GRANOLA BABIES: BIG MISTAKE

It's the internet; it's a freedom of speech free for all. I've seen quite a few pro-circumcision propaganda posters, and I've seen so many that I thought I was used to it.

Which is why I was surprised to find the this picture in my Facebook news feed today, particularly from a group that calls itself "Granola Babies."

Can you spot what this group craftily decided to sneak in there?

"Granola Babies" gives off the impression that it's a group for crunchy moms, and as far as I was aware, crunchy moms want everything that is the most natural for their kids, which is why I thought it rather revolting to see this picture trying to pretend like circumcision fits right up there with co-sleeping and breast-feeding. The "I work outside the home" seems pointless up there; who cares WHERE you work, as long as you're taking care of your kids.

The caption that accompanied this filth read:

"Let's celebrate our differences as mothers and that we love our babies the same. ♥"

I was fuming.

No, seriously, what self-serving, self-congratulating crap.

As if circumcision were this "choice" parents are entitled to, much less a "crunchy" one.

This to me seems like nothing more than a deliberate inflammatory piece of propaganda aimed at inciting the ire of human rights activists.

And they knew exactly what they were doing. Oh yes they did.

The caption continues:

"Update on this picture ~ Unfortunately the message was lost on some and many unkind posts towards other posters (now deleted) have been made and are not such that Granola Babies is willing to host. There were even a couple of posts stating that mothers do not love their babies the same if she did ___ (insert box) different than her.

In particular -
All posts that continue the circumcision debate will be deleted. This isn't a platform for this debate."

I've said it before on a different blog post, but if people don't want to hear it from us intactivists, if they don't want to host the "circumcision debate," why post inciteful things at all?

I posted more than a piece of my mind, and as promised, my comments were promptly deleted.

But they are gravely mistaken if they think they're going to post this crap and not hear about it from intactivists.

These self-serving idiots just want to pretend like mutilating your child is "just another choice" and we should all be "celebrating our differences."

Well, what do they think of mothers who have gone ahead and circumcised their daughters?

Should we "celebrate" that?

Maybe it's "different" with said mothers of circumcised daughters, and they don't "love their children the same?"

Sexist, self-serving double-standard to be treating male circumcision, and male circumcision ONLY as a "choice" mothers can be making.

The fact is, if being a parent justified everything you did with your children, then there wouldn't be a need for child protective services.

There is such a thing as horrible parents out there, and at some point what they do to their children crosses over into abuse, and shit has to hit the fan.

"Granola Babies" seems to be in the business of pleasing the masses and just issuing out touchy-feely slogans and propaganda that congratulates idiotic parenting.

In the words of John Steinbeck:

"No one wants advice, only corroboration."

And, it looks like "Granola Babies" is more than happy to supply it.

I've taken their sick disgusting poster and made a parody of it:

Yes, "Granola Babies," let's celebrate.

But you know what, this isn't about parents.

I don't blame parents for making a "choice" based on the "advice" their charlatan pediatrician or OB/GYN gave them. Can parents be blamed if they were told that not circumcising their children would result in their child getting penile cancer and dying of AIDS?

No.

That responsibility lies in the charlatans that sell the lies they need to to profit at the expense of children, and at the expense of parental trust.

The bottom line question is always this:

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

Without a medical or clinical indication, how is it doctors are even stoking in mothers this false sense of entitlement?

That is "Granola Babies'" biggest failure; they are perpetuating the myth that parents are entitled to perform needless surgery on their healthy, non-consenting children.

Does "Granola Babies" celebrate the "choice" of mothers who chose to have their daughters circumcised?

No?

What if it were a "ritual nick" as once approved by the AAP, where they said it dwarves in comparison to male infant circumcision?

Let's see how much support "Granola Babies" gives mothers who had "sunat" performed on their daughters.

Shameless, self-serving, disgusting pieces of shit.

Give TRUE crunchy advice, you lousy people-pleasers.

Related story:  GRANOLA BABIES: Responses to "Celebratory" Ad

TEXAS: UTMB Debates the "Pros, Cons and Contexts of Male Circumcision"

It's been a while since I've been able to sit down and blog. I plan to sit down at some point and tackle some very important subjects. I've been holding off on the Colorado saga because I think it merits time and consideration. But for now, I wanted to comment on a so-called "symposium" that's happening at the Univeristy of Texas.

So according to the Daily News, the University of Texas Medical Branch is hosting a symposium titled "Cutting Edge Debate: Pros, Cons and Contexts of Male Circumcision."

It's always a good thing for conversation regarding circumcision to be happening, as, up until recently, it was a very taboo subject. But I wonder whether this will actually be a worthy symposium, or merely a meditation session for those who chant the "infant circumcision has medical benefits, and therefore a religious freedom and a parental right" mantra.

"Is male circumcision a medical procedure or a ritual? Why is it important religiously and historically? Should it be performed, and if so, how should it be performed?", begins the Daily News article. What about the ethics of performing amputative surgery on the genitals of a healthy, non-consenting child? Will those be addressed?

Given who is on the "panel of experts," I can only hope so. It includes a Jewish mohel "who is also a pediatrician." No direct conflicts of interest there. Then we have "two physicians with differing views on the ethical questions surrounding the performing of routine infant circumcision," one who happens to oversee the UTMB Pediatric Residency Training program in circumcision, the other who has actually stopped performing circumcisions because of the ethical concerns. So, in actuality, we have two physicians who are pro-circumcision (if you include the mohel) against the one with a differing view. I can already guess what the outcome of this "debate" will be.

Or what kind of a debate is it where a bunch of "experts," most of whom share the same beliefs, figuratively look under a rock and say "Hrm... No violation of medical ethics or basic human rights here..."?

The mohel/pediatrician will talk about "the place of circumcision in the Jewish tradition, the unique features of religious circumcision and his many years of experience performing the brit milah ritual with families throughout in the southwest region." And, as if this were of any importance, the Daily News article mentions "...he often is contacted by non-Jewish parents actively seeking out a mohel to perform circumcision on their sons. His discussion will include reasons some of these parents have shared with him for seeking a ritual circumcision instead of a purely clinical one."

Yes, because the context in which adults abuse a child makes all the difference...

Another panelist will talk about "a social and historical framework for thinking about the ritual of circumcision" as well as "larger contexts within which circumcision is performed and debated."

All in all, it sounds like the University of Texas Medical Branch wants to engage in what appears to be an "academic debate" regarding the forced circumcision of male infants.

But would there ever be an "academic debate" on the "Pros, Cons and Contexts of Female Circumcision?" Would Dr. Hatem Elhagaly, who happens to be an advocate for female genital cutting be allowed to be one of the panelists? Would we allow a pediatrician to proudly boast how many sunat procedures he's performed on baby girls? Could we have an "academic debate" and discuss the questions"Is [fe]male circumcision a medical procedure or a ritual? Why is it important religiously and historically? Should it be performed, and if so, how should it be performed?" Could we discuss "a social and historical framework for thinking about the ritual of circumcision" as well as "larger contexts within which circumcision is performed and debated?"

The answer is no, we would not.

The answer is, the forced genital cutting of female minors is seen as a violation of basic human rights, and we do not beat around the bush with "academic debate" and the "pros and cons" of female circumcision.

There would never be enough "research" or enough "medical benefits" to justify forced genital cutting in female minors, in any context, "medical" or "religious."

Bottom Line
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, with which all boys are born; 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 individual 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 individual, much less be eliciting any kind of "decision" from parents.

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.

When male infant genital mutilation is seen for the gross human rights violation that it is, the University of Texas will be among the guilty for perpetuating it in this country.

Male and Female Infant Circumcision: Which One is Worse?

In the battle against male genital mutilation, intactivists always point out that while male circumcision is defended on the grounds of "religious freedom," "parental choice" and "medical benefits," the same is not true for female circumcision. At the same time, advocates of male infant circumcision always shoot back "male and female circumcision aren't the same!" There are some that even go as far as feigning offense and demanding "How dare you compare male and female circumcision! We're not moving forward until we agree that they're not the same!"

So we hear that male and female circumcision "aren't the same." But what is the basis for this claim? Are we supposed to believe it at face value without any demonstrable proof? When a circumcision advocate asserts that male and female circumcision "aren't the same," what does that person mean? What exactly is he comparing?

I've already written an extensive blog post on the matter here, so I won't spend too much time on this one.

I'm just going to briefly cover a few points of consideration for this debate that tend to be completely ignored, if ever even brought up.

Male circumcision as it happens in the United States to newborns and children is always compared to female circumcision as it happens in the African bush to teens and adult women.
This is a false comparison. Circumcision advocates always compare male infant circumcision, which is usually conducted by a professional, with sterile equipment, in the pristine environment of a health facility (sometimes) with analgesia, with the kind of female circumcision that is conducted in the African wilderness as a rite of passage, which is usually conducted by a shamaness priestess, using raw tools such as a rusty razor blade or a glass shard, under the harsh conditions of the bush. They are also comparing two different genital cutting procedures that are not analogous to each other.

Not all female circumcision is performed in the bush.
In fact, female circumcision is also performed by doctors with sterile utensils under pristine conditions. Some doctors also claim there to be "medical benefits," citing works and studies. They do this out of genuine concern for their patients, and not because they wish to justify their profession I'm sure.

Not all female circumcision is performed on teens and adult women.
Male circumcision advocates elicit an emotional response when they present the image of a teen or an adult woman being forced to undergo genital cutting. Male circumcision is supposed to somehow be justified by the fact that it is often performed on newborn babies that will not remember.

The fact is that circumcision is performed in baby girls in various parts of South-East Asia, namely Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore and Brunei. "She won't remember," however, seems to fail this litmus test.

Not all female circumcision is forced.
As in adult male circumcision, adult female circumcision is also often a rite of passage that a girl or woman is expected to undergo willingly. "Willingly" is a misnomer, as succumbing to social pressure can hardly be called "free will." This seems to be a good enough reason, however, to look the other way, when it concerns male circumcision as it happens in African tribes. In the "mass circumcision campaigns" in Africa, one often hears the acronym "VMMC," which stands for "voluntary medical male circumcision." With all the social pressure to get circumcised, lest one be seen as an HIV risk, one must wonder how much of the circumcisions in Africa are actually "voluntary."

For better or for worse, however, there are communities where a woman submits herself to get circumcised out of her own free will. While this is enough to justify male circumcision in various situations in Africa, "social pressure" only seems to be a problem when it involves female circumcision.

Not all female circumcision removes the same parts.
Male circumcision advocates always compare male infant circumcision as it occurs in the United States, to infibulation, which is a kind of female circumcision that removes the clitoris, inner and outer labia, and the remaining wound is sewn shut to leave only a small hole for menstruation.

In reality, infibulation is the WORST kind of female circumcision, and it is actually the rarest, comprising of 15% of female circumcision globally. There are various other forms of female circumcision, and not all of them remove the same parts of the genitals. There are forms of female circumcision that are as equal to, or less severe than male circumcision. At least in the United States, ALL forms of female genital cutting is considered "mutilation," and against the law.

What is true for female circumcision, is also true for male circumcision.
Just as female circumcision is often performed by shamanesses and priestesses with glass shards and rusty razor blades under harsh conditions, the same is true for male circumcision.

Every year, millions of men undergo circumcision  as a rite of passage in various parts of Africa, and every year, scores of men succumb to infection, lose their penises to gangrene, or die.

While these are concerns regarding female circumcision, they don't seem to be a concern regarding male circumcision.

Perhaps less women would succumb to infection or bleed to death if only these procedures would be done in hospitals. Perhaps it would be less traumatic if only these women were circumcised as babies so that they wouldn't remember the pain and anguish.

The suggestion that African states should provide sterile equipment and proper training to provide "infant female circumcision" would probably not make it very far.

So what is being compared?
The comparison of male infant circumcision as it occurs in America to female circumcision as it occurs in the African bush is self-serving hyperbole.

A more accurate comparison of male infant circumcision as it occurs in American hospitals would be female infant circumcision as it occurs in Singapore, Indonesia, Malaysia, and Brunei.

A more accurate comparison of female circumcision as it occurs in Africa would be male circumcision as it occurs in Africa.

Apples to apples
So what do people mean when they assert that "male and female circumcision aren't the same?"

When someone makes this claim, can we trust that this person has actually taken the time to do their research? That s/he has actually witnessed both male and female circumcision? Adult and minor?

How can we be sure that they're aren't blowing female circumcision out of proportion in order to trivialize male circumcision?

I dare say that comparing male infant circumcision as it is performed in US hospitals to female circumcision as it is performed in the African wilderness is a false comparison. It ignores the fact that circumcision is performed in males under the exact same conditions as it does in females. It ignores the fact that there are actually various kinds of female circumcision, some equal to, if not less severe than male circumcision as we know it. It ignores the fact that we would never accept female circumcision, not even the kind that can be compared with male circumcision, or even dwarfs in comparison.

Let's compare the same exact thing:

A baby in South-East Asia undergoes "sunat"

Original Text: "It happens so fast, with a bismillah and a snip,

a little bit blood and that's it, Zahra dah sunat!

She didn't cry even a drop, in fact giggling2 lagi.

I guess it wasn't painful for her, alhamdulillahh.."

The slit clitoris if you can find it (on the lower blade)

You can read the whole thing here:
http://aandes.blogspot.com/2010/04/circumcision.html

We're often told that male infant circumcision is "just a little snip," "he doesn't even cry," and they remove "only a little flap of skin."

Well, let's have "a little flap of skin,"

..and let's compare it to the slit clitoris above.

I'm somehow not convinced that the foreskin is "just a little flap of skin."

And I'm not convinced that female circumcision, as we see above, is "worse."

Remove the same exact amount of flesh you see above from the genitals of a baby girl, that would be "mutilation."

When we actually sit down and compare like with like, I dare say male infant circumcision is more severe than female infant circumcision.

Recap of the facts:
Female circumcision is not always as severe as male circumcision advocates would like their audience to believe. While it is often performed by a shamaness priestess, using raw tools such as a rusty razor blade or a glass shard, under the harsh conditions of the bush, the same is also true for male circumcision.

While male infant circumcision is often conducted by a professional, with sterile equipment, in the pristine environment of a health facility, the same can also be true of female circumcision.

While infection and hemorrhaging to death are risks of female circumcision, the same is also true of male circumcision.

Claims of "hygiene" and "medical benefits," as well as "literature" to back these claims exist for both male and female circumcision. While these seem to be perfectly good rationale to justify circumcision in males, there would never be enough literature that would ever make female circumcision "acceptable."


Conclusion
Comparing the severity of male and female circumcision, citing "potential medical benefits," "religion and culture," and "parental choice" are all red herrings that draw attention from the point that intactivists are trying to make:

Circumcision, male or female, is always abuse, genital mutilation, and a gross violation of basic human rights, when it is conducted on healthy, non-consenting individuals.

Whether it is performed by professional or amateur, in the hospital or in the bush, on babies, children or adults, with pain killers or without, with a glass shard or a scalpel, whether it removes a "tiny flap of skin," or a substantial chunk of flesh, for "potential medical benefits" or for "religious reasons" is irrelevant.

The Bottom Line
The foreskin is not a birth defect. Neither is it a congenital deformity or genital 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 normal, natural, healthy tissue with which all boys are born.

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, and a violation of the most basic of human rights.

Doctors have absolutely no business performing surgery on healthy, non-consenting individuals, much less stoking a parent's sense of entitlement.

References:
For more information regarding female circumcision as it is performed in South East Asia, I recommend the following article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/20/magazine/20circumcision-t.html

The WHO classifies female circumcision into four types. Read more about them here:
http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/

Closer investigation reveals that, contrary to popular belief, women who have undergone infibulation, which is the worst kind of female genital cutting, are still 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

"Studies show" that female circumcision "reduces" the risk of HIV:
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

A mother in South East Asia blogs about her daughter's circumcision, or "sunat," as it is known there. The picture used in this blog post was also taken from here:
http://aandes.blogspot.com/2010/04/circumcision.html
Another blog similar to the one above:
http://malaysiansupermummy.blogspot.com/2010/10/sunat-baby-girl.html

In the following parenting forum for South East Asia, mothers describe their experiences in having their daughters circumcised, their own circumcisions as adults, and there are even some recommendations for doctors who perform it.
http://www.mummysg.com/forums/f40/have-you-sunat-your-girls-29826/

Note that if the forum above were discussing boys instead of girls, it would read like almost any other parenting forum on the internet, such as CafeMom or what have you. Cutting genitals in the name of "religion," "parental prerogative," or "potential medical benefits" is only an issue with girls; never with boys.