex with minors, which means there's a "ban" on sex too!

Or freedoms are being taken away! Oh noes!

Well anyway, according to Arutz Shevah, Israel National News, Iceland is "dropping" the ban.

I mean, measure.

Well, not quite yet, but it seems it's getting there.

According to the article linked above, parliament’s judicial committee recommended against its passage.

That doesn't exactly mean the measure has actually been "dropped" yet, parliament has yet to make a decision.

Also, a rabbi breaks Godwin's Law by invoking Hitler.

"The Nazis enacted such a law in 1933 and we know how it ended," Rabbi Pinchas Goldschmidt, president of the CER, said at a conference in Iceland organized by Protestant and Catholic European groups.

There are laws against female circumcision. How have those ended?

I think the world will be better off once male infant genital mutilation is banned, and the practice is relegated to the trash bin of history where it belongs.

But as I said in my last post, I don't think that day is today, and when that measure does fail, people should not be surprised. I think there are alternative solutions that would satisfy both parties, and those ought to be pursued instead.

Intactivists have a long road ahead of them.

Related Links:

CIRCUMCISION LEGISLATION: All Eyes on Iceland

CIRCUMCISION LEGISLATION: An Alternative to a Ban?

CIRCUMCISION LEGISLATION: All Eyes on Iceland

It's been a while since I've written, and I don't have time to write a post dedicating the time and effort that this issue deserves, so I'm going to make this quick.

The long and the short of it is that there is a ban on circumcision being talked about in Iceland, and predictably, religious groups, those who practice the forced circumcision of non-consenting boys and some who don't, are clutching their pearls.

The bill rightly describes the forced circumcision of healthy, non-consenting minors to be a violation of basic human rights, and suggests a 6-year prison term for anyone found guilty of "removing sexual organs in whole or in part."

There is an exception in the bill for medical necessity, which is actually how all other surgery works; under any other circumstance, reaping profit from performing non-medical surgery on healthy, non-consenting individuals constitutes medical fraud.

Addressing religious traditions, it insists the "rights of the child" always exceed the "right of the parents to give their children guidance when it comes to religion."

The move follows advice from doctors in Denmark, who have said boys under the age of 18 should not be circumcised; the Danish Medical Association said it had considered suggesting a legal ban on the procedure for children.

Backlash From Religious Advocates
As almost anyone would have guessed, the move to ban the forced circumcision of healthy, non-consenting males is already being condemned as "an attack on religious freedom."

One of the first critics of the proposal actually came from the President of the Catholic Church in the European Union.

“Protecting the health of children is a legitimate goal of every society, but in this case this concern is instrumentalized, without any scientific basis, to stigmatise certain religious communities. This is extremely worrying,” Marx said in a statement.

It is interesting that he cites lack of "scientific basis," seeing as religious groups circumcise as a matter of religious conviction, which has zero to do with science.

I should also inquire about the validity of his claim, whether he has a degree in urology, pediatrics, surgery or even in medicine at all.

The reality of the situation is that not a single respected medical organization recommends the practice of forced male infant circumcision.

All of them, including our very own AAP, cite that "the benefits are not great enough."

Not surprisingly, Muslim and Jewish groups are already condemning this as an attack on their religious freedom.

We've been here before

7 Years ago, a similar ban was proposed in San Francisco, and although it was put on the ballot, religious groups made enough noise to have it struck off before anyone could even vote on it.

In a rare display of alliance, Jewish and Muslim groups actually coalesced, cooperated and spoke unanimously against the ban. I don't think they quite agree that female circumcision should be protected as "religious freedom," however.

Which brings us to the crux of why there is a problem with a lack of a ban on male infant circumcision to begin with.

Sexist, self-serving double-standards
Mention male infant circumcision, and it seems to be this given; that suggestion that it should be banned is "an attack on religious freedom."

Mention that female infant circumcision is seen as a religious obligation, and suddenly the "religious freedom" argument flies out the window.

In most Western countries, the forced genital cutting of girls and women is banned, and there is no exception for people who see it as a religious conviction.

Actually, there will be no shortage of people saying that since female circumcision isn't written in say, the Koran or any major holy book, that it can't "really" be considered "religious."

The term "special pleading" comes to mind.

Male circumcision wouldn't be mentioned in the Koran either.

It is "fitrah," mentioned in Hadith, but not once does it appear in the Koran.

Which is funny, because the same is also true for female circumcision.

I think it's funny, that self-serving people who want to justify their own "religious tradition" of forcibly cutting the genitals of boys have the nerve to pretend to dictate to others what their religious beliefs will be.

For better or for worse, the great majority of Muslims in South East Asia believe that female circumcision is as Islamic a virtue for girls and women as male circumcision is for boys and men.

And who are others to tell them what their beliefs will be?

If Jewish scholar Leonard Glick is correct, male infant circumcision as a "covenant" does not appear in the first manuscripts of the Torah; it would appear that this mitzvah was grafted out of the blue at the very last minute. The case can be made that "male infant circumcision wasn't originally part of the covenant."

Ah, but then Jewish defenders of the practice will turn around and say "Non-Jews shouldn't tell Jews how to practice their religion."

Isn't it funny how the same people  say "Well female circumcision isn't actually Muslim practice," will turn around and tell you to mind your own business when you dare scrutinize their religion?

The bottom line
It boils down to this; either "parental choice," "religious freedom" and/or "my culture/tradition" works to justify the forced genital cutting of children, or it doesn't.

It is inconsistent and sexist to have a ban that protects girls and only girls, regardless of the religious conviction of their parents, but allow the forced genital cutting of boys "for religious reasons."

The forced genital cutting of healthy, non-consenting minors needs to be allowed, or condemned for all.

You can't have it both ways.

A long way to go
I end this post by saying that, while I think there ought to be a ban, that if there is a ban on female genital cutting with no exception for religion, it only follows there needs to be a similar ban for male genital cutting, it's simply unrealistic and it's going to backfire.

Recall the attempt to ban forced male infant circumcision in San Francisco; not only were religious groups successful in getting the measure off the ballot before anyone could cast their vote, opportunist politicians also made names for themselves by legally preventing any further attempts at a ban.

Female circumcision was easily banned in Western countries because people already saw female circumcision with disdain.

At the moment, most people simply don't see forcibly cutting a healthy, non-consenting male child's genitals as a big deal.

It is often said that in a huge movement like this, laws are the very last thing to change.

During the times of slavery, when there were calls to outlaw the practice, those who wanted to continue to keep slaves, doubled-down on their intentions and enacted legislature that "protected" their "rights."

People who are hell-bent on preserving this practice of forced genital cutting are not going to give up without a fight.

But it's going to take time to get people on our side and finally legally condemn the forced genital cutting of healthy, non-consenting minors.

I predict that the measure in Iceland is going to fail.

Icelandic leaders are going to cave to pressure to "protect religious freedom."

But this should be of no surprise, and it should in no way be used to measure our progress as intactivists.

That this measure is actually being considered is progress enough.

Even if this measure fails, we shouldn't be discouraged, I'm not going to be discouraged; I'm still going to be right here speaking out against the basic human rights violation that is the forced genital cutting of minors.

Related Posts

San Francisco Circumcision Ban on November Ballot

San Francisco Circumcision Ban

SAN FRANCISCO: Democracy Hits A Brick Wall

One Intactivist's Opinion: The SF Circ Ban Ought Not to Pass

LEGISLATION: A Possible Solution?

Circumcision is Child Abuse: A Picture Essay

COUNCIL OF EUROPE: Non-Medical Circumcision a Human Rights Violation

Readers must pardon me for not posting much lately, and and I must apologize for the poor quality of posts I am able to muster. My current job situation is very demanding and I don't have time to sit down and think things out anymore. There is so much happening in the world of intactivism and so much I want to comment on too.

Currently there is a lot of hullabaloo, because the Council of Europe has declared medically unnecessary circumcision to be a human rights violation. For this post, I will cut-and-paste a few comments that have appeared in my Facebook news feed, and give a few brief thoughts on it.

JUST NOW: THE COUNCIL OF EUROPE HAS ADOPTED A RESOLUTION THAT CALLS THE RITUAL CIRCUMCISION FOR BOYS A MENNESKERETTTIGHEDSKRÆNKELSE
Yet another great step in the right direction! The German member of the Council of Europe, Marlene Rupprecht, got his draft resolution adopted today, which juxtaposes ritual boys circumcision with female circumcision as human rights violations. Thanks to Marlene Rupprecht! The resolution, which was adopted without one of the proposed adjustments (amendments, inter alia, one Turkish amendments which were aimed at removing the ritual circumcision boys from text) can be read on her profile. Europe rocks!

  --

Here is a link to the "Children’s right to physical integrity" resolution that was just passed by the Council of Europe. (Click on "Here.")

 --

According to Sweden's children's ombudsman, "To circumcise a child without medical reasons and without the child's consent, runs contrary...to the child's human rights and the fundamental principles of medical ethics." What do you think about the Ombudsman for Children in Sweden?

 --

So very pleased to covey this most exciting news from Strasbourg, the Council of Europe has voted to define circumcision of male children a human rights violation. The resolution and recommendation were both accepted, votes for were 77 and 78, and against 19 and 13.
Here is a link to an article from Denmark.

 --

"As ombudsmen for children and experts in children’s health we consider circumcision of underage boys without a medical indication to be in conflict with the UN Convention of the Rights of the Child, article 12, about children’s right to express their views about their own matters, and article 24, pt. 3, which says that children must be protected against traditional rituals that may be harmful to their health. In 2013, the UN Human Rights Council has urged all states to end operations that compromise the integrity and dignity of children and are prejudicial to the health of both girls and boys. We consider it central that parental rights in this matter do not have precedence over children’s right to bodily integrity. What is in children’s best interest must always come first, even if this may limit grown up persons’ right to carry out their religious or traditional rituals."

(Shared with this link.)

--

The Parliamentary Assembly, Council of Europe, PASSED the resolution that medically unnecessary circumcision of boys is a violation of their human rights. Many amendments were offered for religious exemption or the sincere medical beliefs of the parents, but these failed. We can mostly thank Rep. Rupprecht of Germany for this result. She is an intactivist and spoke forcefully and eloquently.

In a resolution based on a report by Marlene Rupprecht (Germany, SOC), the Assembly strongly recommends that states promote further awareness in their societies of the potential risks of some of these procedures for childrens’ physical and mental health. It calls on states to clearly define the medical, sanitary and other conditions to be ensured for practices such as the non-medically justified circumcision of young boys.

It also asks states to adopt specific legal provisions to ensure that certain operations and practices will not be carried out before a child is old enough to be consulted.

PACE also recommended that “children’s right to physical integrity” should be explicitly included in relevant Council of Europe standards.

(Shared with this link.)

--

Today, under the leadership of German intactivist Marlene Rupprecht, the Council of Europe (CoE) passed a recommendation number 2023 (by a vote of 78 in favor, 13 opposed, and 15 abstaining) endorsing a child's right to physical integrity and a resolution number 1952 (by a similar vote of 77 for, 19 against, and 12 abstaining) discussing the right to physical integrity in more detail and specifically supporting genital autonomy for children by opposing several practices including male circumcision, female genital mutilation, and "early childhood medical interventions in the case of intersexual chldren."

The CoE's resolution 1952 includes the following statement in paragraph 2:

The Parliamentary Assembly is particularly worried about a category of violation of the physical integrity of children, which supporters of the procedures tend to present as beneficial to the children themselves despite clear evidence to the contrary. This includes, amongst others, female genital mutilation, the circumcision of young boys for religious reasons, early childhood medical interventions in the case of intersexual children and the submission to or coercion of children into piercings, tattoos or plastic surgery.

Paragraph 7.5.2 of the resolution states that the CoE "calls on member States to... clearly define the medical, sanitary and other conditions to be ensured for practices which are today widely carried out in certain religious communities, such as the non-medically justified circumcision of young boys..."

--

In a groundbreaking move, the Council of Europe has told its 47 member states (including the UK) that medically unnecessary circumcision is a violation of boys’ human rights!
(Shared with this link.)

--

A Danish newspaper confirms that all the Nordic ombudsmen for children and numerous health experts have met and agreed in principle to work toward a ban on the circumcision of children (boys & girls) before they are old enough to understand and legally consent. This includes all circumcisions for religious reasons and naturally makes allowances for medical necessity.

Two Danish political parties have already agreed to add a ban on religious circumcision to their platforms.

Nordic includes Scandinavia plus Finland and Iceland. Specifically (west to east): Iceland, Norway, Denmark, Sweden and Finland.

(Link)

Also, the Council of Europe held a debate today, which I watched live on the web, regarding a resolution that, among other things, declared religious circumcision of minors to be a traditional practice injurious to the rights and welfare of children.

There were numerous amendments offered, specifically trying to label circumcision as "beneficial" and "not harmful", or to take out any language from the bill relating to male circumcision. These failed. In the end, the resolution was adopted! It passed 78-13, with 15 abstentions. The author is Marlene Rupprecht from Germany.

(Link)

Overall, this has been a remarkable day for progress in protecting boys from unnecessary and harmful genital cutting.

My thoughts:
As much as I think laws against circumcision sound great, I'm not holding my breath.

Don't get me wrong. I am against the forced genital cutting of healthy, non-consenting individuals. There is nothing that I would like to see more than to have the practice of circumcising healthy, non-consenting children abolished, and that the individuals that do this be put in jail and/or taken to court by the men who resent this violation upon their bodies.

It is inspiring that somebody has drafted a resolution calling the forced circumcision of healthy, non-consenting minors the human rights violation that it is, that it was proposed to the Council of Europe, and that it actually PASSED . The last time anything like this has happened was when a proposition to ban non-medical genital mutilation in infants was put on the ballot in the city of San Francisco.

In my opinion, however, we've got a long way to go.

Even today, it is rather taboo to talk about circumcision, especially in Europe, where questioning circumcision automatically gets you labeled an "anti-Semite." The ethics of performing needless surgery on a healthy, non consenting individual are never addressed. Rather, advocates of circumcision want to talk about how any attempt to scrutinize infant circumcision harkens back to the days of the Holocaust. Already, Jewish media outlets are trying to dismiss Europeans who oppose the non-medical circumcision of healthy minors as "left-wing secularists and right-wingers who fear the influence of immigration from Muslim countries." (Yes, because people don't actually see the forced genital mutilation of healthy, non-consenting minors as a deliberate human rights violation. You see, they actually just woke up one day and thought to themselves "Today is a good day to hate a Muslim.")

On the one hand, it's exciting for me to learn that there is actually legal progress being made concerning the rights of healthy, non-consenting minors. Social change never happened because people sat around wishin' and a-hopin'. Human rights issues have been addressed because somebody had the courage to stand up and question the status quo and to challenge social constructs and expectations. Just imagine what would have never changed if people had never taken action; slavery, women's rights, gay rights etc.

On the other hand though, I think the ban in Europe will ultimately, and ought to, fail. I'm not sure there is any country ready to handle the fallout of an actual ban on the non-medical circumcision of healthy, non-consenting minors. Too many parents see this as their parental or religious "right," and the state would have to deal with the logistics of arresting and prosecuting countless renegade mohels and doctors. Who knows what ruckus it would cause with religious organizations, or even countries where circumcision is a norm, who have relations with European countries. Perhaps this is what the Bundestag was thinking in their response to the Cologne ruling? (Incidentally, in another very recent case, a court in Hamm in North Rhine-Westphalia has forbidden a woman from having her six-year old son circumcised because of a risk of psychological damage, this despite the Bundestag's resolution to keep circumcision legal.)

I think we have to admit to ourselves that, at least for now, it could never actually work. Human rights activists shouldn't be surprised or disappointed if and when others manage to dismantle such a ban. Rather, we should be thankful for the opportunity to further our cause and keep fighting. We've got a long way to go, and I think it's a mistake to think that our fight would end, would that an actual ban on the forced genital mutilation of all sexes were enacted.

Don't get me wrong; we shouldn't give up the ship just yet. We need to fight to be heard. We should persevere until the very end. But let's keep our feet on the ground; current society is not ready for a ban against circumcision. Expect for religious groups and charlatans with a feigned interest in public health to cry foul, and expect for attempts to ban the forced, non-medical circumcision of healthy, non-consenting minors to be stopped before people even get to vote on them. In countries where bans may actually be instated, expect renegade circumcision advocates to defy the law publicly or secretly. Expect for every attempt to compare said countries to Nazi Germany. It's going to get worse before it gets better.

It is a mistake for intactivists to let all their hopes ride on a circumcision ban. Those that do are sure to be disappointed, because those who cling to circumcision, whether it be for traditional, religious, lucrative reasons, or to satisfy their own personal fetish, are not going down without a fight, and will most likely be successful in striking it down.

I have often read that in social movements, laws are the very last thing to change. The reason a federal ban against female genital cutting passed so swimmingly is because female genital cutting was already seen as the gross human rights violation that it is. Intactivists have a long way to go. A ban is not going to end our worries; it may in fact prove to make our efforts more difficult.

We need to work to realize social change first; a ban is not going to happen until society is on board. In my opinion, worrying about passing a circumcision ban is placing the cart before the horse. Rather than effect social change, it may make advocates of circumcision cling closer to what is seen as a cherished tradition, and/or a lucrative source of income.

More so than a ban, it is important to dispel the myths surrounding circumcision and the foreskin, and to spread factually accurate information; we need to spread awareness of why the forced circumcision of healthy, non-consenting minors constitutes a gross human rights violation and medical fraud. Until that groundwork is done, I'm afraid a ban, even if it does happen, will not do our movement any good.

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
~Mahatma Gandhi

DISCLAIMER: What I have expressed in this blog post is my own personal opinion, and does not necessarily reflect the views of all intactivists.

Related Posts:

The Cologne Ruling and the Limitations of Religious Freedom

San Francisco Circumcision Ban

Cutters Trying to Silence Debate

SAN FRANCISCO: Democracy Hits A Brick Wall

Legal Circumcision Battle Goes State AND Federal

Intactivism: It's Not Just for Gentiles Anymore

The "Anti-Semite" Card No Longer Washes

 

Related Links:
Council of Europe Report: Children's right to physical integrity

Forbyd omskæring af drenge

'Circumcision breaches human rights of the child'

Historic event in Denmark; report by Morten Frisch

Nordic children’s ombudsmen take historic step to protect children’s rights

Male circumcision is a human rights violation that must be stopped say European leaders….

10 reasons German Socialist wants Europe to ban male circumcision….

Jewish Media Coverage:
The Times of Israel

The Jerusalem Post

The Jewish Daily Forward

The Jewish Press

Jewish Journal 

JTA

Virtual Jerusalem

Jews News

Random Thought: Is Circumcision Human Ikebana?

I was recently reading a book called "The Book of Tea" by one Kakuzo "Tenshin" Okakura. The book is about the Japanese Tea Ceremony, and it focuses on many aspects of it.

One of the aspects of the Japanese Tea Ceremony is the appreciation of flowers, and there is an entire excerpt dedicated to this one thing. I found part of this chapter to be quite a parallel to the circumcision of children.

Begin excerpt: 
Tell me, gentle flowers, teardrops of the stars, standing in the garden, nodding your heads to the bees as they sing of the dews and the sunbeams, are you aware of the fearful doom that awaits you? Dream on, sway and frolic while you may in the gentle breezes of summer. Tomorrow, a ruthless hand will close around your throats. You will be wrenched torn asunder limb from limb and borne away from your quiet homes. The wretch, she may be passing fair. She may say how lovely you are while her fingers are still moist with your blood. Tell me, will this be kindness? It may be your fate to be imprisoned in the hair of one whom you know to be heartless or to be thrust into the buttonhole of one who would not dare to look you in the face were you a man. It may even be your lot to be confined to some narrow vessel with only stagnant water to quench the maddening thirst that warns of ebbing life.

Flowers, if you were in the land of the Mikado, you might some time meet a dread personage armed with scissors and a tiny saw. He would call himself a Master of Flowers. He would claim the rights of a doctor and you would instinctively hate him, for you know a doctor always seeks to prolong the troubles of his victims. He would cut, bend, and twist you into those impossible positions which he thinks is proper that you should assume. He would contort your muscles and dislocate your bones like any osteopath. He would burn you with red-hot coals to stop your bleeding, and thrust wires into you to assist your circulation. He would diet you with salt, vinegar, alum, and sometimes, vitriol. Boiling water would be poured on your feet when you seemed ready to faint. it would be his boast that he could keep life within you for two weeks longer than would have been possible without his treatment. Would you not have preferred to have been killed at once when you were first captured? What were the crimes you must have committed during your past incarnation to warrant such punishment as this?

Why were the flowers born so beautiful and yet so hapless? Insects can sting, and even the meekest of beasts will fight when brought to bay. The bird whose plumage is sought to deck some bonnet can fly from its pursuer, the furred animal whose coat you covet for your own may hide at your approach. Alas! The only flower known to have wings is the butterfly; all others stand helpless before the destroyer. If they shriek in their death agony their cry never reaches our hardened ears.

Well? What did you think?

To me, it invokes the vision of a tiny, helpless, sleeping child before an eager circumcisor. It tells the story from the point of view of an onlooker who knows what is about to happen.

This passage is about flowers who are but a means of art for a sculptor. But I think these same principles could be applied to the circumcisor, his subjects and the appreciators of his work. It is all too often I hear from circumcision advocates that they much prefer the circumcised penis because it "looks prettier" and/or more "sexually appealing."

I wonder what the statue of Venus looked like when she had arms...

If she were alive, I wonder, would she have preferred to keep them?

Mohels Spreading Herpes: New York Looks the Other Way

In a recent post, I talk about the second reported case, where a child dies as a result of contracting herpes from a mohel through an obscure circumcision ritual that is practiced only by ultra-orthodox Jews. The ritual in question is called "metzitzah b'peh", and it involves the mohel putting his mouth on the wounded genitals of a newly circumcised Jewish baby boy to suck blood from it.

Well, as I read more and more into it, the plot just keeps getting thicker and thicker.

The last time I heard, Yitzchok Fischer of New York was found to have infected three newborns with herpes via metzitzah b'peh, one of whom died. He was basically pardoned by Health Commissioner of the day, Thomas R. Frieden, and no further action was to be done regarding getting Orthodox leaders to abandon metzitzah b'peh. Frieden's open letter to the Jewish community can be read here.

To prevent the transmission of herpes to other babies, the New York State Department of Health adopted a medical protocol in 2006, requiring ultra-orthodox mohels to wash their mouths with Listerine before performing the procedure.

Well, according to another recent report, the practice was rescinded less than a year later. According to The Jewish Week, Fischer was involved in the infection of yet *another* infant, who was admitted to a hospital with clinical diagnosis of neonatal herpes via oral suction in May, 2007. Based on that, the health department ordered Fischer to stop practicing metzitzah b’peh.

In my last post regarding this matter, I wondered as to the identity of the mohel responsible, and why it was not yet known. Authorities were investigating and the families involved weren't being to forthcoming as to the identity of the person responsible. I wondered if it was this self-same Fischer person whose identity people were trying to protect. Well, it looks like might have actually had reason to suspect. Apparently, despite his order from the health department to stop practicing the obscure oral suction ritual, Fischer is still performing it.

Only Two Out of Many
As I read more, I come to find out that while only these two cases have made the news, Haaretz reports that countless other deaths have not. And these are just the deaths; reports keep coming in of babies being admitted to hospitals for herpes infections with lesions around their genitals. You want to know why you hardly hear of complications due to circumcision? Well, this is why.

What is frustrating is that despite all the evidence piling up, mohels like Philip Sherman have the nerve to act singled out and "upset" that health authorities are doing their jobs.

"This is part of the anti-religious, anti-circumcision trend," Sherman blasts. 

"Across the board, the infection rate for circumcisions is less than one half of one percent... The baby could have gotten herpes from a relative or someone in the Hospital, or many other people... You can't say for sure it was the circumcision."

How long are practitioners of a deadly ritual going to be allowed to get away with denial?

All I've got to say is, the degree to which New York authorities are tip-toeing around the eggshells is getting to be quite ridiculous.

Children are DYING, and they're more concerned about "upsetting" the ultra-Orthodox Jewish community?

How long until they realize that this "tradition" is costing children their LIVES?

Sometimes traditions have to be abandoned.

This is a tradition whose time has come.

May one day this world be a safe place for children of both sexes, free of life-endangering "traditions."

Circumcision in Africa: We Keep Warning. Is Anybody Listening?

Ever since the WHO endorsed circumcision as HIV prevention in 2006, we intactivists have been trying our best to warn promoters of circumcision, and organizers of so-called "mass-circumcision" campaigns that this is going to backfire.

We keep warning that the studies are horribly flawed, that empirical data completely contradicts the results in the so-called "research," and that African men are going to see this as nothing other than a green light for unprotected sex, putting millions of men and women in danger of sexually transmitted HIV.

IS ANYBODY LISTENING???
Nope, major charities and organizations such as Bill and Melinda Gates and PEPFAR are in Africa bankrolling so-called "mass circumcision campaigns" full-speed ahead. Whenever any of these organizations puts out any sort of statement, it's always "circumcision, circumcision, circumcision." Abstinence, faithfulness and condoms seem to have been placed on the back burner, and are barely even mentioned, if at all.

How is it possible that we are over-stating an alternative to the most effective mode of protection against sexually transmitted HIV known to us?

In May last year, I wrote a similar post to this one. PANOS Eastern Africa had put out a report that showed that the circumcision/HIV messages meant to reduce the prevalence of the disease were actually facilitating its spread. I also gave instances of others warning that this is precisely what would happen, as well as many cases in point in vivo.

It is now the end of January, starting a new year, and neither PEPFAR nor Bill Gates etc. have changed their message. In fact, these organizations and more have come out stronger than ever in their drive to circumcise the whole of Africa. In December last year, PEPFAR kicked off another year reinforcing the circumcision campaigns in Africa. Very recently, Bill Gates released his 2012 annual letter, and, as expected, he pushed circumcision. Circumcision, claims Gates, reduces AIDS transmission by a whopping 70%. Where IS he getting this number from? Why ISN'T this number manifested in the real world?

More Reports Come In
While you'll hear in the news about how "successful" the "mass circumcision campaigns" have been (not so much in reducing HIV, but in how many men they've managed to dupe), you won't hear about reports warning that men and women are taking home the wrong message.

According to AllAfrica.com, "Nyanza provincial director of public health and sanitation, who is also the task force chairman Jackson Kioko, said there have been reports that those who have been circumcised are taking it as immunity against HIV."

PlusNews reports of a study in Kenya conducted by the University of Illinois' Chicago School of Public Health, which found, among other things, that "most women were happy with the appearance of their partner's penis and enjoyed sex more after circumcision." (Others studies will find that there are men that like the experience of their partner's circumcised vulvas, and that they enjoy sex more, but we'll not ever hear about them.) As sexist and degrading as this "study" is to men, it was supposed to be the study's "plus" side. On the negative, the study found that the women believed that condoms were less necessary than circumcision, that they were more likely to have more than one sexual partner, and to have sex without a condom. One would think that these issues would have been addressed BEFORE rolling out these so-called "circumcision campaigns?"

HELLO??? IS ANYBODY AT THE WHO LISTENING?
Nevermind the ethical dilemma of endorsing genital mutilation in the name of  public health interests, and nevermind the sexist, misandrist marketing practices of trying to sexify circumcision, and stigmatize intact men. And nevermind the fact that plans are already underway to forcibly circumcise newborns and youth.

Is nobody concerned that the promotion of circumcision will deprecate the value of cheaper, more effective, less invasive HIV prevention measures, thereby putting the lives of millions of African men and women in danger???

The Warning Continues...
The promotion of circumcision as HIV prevention is a catastrophic mistake. Even if the "research" was correct, and it is horrendously flawed, circumcision would fail to deliver the efficacy of HIV prevention methods which far exceed it. In light of condoms and education, which have been conclusively proven to prevent HIV, promoting circumcision is an impertinent disservice in the fight against HIV/AIDS.

The promotion of circumcision will result is already resulting in Africans perceiving the most effective HIV prevention known to us as an expendable option. The promotion of circumcision is going to backfire, sending the wrong message, putting the lives of men and women in danger. The promotion of circumcision is going to be a waste of precious funds, where they are desperately needed in other areas (i.e. food, water, access to actually needed healthcare, etc). The promotion of circumcision is an ethical, scientific scandal waiting to explode. The promotion of circumcision is going to be a disaster that is going to haunt any organization and individual that ever endorsed it.

Even if the "research" was accurate, circumcision fails. Circumcision fails, and this is why even the very authors cannot stress the importance of condoms enough. Condoms would prevent, not only the transmission of HIV, but the transmission of other STDs more effectively, and more efficiently. Condoms would prevent STD transmission not only in men, but in their partners as well. Additionally, condoms prevent unwanted pregnancy. Circumcision does not.

It is going to prove a fatal mistake to have ever endorsed a dubious alternative to the only effective method of HIV prevention ever known to us.

AND...
It is endorsing the grossest violation of  the most basic of human rights.

Consider this: There would never be enough "science" or "research" to endorse the promotion of female circumcision to prevent ANYTHING.

It wouldn't matter if female circumcision were made "painless," "bloodless," and it didn't affect a girl's sexuality. It wouldn't matter if female circumcision were performed in the clean environment of the hospital, by a trained professional, using pain killers and the most pristine, and most "advanced" utensils. Why do "researchers" grope for reasons to promote male circumcision?

Genital mutilation, whether wrapped in "science," "research," and feigned interests in public health, is still, in the end, genital mutilation.

The day will come when anyone whoever endorsed this despicable human rights violation will be too embarrassed to ever admit that they did.

May god have mercy on their souls.

One Intactivist's Opinion: The SF Circ Ban Ought Not to Pass

Don't get me wrong. I am against the forced genital cutting of healthy, non-consenting individuals. There is nothing that I would like to see more than to have the practice of circumcising healthy, non-consenting children abolished, and that the individuals that do this be put in jail and/or taken to court by the men who resent this violation upon their bodies.

All in all, I'm glad somebody managed to propose a ban on circumcision, and that it has gone on as far as it has. Never before has our cause garnered this much attention. It was about time somebody did something to put this issue "in your face," and nothing gets people's attention quicker than the proposition to enact legislation.

Up until now, it was rather taboo to talk about circumcision. Questioning circumcision got you labeled an anti-Semite, or it was dismissed as a "non-issue." The only context in which it was acceptable to talk about circumcision was to try and make little "snip-snip" jokes, or to talk about all the "health benefits" of cutting off part of a child's penis. The ethics of performing needless surgery on a healthy, non consenting individual were never addressed. Whenever circumcision is presented in our media, it is always to secure acquiesence to circumcision as an "age old tradition," or "one of many decisions parents have to make for their children." Our opponents would call it a "non-issue" and laugh it off.

Well, they're not laughing anymore.

In fact, religious and (at least on the surface) non-religious groups have begun to coalesce, and are trying to shut down the debate. Could this be it? The beginning of the end?

In my opinion, we've got a long way to go.

The US is simply not ready to handle the fallout of such a ban. Too many parents see this as their "right," and the state would have to deal with the logistics of arresting countless renegade mohels and doctors. There is too much misinformation in our country concerning the normal development of human male genitalia. The normal development and function of the foreskin is hardly taught in American medical curriculum. Too often, the only thing that is ever taught about the foreskin is that it must be cut off at birth, so that's all American doctors ever learn or know.

Assuming the ban was instated tomorrow, parents would still forcibly retract their sons' foreskins because misinformed (or willfully ignorant?) doctors would tell them that this is what they need to do "to clean underneath," causing iatrogenic problems and making the necessity of circumcision a self-fulfilling
prophecy. Knife-happy doctors would still prescribe circumcision for any and every problem, real or percieved, an intact child may have with his penis, and parents would agree to a circumcision because they simply wouldn't know any better. We've still got a long way to go to sway the public in our favor, and to change the flawed curriculum regarding male anatomy.

So on the one hand, it's exciting for me to learn that there is actually a ban on circumcision on the ballot. Nothing in our country ever got changed because people sat around wishin' and a hopin'. Human rights issues in this country were addressed because somebody had the courage to stand up and question the status quo and to challenge social constructs and expectations. Just imagine what would have never changed if people had never taken action; slavery, women's rights, gay rights etc.

I think that it's a shame that religious interest groups are trying to silence the debate before it even begins. If they are so confident that the ban will be "soundly defeated," then why the need to keep it from the voters? Intactivists need to unite and fight to make sure the ban stays on the November ballot. We can't let religious interest groups derail the democratic process. Last time I checked, church and state are separate, and religious interest groups simply can't intervene and silence debate they don't like.

On the other hand though, I think the ban ought to fail. I believe the ban's real purpose is to bring attention to our cause, and it has served this purpose wonderfully. Realistically, though, we have to admit to ourselves that, at least for now, it could never actually work. If the ban happens to make it to the November ballot, we shouldn't be surprised or disappointed when it's voted down. Rather, we should be thankful for the opportunity to further our cause and keep fighting. We've got a long way to go, and I think it's a mistake to think that our fight would end would that this ban was enacted. America is quick to brag about its own talents but slow to admitting its own mistakes, and in finally getting this country's attention, the fight to educate America has only just begun.

We shouldn't give up the ship just yet; we need to fight for our right to be heard. We should persevere until the very end. But let's keep our feet on the ground; our country is not ready for a ban against circumcision.

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
~Mahatma Gandhi

DISCLAIMER: What I have expressed in this blog post is my own personal opinion, and does not necessarily reflect the views of all intactivists.

Cutters Trying to Silence Debate

So a ban on circumcision is set to appear on the ballot in San Francisco this November, but religious interest groups are trying to silence the debate before it even happens.
http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/adl-joins-in-san-francisco-lawsuit-challenging-anti-circumcision-ballot-initiative-124371623.html

According to PR Newswire, The Anti-Defamation League (ADL) is teaming up with doctors (presumably circumcisers of children) and Jewish and Muslim families in a lawsuit against the circumcision ban, which call upon the state Department of Elections to remove it from the ballot on the grounds that "the City of San Francisco would have no power to enact the ordinance if approved by voters."

They cite Calfiornia Business and Professions Code, saying that municipalities cannot "prohibit a healing arts professional licensed within the state... from engaging in any act or performing any procedure that falls within the professionally recognized scope of practice of that license."

That circumcision is indeed an act that falls within "professionally recognized scope of practice," however, is at the crux of the argument. Female genital cutting was conducted by professionals in this country, and was perfectly legal until it was banned by federal law in 1996.

Says ADL Associate Director in San Francisco Nancy Appel: "Existing California law is clear... only the state can make rules about medical procedures and this initiative violates that law."

That is, of course, assuming that the circumcision of healthy, non-consenting minors is legit medical procedure. The ban on circumcision challenges this assumption.

The ADL and other religious interest groups want a judge to intervene before the November election to "spare the city and its residents from wasting resources debating and voting on an ordinance that cannot become law."

As if circumcising healthy, non-consenting children weren't a "waste of resources," not to mention medical fraud, professional abuse, and the violation of basic human rights...

Even if the ban fails to pass, this is a debate that needs to take place. The fact that these groups are working hard to stop the debate before it even happens demonstrates how important the debate actually is.

It's high time the taboo behind this subject was dropped in this country, and that a procedure that affects more than 1.3 million male children a year were discussed openly.

Shame on the ADL and their affiliates for wanting to silence debate.

"I may not agree with what you say, but I will fight to the death for your right to say it."
~Voltaire.

San Francisco Circumcision Ban on November Ballot

It looks like the needed signatures have been validated, and it looks like the much talked about San Francisco circumcision ban will indeed be on the November ballot.

I'll keep this short, as I've already blogged twice about the subject, here:
http://joseph4gi.blogspot.com/2011/05/san-francisco-circumcision-ban.html

...and here:
http://joseph4gi.blogspot.com/2011/05/religious-freedom-parental-choice-or.html

Now, as I've said before, I don't delude myself; I know that this measure simply could not pass. Our country is still pretty much blinded by its own cultural bias to see its double-standards.

But all is not lost, the fact that such a measure is even being proposed is forcing this nation to question something that is otherwise just joked about.

If you visit the website for the ban, you can see how just many news outlets have already picked the story up:
http://mgmbill.org/sfmgmbill.htm

The citizens of this country can no longer ignore the elephant in the room. The apprehension this subject rouses in people is testament to what people really think of the matter. Some would like for it to be this "non-issue," but apprehension always, always betrays apathy.

The measure will never pass, but the good thing is that it is providing an opportunity for the citizens of this nation to educate themselves.

Intactivists, let's make the most of it.

San Francisco Circumcision Ban

At the end of last year, a man named Lloyd Schofield made the news by announcing his resolve to ban circumcision in San Francisco. The ban would make it a misdemeanor to circumcise boys, and offenders would be punished with a fine of up to $1,000 or up to a year in jail. To put the ban on the ballot for the November election, Schofield would have had to collect 7,000 signatures. On Tuesday, April 26, 2011, Schofield submitted 12,265 signatures to the city's Department of Elections, far exceeding the amount necessary for the initiative, and emotions are running high.

Supporters of the ban cite that there is already a federal ban on female circumcision, only instituted in 1996. The ban makes any kind of genital alteration to a girl’s genitals, major or minor, illegal, and there is no exception for religious, traditional or cultural reasons. Those who oppose the ban, however, assert that male and female circumcision “aren’t the same,” and that such a ban would infringe on “parental rights” and “religious freedom.” On my blog, I will discuss some of the topics and arguments that come up whenever this ban is brought up.

Too much government intervention
People opposed to the ban often pout that “the government is taking over our lives.” They cite the latest crackdown on McDonalds' happy meal toys as an example of how San Francisco is taking government intervention to ridiculous proportions. While I will agree that the happy meal law is ridiculous, comparing the selling of happy meal toys with a permanent, cosmetic, surgical alteration of a child's genitals is a gross non-sequitur. Furthermore, I must point out how the government already intervenes, and in many cases, it is a welcome intervention.

Quite frankly, if parents had the freedom to do whatever they want with their children, there would be no need for child protective services. If parents could get away with doing whatever they want with their children by mere virtue that they are their children’s parents, then there would be no such thing as child abuse. Parents fed up with their children would be allowed to beat them limp, parents who felt like it could engage in sexual acts with their children, and if they wanted to, they could toss them into the bay. After all, they ARE the parents, and who is the government to stick its nose where it doesn’t belong?

No, sometimes the government does need to intervene; not all acts on a child are justified because a parent performs or endorses them.

This ban would infringe on parental choice and religious freedom
Directly related to what I have discussed above, this statement bemoans “government intervention,” and it seems to imply that an act is justified when it’s a “religious ritual.” The fact of the matter is that yes, even when it comes to religion, when it involves the abuse of children, the government can and does step in. Can snake handlers involve their children in their rituals? Can Jehovah’s Witnesses deny blood transfusions to their children? Can Muslims slash their children’s heads on the Day of Ashura? Can people where female circumcision is a custom have their daughters circumcised?

The fact of the matter is that there is already a federal ban on female circumcision, and there is no exception for “religious,” “traditional” or “cultural” reasons. Female circumcision is a custom in certain African tribes, and it is observed as “Sunnah” by Muslims all over the world, including different countries in Africa, Egypt, Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore. The federal ban criminalizes female circumcision in any way, shape or form, and it infringes on the “parental rights” and “religious freedoms” of people from these countries, and yet nobody seems to mind.

This anti-Semitic act is an attack on Jews
Because circumcision is a religious blood ritual central to Jewish identity, the proposal of this ban is already being pawned off as a deliberate act of anti-Semitism. This accusation might hold water, if the ban specifically banned Jews from circumcising their children. I must remind readers that in America circumcision isn’t exclusive to Jews. Only about 3% of all circumcisions that happen in this country are Jewish brisim performed by mohelim; the rest are secular circumcisions performed at hospitals.

Male and female circumcision are not the same
Somehow, advocates of male circumcision have managed to keep the thoughts “Female circumcision is mutilation” and “Male circumcision is religious, cultural tradition” in their heads simultaneously, albeit in different compartments. Whereas they give importance to “religious tradition” and studies that show circumcision might have “medical benefits” in male circumcision, female circumcision is condemned a priori.

“Male circumcision and female circumcision are not the same,” claim advocates, “because male circumcision is an important religious tradition.” “Female circumcision is meant to subjugate a woman, and control her sexuality, and anyway, male circumcision has health benefits.” Advocates of male circumcision go to great lengths to keep male and female circumcision separate in their heads, to maintain the harmony between venerating the same act as “religious tradition” and “prophylactic surgery” in males, while condemning it as “genital mutilation” in females. But closer examination reveals that none of these alibis actually hold any water.

While advocates of male circumcision defend male circumcision as “important religious tradition,” somehow it escapes them that female circumcision is also. While they condemn female circumcision because its purpose is to “subjugate women” and “diminish their sexuality,” actually, so was male circumcision. Rabbi Maimonides says in his Guide for the Perplexed that diminishing the male organ was precisely the whole reason behind circumcision, and John Harvey Kellogg marketed circumcision in America as a way to stop masturbation.

"...with regard to circumcision, one of the reasons for it is... the wish to bring about a decrease in sexual intercourse and a weakening of the organ in question, so that this activity be diminished and the organ be in as quiet a state as possible...
The bodily pain caused to that member is the real purpose of circumcision...
...violent concupiscence and lust that goes beyond what is needed are diminished. The fact that circumcision weakens the faculty of sexual excitement and sometimes perhaps diminishes the pleasure is indubitable. For if at birth this member has been made to bleed and has had its covering taken away from it, it must indubitably be weakened."
~Rabbi Moses Maimonides
 
"A remedy [for masturbation] which is almost always successful in small boys is circumcision...The operation should be performed by a surgeon without administering an anesthetic, as the brief pain attending the operation will have a salutary effect upon the mind...In females, the author has found the application of pure carbolic acid to the clitoris an excellent means of allaying the abnormal excitement." ~Dr. John Harvey Kellogg

“Female circumcision,” claim some, “completely eliminates a woman’s ability to orgasm.” Most Americans accept without question that “female circumcision is so much worse than male circumcision, because it involves the complete excision of the clitoris, cutting off of the labia, and the sewing up of the vaginal opening to leave a small hole for menstruation,” and not much evidence is needed to substantiate these claims. The reality is much different however.

In reality, there are quite a few varieties of female circumcision, and not all of them involve the removal of the clitoris and/or the sewing up of the vaginal opening. The WHO divides the severity of female circumcision into four different categories. According to an article in the New York Times “A Cutting Tradition,” the kind of female circumcision most people in the West are familiar with is actually the rarest kind of female genital mutilation. Cutting off the clitoris, outer labia and sewing the remaining opening so that it heals together can be called “infibulation” or “pharaonic circumcision,” and it comprises of only 15% of all female circumcision globally. The rest isn’t as severe, and contrary to popular belief, even women who have undergone the worst kind of female circumcision are able to orgasm.
http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118496293/abstract
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn2837-female-circumcision-does-not-reduce-sexual-activity.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17970975
 
Believe it or not, female genital mutilation exists in the West, albeit not in the sense that most people think. There are surgeons that offer cosmetic surgery to women who would like to have their labia reduced, and/or completely removed, and/or remove their clitoral hoods. This is also female genital mutilation, but the difference is that when it happens in a clinic in the West, the procedures are euphemised in scientific terms. The reduction or complete removal of the labia is called "labiaplasty," and the removal of the clitoral hood is called "unroofing." Don't believe me? Google these terms. When it happens in the African bush to girls and women against their consent, these self-same procedures are condemned as "female genital mutilation." What makes them acceptable in the West is medically euphemising it, the same way we prefer to call the removal of the foreskin "circumcision." Additionally, and this is at the crux of the argument against male infant circumcision, women undergo these procedures out of their own volition.

Incidentally, "studies show" that labiaplasty can increase sexual satisfaction for both the woman and her partner.
http://www.labiaplastysurgeon.com/labiaplasty-clinical-study.html

From the site:
- The study found an overall satisfaction rate of 97.2% for women undergoing labiaplasty and clitoral hood reduction
- An overall satisfaction rate of 83% in women having a vaginal tightening procedure (vaginoplasty/perineoplasty), and 91.2% for women combining both “outer” and “inner” work
- Sexual satisfaction with 92.8% of women having both experienced improvement in their sexual satisfaction
- The data also revealed that those women undergoing vaginal tightening (vaginoplasty) reported an estimated 82.2% overall improvement in their partner’s sexual satisfaction as well.

Quite a contrast from what we're told, that female genital mutilation, nicely couched in clinical terms here, "reduces" or "elliminates" a woman's ability to orgasm.

Readers, please do not conflate my pointing out of the facts with wanting to justify female circumcision. I am against the forced genital mutilation of ALL sexes. My purpose is to underscore the blatant sexist double-think with which we often dismiss male infant genital mutilation. Often the justification for male infant circumcision is "it doesn't reduce or affect a man's sexuality like female circumcision does." I have just shown proof that female circumcision doesn't always deminish or elliminate a woman's sexuality. In fact, as shown above, "studies show" that it may actually IMPROVE it. The point that I'm trying to drive home is that the same alibis do not equally justify the forced genital modification of both sexes.

Female circumcision can range from infibulation to a simple prick to draw blood. Last year, in May, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) tried to endorse a “ritual nick” for girls. The idea behind this was that if a “ritual nick” were available here in the US, then parents would be less inclined to take their girls abroad to undergo more severe forms of female circumcision. The AAP itself admitted that the severity of the “ritual nick” would be dwarfed in comparison to male infant circumcision. The month of May did not pass before the AAP was forced to retract their statement. The world had spoken loud enough for the AAP to get the message; under no way shape or form will any doctor come near a girl’s genitals with a knife, not even for as much as a “ritual nick.”
http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1988434,00.html

Of course the list of “reasons” why male and female circumcision “aren’t the same” doesn’t end here. Female circumcision is supposed to be much much “worse” than male circumcision because it is performed on girls and women who are old enough to remember, it is performed in the bush, with no pain killers, by an amateur using dirty utensils like rusty razor blades and glass shards. In some cases, girls bleed to death. Of course, many boys and men are circumcised in pretty much the same way in those same exact countries. Every year, in South Africa, scores of young men die as a result of ritual circumcision, and many more lose their entire penises to gangrene, but this is accepted as “tradition.” Besides, in the West, baby boys are circumcised in pristine hospitals using sterile utensils by a professional. But would we accept circumcision in baby girls under these same circumstances? Are these acts universally acceptable when performed on infants that will be “too young to remember?” Or do these double-standards only apply to baby boys, and only when regarding circumcision?

It is often said "female circumcision is worse than male circumcision because it is performed in newborns, where they will be unable to remember." Actually, most Americans are unaware that in the Muslim and Filipino tradition, boys are circumcised at a much older age. They only know that female circumcision happens to girls and women...

Kurdish girl being circumcised

Muslim boy being circumcised

...but do they feel the same sympathy for the boy being circumcised not too far away?

In Indonesia, an infant girl undergoes circumcision to fulfill religious and cultural tradition.

Not too far away, an infant boy undergoes circumcision for precisely the same reasons. (Notice the mother: "Shh! Quiet!")

It is only through sexist double-think that we allow ourselves to feel disgust for only one of these pictures.

American readers may yet dilute themselves saying "babies who are circumcised as newborn boys, like we do here in the US, can't remember a thing." But does "not remembering" really make the act any more justifiable?

For readers who stomach it, I encourage you to visit these blogs. Here, parents in Malaysia, Indonesia, and Singapore discuss their baby daughter's "sunat" pretty much the same way American parents talk about their son's circumcisions online. Here too, the subjects of permanent genital modification will also "not remember" what has happened to them.  But does this fact justify the act here? What is the list of things that you can do to a child because "s/he can't remember?" And isn't this, the taking advantage of the defenseless, the very definition of abuse?

Blog links here. CAUTION - Not for the squeamish:
http://aandes.blogspot.com/2010/04/circumcision.html
http://www.mummysg.com/forums/f40/have-you-sunat-your-girls-29826/
http://malaysiansupermummy.blogspot.com/2010/10/sunat-baby-girl.html

Male circumcision has health benefits
When the undeniable equality of the situation begins to become unmistakably obvious, when "religious freedom" and "parental choice" begin to fail as alibis for permanent genital modification, the conversation inevitably has to be directed to all the potential “medical benefits,” however dubious they may be. Circumcision advocates start to talk about how “studies show” a circumcision “helps prevent” this or that disease. They will not talk about the controversies surrounding the studies, or the fact that even if they were without controversy, the “benefits” that circumcision affords are already easily attainable by means that don’t involve radical genital surgery.

Advocates are careful to mention that circumcision “reduces the risk of UTI,” but not that UTI is already more rare in boys than in girls, and it is easily treatable with antibiotics. They’ll mention that “studies show” that “circumcision reduces the risk of penile cancer,” but not that the rate is already 1 in 100,000 men that smoke and don’t practice good hygiene. (1 in 6 men will get prostate cancer; by this logic removing our children’s prostates is more urgent.)

Right now, the biggest anti-foreskin canard is the claim that circumcision “reduces the risk of HIV by 60%.” Circumcision activists parade the latest trials in Africa as circumcision’s ultimate vindication. They’ll never mention, however, the real world evidence. In other African countries, HIV was found to be more prevalent among circumcised men.

In the following African countries, HIV was found to be more prevalent among the circumcised:

Cameroon  table 16.9, p17 (4.1% v 1.1%)
http://www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/FR163/16chapitre16.pdf
Ghana table 13.9 (1.6% v 1.4%)
http://www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/FR152/13Chapter13.pdf
Lesotho table 12.9 (22.8% v 15.2%)
http://www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/FR171/12Chapter12.pdf 
Malawi table 12.6, p257 (13.2% v 9.5%)
http://www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/FR175/FR-175-MW04.pdf
Rwanda  , table 15.11 (3.5% v 2.1%)
http://www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/FR183/15Chapter15.pdf
Swaziland  table 14.10 (21.8% v 19.5%)
http://www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/FR202/FR202.pdf

According to USAID, "There appears no clear pattern of association between male circumcision and HIV prevalence—in 8 of 18 countries with data, HIV prevalence is lower among circumcised men, while in the remaining 10 countries it is higher."
http://www.measuredhs.com/pubs/pdf/CR22/CR22.pdf

See also:
"Conclusions: We find a protective effect of circumcision in only one of the eight countries for which there are nationally-representative HIV seroprevalence data. The results are important in considering the development of circumcision-focused interventions within AIDS prevention programs."
http://www.iasociety.org/Default.aspx?pageId=11&abstractId=2197431

"Results: ...No consistent relationship between male circumcision and HIV risk was observed in most countries."
http://apha.confex.com/apha/134am/techprogram/paper_136814.htm

According to Malaysian AIDS Council vice-president Datuk Zaman Khan, more than 70% of the 87,710 HIV/AIDS sufferers in the country are Muslims. In Malaysia the majority of the males in the Muslim population are circumcised, whereas circumcision is uncommon in the non-Muslim community. This means that HIV is spreading in the community where most men are circumcised at an even faster rate, than in the community where most men are intact.
http://www.mmail.com.my/content/39272-72-percent-aidshiv-sufferers-malaysia-are-muslims-says-council

In the 2010 Global AIDS report released by UNAIDS in late November, the Philippines was one of seven nations in the world which reported over 25 percent in new HIV infections between 2001 and 2009, whereas other countries have either stabilized or shown significant declines in the rate of new infections. Among all countries in Asia, only the Philippines and Bangladesh are reporting increases in HIV cases, with others either stable or decreasing.
http://globalnation.inquirer.net/news/breakingnews/view/20110102-312124/Philippines-HIVAIDS-problem-worries-UN

Despite circumcision being near-universal, it hasn't stopped HIV transmission in Israel.
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/opinion/failing-the-aids-test-1.249088
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/israeli-gays-shun-condoms-despite-worrying-rise-in-aids-1.249372
http://www.haaretz.com/news/has-the-aids-cocktail-worked-too-well-in-israel-1.258520
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/hiv-diagnoses-in-israel-climb-new-cases-among-gays-up-sharply-1.248651

And circumcision advocates will conveniently forget to talk about the fact that circumcision hasn't stopped HIV in our own country.
http://data.unaids.org/pub/Report/1998/19981125_global_epidemic_report_en.pdf

And, it hasn't stopped other STDs either.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2009/01/13/us-infections-usa-idUSTRE50C5XV20090113?pageNumber=1&virtualBrandChannel=0

In America, the majority of the male population is circumcised, approximately 80%, while in most countries in Europe, circumcision is uncommon. Despite these facts, our country does poorly.
http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=419&Itemid=177

But here's the kicker: What if there were "studies" that said the kind of circumcision performed in say, Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore, "reduced" the likelihood of some disease? What if “studies showed” that female circumcision “reduced the risk of HIV transmission?” Would that make female circumcision in baby girls OK? Because there are few studies that show precisely this:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1442755
http://www.thebody.com/content/art12238.html
http://www.ias-2005.org/planner/Abstracts.aspx?AID=3138

Additionally:
"Female circumcision results in a reduction of infections resulting from microbes gathering under the hood of the clitoris"
"Attacks of herpes and genital ulcers are less severe and less harmful with women who have been circumcised"
http://www.themuslimwoman.com/hygiene/femalecircumcision.htm
http://www.islamictreasures.com/manners-of-welcoming-the-new-born-child-in-islam-sku16723.html

On the surface, circumcision advocates care about a myriad of "health benefits." Doctors that pretend to be on the fence often step back and say "circumcision has pros and cons, and it's up to parents to weigh them." But would they ever consider the "health benefits" of circumcising baby girls? Would doctors allow parents to "weigh the pros and cons" of female circumcision? And if parents felt that it was medically advantageous to have their daughter's labia and/or clitoral hood removed, would they be legally obliged to perform labiaplasties/unroofing in baby girls? Incidentally, apart from male infant circumcision, for what other non-theraputic surgery do doctors allow parents to make their own diagnosis and assessment?

WOULD we ever consider the "health benefits" of female circumcision? Would we ever be supportive of further "research" into the matter? WHY is it we're so interested in "studies" and "medical benefits" when it comes to male infant circumcision only?

Well what about abortion?
It seems circumcision advocates think they're very clever when bringing up the abortion debate. "You're so pro-choice, and you don't want the state telling you what to do with your body, yet you support government intervention when it comes to a parent's choice to circumcision?" - they ask, oblivious to the crux of the argument; banning male infant circumcision IS about choice, and it IS about the right to a person's body.

I've already talked about the limitations of "parental choice." The abortion debate is a red herring. The fact of the matter is neither side of the abortion debate can consistently argue in favor of circumcision. It is hypocritical to be for a child's "right to life," but not for the right to his genitals. It is inconsistent to be against chopping up a child in his mother's womb, but in favor of chopping him up as soon as he comes out. It is also hypocritical to apply "my body, my choice" to just the mother. Circumcision, is a personal choice, and at such, it belongs to the person in question. Healthy infant boys never "choose" this for themselves.

Well what about ear piercing?
What about it? I’m against the piercing of baby girls’ ears too, though I don't think piercing a child's ears can compare to cutting the ear off. If doctors were giving baby boys prince alberts, even without cutting off the foreskin, I'd still be against it. And if doctors were performing ear piercing and using "medical benefits" as a pretext, you can bet that I'd be at the front of that line.

Let’s talk about a similar cosmetic procedure that adults get, but that they have gotten in trouble for imposing them on children; in the recent past, parents have gone to court for tattooing their children. In one case in Fresno, CA, a father was taken to court for tattooing his street gang symbol onto his child’s abdomen. Infant circumcision was actually brought up as a parallel. If parents have the “right” to circumcise their (male) children, and the right to pierce their daughters’ ears, then doesn’t it follow that they should be allowed to tattoo their children?

No, said the courts.

It’s a non-issue!
Circumcision is a very touchy taboo subject. It’s sexual, dirty and vulgar, and bringing it up rouses people’s passions and emotions on either side. When it is brought up, people do what is within their power to put an end to the conversation and change the subject quickly. If male infant circumcision is this "non-issue" and "not a big deal," then why does it anger people so much to bring it up in conversation? The tension, passion and emotion that the mere mention of this subject arouses in people is manifest of what people actually think about the subject.

What I find amusing is how people try to minimize the situation. If people could "care less," then what's the big deal with ending the practice? In places where girls and women are circumcised, they don't think it's "such a big deal either." Just as men in this country say "I was circumcised, and I'm fine," so do the women in countries where female circumcision is practiced.

 A still from Bondo: A journey into Kono womanhood, a documentary by Sunju Ahmadu. Following an assertion by a Freetown-based Nigerin doctor and anti-FGM activist, that African women do not understand ‘wellness’ and think that sexual intercourse is only for reproduction, two young Kono girlfriends, one excised and one not, discuss their personal experiences and beliefs about whether excision affects sexual pleasure. The excised woman expresses confidence in her ability to experience complete and even greater sexual fulfilment than her unexcised friend, and reaffirms her pride in being a bondo initiate.

So men who are circumcised in child hood are "confident" in themselves. They feel they weren't violated, and can feel sex as good as the next guy, if not even "better." But if you go to countries where women are circumcised, so do the women. The sexist double-standard is that this "confidence" in having "gotten over" forced genital modification that happened such a long time ago, the minimizing of it into something that's "not such a big deal" can only be used to justify it in boys; only when it is done to girls is it considered "female genital mutilation," and this is not legitimized by adult women's sour grape attitude after the fact.

Conclusion
For better or for worse, female circumcision is also an important "rite of passage," and a "religious rite." Parents in countries where baby girls are circumcised say that it's "a little snip," and some even say that male circumcision is worse. But in this country, one parent's "freedom" is another parent's crime. The federal ban on FGM also infringes on "religious freedom" and "parental choice." Many decry the latest proposal in San Francisco as an "infringement on parental rights and religious freedoms." But how much do we care about those really?

Determined to justify their own religious practice and traditions, and blinded by their own cultural bias, circumcision advocates jump the "religious freedom and parental choice" ship, to the "medical benefits" life raft. But upon closer analysis we realize that that boat don't float either. "Studies show" that female circumcision might also have "medical benefits," but we don't seem to be interested in such "research." "Studies," it seems, only matter as far as justifying male circumcision goes.

Circumcision is a loaded topic, and under most other circumstances, the conversation gets shut down. Though it is a "non-issue" and most people are "over it," for whatever reason people would rather not talk about it. And this, I believe, is the true value of this proposed ban. The mere proposition of putting a ban on circumcision on the ballot has gotten this country buzzing. News outlets all over the nation are picking it up, and perhaps for the first time in history, the people of this country are being forced to question their own cultural values.

I do not delude myself; I know that  this ban will never pass, not the way things stand now. But at the very least, it is forcing this country to confront a double-standard that they have been ignoring for so long.

Bottom line
The foreskin is not a birth defect. Nor is it a congenital deformity or a genetic anomaly akin to a 6th finger or a cleft. The foreskin is normal, healthy tissue found in all males at birth.

Unless there is a medical or clinical indication, the circumcision of 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.

Doctors have absolutely no business performing surgery in healthy, non-consenting individuals, much less giving their parents any kind of "choice."