Who's the "Douchebag?"

Every once in a while, you'll get someone writing about the "right" way to talk about circumcision.

The latest I've seen is in a blog post titled "How to Talk About Circumcision Without Being a Douchebag."

On the one hand, I could see what the author was getting at, but on the other, I feel that one side is being ignored.

A good point she makes is that intactivists could do a better job of delivering their message, and I agree.

But there are some points that I simply can't see eye to eye with.

To each their own, but I'm not sure I could continue being "best friends" with someone I knew agreed to have their children mutilated after having given them information.

Would you want to continue to be friends with someone you knew was OK with doing other abusive things to their children?

Beating them black and blue?

Sexually molesting them?

Yes, I see circumcision on par with sexual molestation.

Worse; sexual mutilation.

A child could heal from the wounds of sexual molestation through therapy, but a circumcision scar is permanent and can never be erased.

The author also seems to believe that circumcision is "just another choice," like bottle feeding or using disposable diapers vs. cloth diapers.

"We had a conversation about a subject that can be controversial without making it controversial because that is how adults interact.

And both of our children are thriving.  Both of our children our loved, breastfed, well taken care of."

I've seen this "celebrate our parental choices" attitude before:

And I couldn't agree any less.

It is a mistake to attack and humiliate parents over something they honestly didn't know any better about, and who would take it all back if they knew what they were doing to their children.

I'm not advocating that.

But I also do not advocate corroberating with parents, rewarding willful ignorance, making them feel justified and entitled by calling circumcision a "choice" to be "celebrated."

This author seems willing to pander to her "best friend" at the expense of the basic human rights of that friend's children, because she is more interested in "staying friends" than the principle of basic human rights for all.

I can't agree with sacrificing principle for the sake of friendship.

I couldn't pretend like "nothing happened," just to stay friends with someone whom I gave information to, but decided to mutilate his/her child anyway.

Who is a douchebag?
Now, let's talk about just who the "douchebag" is.

Who is a douchebag?

Someone whom you don't like, or has done something you don't like.

I am ready to acknowledge that there are some intactivists out there who cross the line. There is much reason an intactivist does it though; we feel as passionate about male infant circumcision as people feel about say, female circumcision. It is a gross violation of basic human rights and not to be taken lightly.

People keep saying "you shouldn't judge."

But let's ask, how do you feel about female circumcision?

How do you feel about parents that circumcised their daughters?

And be honest.

Would you hold back and "not judge?"

Would you respect that "parental choice?"

Or would you say the first thing on your mind?

That said, there are also intactivists who have lots of time and patience, and who try to deliver their message in as a non-judgemental way as possible. They try to post facts, links to information, and just leave it a that; only to have it be called "bashing" and "harassment" by parents who simply want to hear nothing other than validation and encouragement, and have it promptly deleted, user blocked.

So who's the douchebag?

The answer is, someone whom you don't like, or has done something you don't like.

Intactivists could tone it down. I will admit.

But why is the first reaction from parents who are adamant about having their child circumcised defensiveness and hostility?

Why does it make someone who wants to post factual information automatically a "douchebag?"

Not all intactivists are extreme. Not all parents are close-minded and pawn off whomever they don't want to hear as "douchebags."

This is probably asking for the sun and the moon, but there needs to be acknowledgement on both sides.

Yes, intactivists can be extreme douchebags.

But if you're a parent who things you've got it all right, but then you openly post about your son's circumcision online, and then complain that you're being "harrassed" and "bullied" by people whom all they want to do is give you information to make a better choice for your children, and that they're "getting into your business," and then delete what they have to say and block them, because you care more about mutilating your son and being "right" than you actually do about his health and well-being, then you're a douchebag too.

The fact is, circumcision is a sensitive subject, and you're not going to get away with posting about it on the internet, and getting people like us roused up.

If you don't want people "getting in your business," then don't post it on the internet for the whole world to see. 


Related Posts:

The "Mommy Page" Wars

REPOST: If You Can't Stand the Heat...

GRANOLA BABIES: BIG MISTAKE

GRANOLA BABIES: Responses to "Celebratory" Ad

The "Mommy Page" Wars

Lately, it seems a lot of "mommy pages" have sought to increase their viewership by bringing on the circumcision debate.

The most reliable way to start a thread that attracts 100+ comments on any parenting page, is to make infant circumcision the topic.

What are "mommy pages?"

Ostensibly they're parenting forums where moms, and sometimes dads, can come and glean, share or otherwise exchange parenting experiences and advice for the betterment of parenting, and hopefully, the betterment of the children being raised.

Or at least one would hope.

A lot of these, however, tend to be gathering places for like-minded parents who want nothing more than validation from others for what they've already decided to do with their children. Basically, they're mutual ego masturbation sessions where parents go to pat each other on the back and give each other high-fives.

"No one wants advice - only corroboration."
~John Steinbeck

They range from major mainstream online parenting forums, like CafeMom, BabyCenter, Baby Gaga, TheBump, etc., to "mommy pages" on Facebook, where they tend to have cute, but feisty little names like "kickass mommies," "uncensored mommas," or "I'm a mom, I got this."

The names try to give the impressions that they're places for parents to sound off and anything goes.

In reality, though, depending on the nature of the managers of the pages, they're places where the opinions and the nature of pages are already pretty much set, and where you've really got to walk around eggshells, so as to not upset other parents, namely the creators of said pages.

If you've got a dissenting view, you've got to be real careful to couch it, sugar coat it, and coddle others that disagree with you in attempts to get it heard. Dissenting views (or, actually, advice and experiences that upset other parents) tend to be silenced, deleted or blocked as "bashing" or "harassment."

In fact, when a lot of these "mommy pages" dare to bring on the circumcision debate, they always have to preclude, in all capital letters, with expressions such as "NO BASHING!" Or "HARRASSING COMMENTS WILL BE DELETED, AND USERS BANNED IMMEDIATELY!"

Harrassment? Or Inconvenient Truths?
It's interesting what passes for "harassment" nowadays. Yes, I'm sure internet trolls exist in the intactivism movement; they exist in every walk of life.

But, it seems, on "mommy sites," on and off Facebook, any suggestion that circumcision might be a bad idea is considered "bashing" or "harassment," and is often deleted, and the poster blocked, no matter how diplomatic and respectful the comment may actually have been. Sometimes the entire thread is removed altogether, because it's just too much for the admins to handle. Nobody wants to consider the possibility that they may have actually made a mistake.

Parents go on these forums which are obviously for the purpose of dispensing and exchanging parental advice, they post their story, asking for every one's opinions, and then cry "bashing" and "harassment" when they don't get the validation they were looking for.

What I find almost comical is the way parents get on their high horse about the matter, and retort with snappy one-liners such as "whether or not I decide to circumcise my kids is none of your business." Or "don't you tell me how to raise my kids."

Another common one is "how dare you assume I don't have the good sense to research the subject for myself!"

Even though, they ARE, for all intents and purposes, seeking advice on a parenting advice forum. Many moms and dads who utter statements as the above also had the audacity to START their own "mommy" page to dispense advice to others.

Exchange on most other aspects of parenting (breast feeding, co-sleeping, car seats, slings, etc) is allowed. But anything other than "it's your choice" and "it's harmless and beneficial" regarding circumcision is considered "bashing," "harassment," "disrespectful," and "insulting."

Quite frankly, if parents didn't want to be "harassed" regarding their son's circumcision, why even bring it up? If they're "so confident" and "so informed" on their "decisions," why seek validation on the Internet?

On a parenting forum?

On Facebook?

Where millions of viewers can see?

It's rather immature, almost mentally unstable, to be making a post asking for other people's opinions, on an open parenting forum, where millions of other moms and dads can see, and opine, and then call it "bashing" and "harassment" when you don't get the validation you were expecting. It's rather self-contradictory to be posting part of your life on the internet, seeking out others' opinions, and then turn around and say "it's none of your business; don't tell me how to raise my child."

I see a lot more "bashing" and name-calling from defensive moms and dads who circumcised their sons than from those who decided against it. Right after comments against circumcision get deleted, and people are banned, those who remain proceed to speak ill of those who disagreed with them in their absence.

On a side note, I'd like to touch on defensive remarks to the effect of "how dare you think I'm not smart enough to do my own research!" It is impolite to insinuate that a parent is not so bright as to inform themselves on an issue that affects their children. The fact of the matter is, though, that one is not automatically smart and enlightened in child-rearing by mere virtue of being a parent. No parent knows it all. If this were true, then there wouldn't be a need for parenting forums and mommy pages. 

The fact of the matter is, however, that no respected medical organization endorses male infant circumcision. The AAP tried to in their last statement, but stopped short. All medical organizations in the West state that the current body of evidence is insufficient to recommend the circumcision of infants. It is fallacious to expect lay parents to examine the same body of evidence, and come up with a more reasonable conclusion than that of entire organizations of medical professionals. It is not possible, then, that parents who chose to allow their children to be circumcised "did their research."
 
It is medically fraudulent that parents are being allowed to make a "choice" that is inconsistent with the conclusions of entire organizations of medical professionals, that doctors pretend that they can comply with such a "choice," and that public coffers are expected to reimburse them.

A Disservice to Parents and Their Children
Why do page admins delete "bashing" and "harassment" on their pages and forums? (In other words, factual information that may make other parents uncomfortable?) My theory is that, a lot of them are more interested in being the center of an online parenting forum than they are about dispensing factually accurate information. They aim to people please and earn and keep "likes" on their pages.

Deleting posts that upset parents who have made the irreversible decision to circumcise their sons makes you look like a hero.

What good is a parenting or "mommy" forum, where basically, instead of advice or exchange of accurate information, its people giving each other validation and reassurance?

The problem with only allowing "supportive," feel-good posts that pander to circumcising parents, and deleting factual information as "bashing," "harassment" and whatnot, is that a lot of misinformation is circulated.

Myths are spread, and children suffer as a result.

Stifling the circumcision debate may keep parents from getting upset and boost online egos, but it doesn't help anybody.

For example, it is accepted medical knowledge that you don't forcibly retract a child's foreskin "for cleaning." Research shows that the foreskin often remains non-retractable until, and even after the onset of puberty. These actions actually hurt your child and put him at risk for infection.

And yet "mommy sites" will often delete this very important information as "bashing" and "harassment," however respectfully presented, and will allow misinformative posts that "warn" parents who do not circumcise their children that they will have to forcibly retract their children to "clean."

As more and more parents are choosing to keep their children's genitals intact, the proper care of normal genitals is important information that parents need to be made aware of, if they don't want to inadvertently hurt their child.

Deleting factual information as "bashing" and "harassment," and blocking the users which disseminate it might spare parents who circumcised their children anxiety, but it doesn't help parents who are seeking to make an informed choice, or their children, totally defeating the purpose of a parenting website.

A Sign of Progress
It's rather self-serving the way "mommy site" admins want to take advantage of the circumcision debate to boost their viewership and "likes" on Facebook, but don't want to actually allow true debate, accusing users that make good points of "bashing" and "harassment," however polite they were, for the sake of popularity.

This seems to be working in favor of intactivism, though.

It used to be the case (and in many cases still is the case) that the circumcision conversation was strictly off limits, and people wanted the conversation to end full stop.

That "mommy sites" now want to host the circumcision debate as an attention booster, even with heavy editing and accusations of "bashing" and "harassment" is truly a sign of the times.

Moms and dads are being forced to come to the table talk about, and consider an issue they once hoped would be a bygone parenting "decision," like deciding what brand of diapers or wet tissues to use.

People are talking, which means circumcision is no longer this taboo "non-issue" you can slide underneath the carpet and pretend never existed.

Some mommy sites actually aren't that bad, and allow links and posts that polite and informative. On the whole though, there's a lot of sugar-coating and coddling of circumcising parents going on.

You can ban people and delete comments you don't agree with, but the circumcision debate is here and it's not going to go away.

"Do nothing secretly; for Time sees and hears all things, and discloses all."
~Sophocles

Moral of the story:

"When you ask for advice on the Internet, don't call it "bashing" because it's not what you want to hear."

"If you didn't want it, then you shouldn't have brought it."

Related Posts:

REPOST: If You Can't Stand the Heat...

GRANOLA BABIES: BIG MISTAKE

The Circumcision Blame Game

In all my years as an intactivist (I've been against circumcision since I was about 16, I'm 31 now), I often come across the dilemma of who is responsible for the circumcision of children in America. Who's fault is it if you are circumcised and not happy with it?

Who should you blame?

Before going on, I'd like to introduce the above image. It was uploaded to Facebook by one Jonathon Conte, who is a pro-active intactivist in the San Francisco area, and belongs to the local group Bay Area Intactivists.

The caption read:

"This is the pattern that I continue to see when doing various intactivist protests and events. Nobody wants to accept responsibility and the blame goes round and round.

"Talk to the parents!" "Talk to the obstetricians!" "We don't do them. Talk to the pediatricians!" "Nobody told me it wasn't necessary!"

On the bright side, they used to all defend the practice, now they pass blame. Blame acknowledges a shameful act. Progress."

And Jonathon is right.

There is something suspicious going on when, instead of owning responsibility, it is being passed around like a hot potato.

Except, I think the above image is wrong. It places undue weight on parents, with them at the top and the doctors at the bottom. It implies parents are entitled to a choice, and physicians are loyal subjects who merely listen and obey.

But since when does medicine work this way?

For what other medical treatment or procedure are parents in a position of entitlement to "decide" at whim, without any kind of clinical indication or medical diagnosis? For what other surgery are surgeons slaves to demanding parents? Do parents actually wield so much power?

Aren't parents usually given the power to choose a method of treatment for their children AFTER a doctor has determined that there is some kind of clinical or medical necessity?

For these reasons and more, I believe Jonathon's image is a false paradigm. This delusion of "parental choice" is a false paradigm invented by doctors, the trade unions they belong to, and it is perpetuated by the media.

The image looks something more like this:

Doctors would like to pretend as if parents had this power over them, and they are nothing but loyal subjects at their beck and call. But let's analyze the balance of power here.

Professional Responsibility
First off, it must be be asked; who holds the professional license?

To earn the title of "doctor," physicians must go to school for a number of years. Additionally, they are also responsible for keeping their information up to date. They hang their certifications proudly on their office wall and constantly remind others that they are not to drop the title of "doctor" when being referred to.

It is a doctor's professional responsibility to know better than his patients. It is his professional responsibility to determine the presence or absence of a pathogen, and to determine whether or not treatment, surgical or non-surgical, is medically or clinically indicated.

It is why he is visited, and it is why he gets a paycheck.

And yet, when it comes to circumcision, they are suddenly clueless.

So clueless, that they must pawn the burden of determining the medical necessity of circumcision on parents, most of whom unfamiliar with medical literature.

The mighty and powerful doctor is suddenly too stupid to do his job, and thus hands it off to naive parents he, in most other circumstances, views as intellectually inferior to himself.

Who Wields the Knife?
Let's analyze the areas of medical expertise. Who performs circumcisions for parents?

Here, we see two types of physicians vying for a piece of the circumcision pie; pediatricians and obstetricians/gynecologists (AKA: OB/GYNs) It makes sense that pediatricians are performing surgery on children; a pediatrician's area of expertise is the health and well-being of children.

But wait, this is weird, OB/GYNs are trained in the health and well-being of WOMEN. Vulvas, vaginas, cervixes and ovaries (and much much more). One wonders why OB/GYNs are even part of the picture in the first place.

And yet, according to national surveys, OB/GYNs perform the bulk of infant circumcisions.

The only relation OB/GYNs seem to have with MALE infant babies is that, as caretakers of pregnant women, they are closest in proximity to intact male newborns, and thus have first dibs at cashing in on the procedure; pediatricians deal with the child once he's already out. As experts in FEMALE healthcare, it would actually make more sense for OB/GYNs to be offering sunat operations to expectant mothers.

Why are physicians, whose primary expertise is the health and well-being of WOMEN, profiting from performing non-medical surgery on healthy MALE children?

"You take care of a woman through her pregnancy, for nearly a year...and you're lucky if you see $1500. But a circumcision is 15 minutes, and it's $300 a pop. It's candy."
~OB writing in 'Parents' Place' on the circumcision turf war between OB/GYNs and pediatricians 

So Who's To Blame?
As medical scholars, as bearers of professional licenses, but most of all, as actual facilitators of the procedure itself, the answer is that it is physicians who bear full responsibility for circumcision.

Before treatment can be administered, it is the responsibility of a physician to perform a diagnosis, to determine the presence or absence of a pathogen or medical condition, and to determine whether or not surgical intervention is necessary to treat said medical condition.

The standard of care for therapeutic surgery in most of the rest of the world requires the medical benefits of the surgery to far outweigh the medical risks and harms, or for the surgery to correct a congenital abnormality. Unnecessarily invasive procedures should not be used where alternative, less invasive techniques, are equally efficient and available. It is unethical and inappropriate to perform surgery for therapeutic reasons where medical research has shown there to be other techniques to be at least as effective and less invasive.

Circumcision seems to be the only instance in medicine where standards of care are overridden in lieu of "parental choice."

How Physicians Absolve Themselves
It is the professional duty of a physician to determine the validity of the treatment they administer, and of the procedures they conduct.

In the special case of circumcision, however, physicians get away with profiting from this non-medical procedure on healthy, non-consenting individuals, by pawning off their responsibility on parents. Doctors push the paradigm of "the great parental decision" forward, and the media helps perpetuate it.

In their latest statement, the American Academy of Pediatrics came very close to, but stopped short of recommending infant circumcision for all infants (contrary to popular belief). Despite touting over and over again that "the benefits out weigh the risks," they must still admit that the "benefits are not enough to recommend the procedure," concluding that "the final decision should be made by parents." (This was their exact position in their last statement in 1999.)

The result is a spineless, non-committal statement that sounds like an endorsement, if not outright recommendation, but is actually nothing more than self-absolution of professional responsibility, and the undue placement of an onus on parents.

Let me run this by readers again; the AAP, a professional medical organization, could not use the latest "benefits" in order to issue a recommendation for circumcision. Yet, parents, most of whom are incapable of discerning medical literature, are expected to take the same information, that medical professionals could not use to recommend circumcision, and somehow come up with a more reasonable conclusion (than medical professionals with professional licenses???).

Parents are being given the duty to make the medical value judgements, that actually belongs to the professionals carrying out the procedure.

The doctor stokes in parents a false sense of entitlement, convinces them to sign a ready-made release form, and thus he is legally (or illegally?) absolved from any responsibility whatsoever.

Thus, doctors profit at the expense of healthy, non-consenting individuals.

Our legal court system seems to be deliberately looking the other way at this practice.

Is This Actually Legal?
Currently having parents sign a consent form for non-therapeutic surgery on healthy, non-consenting individuals seems perfectly legal. But is it?

Without medical or clinical indication, can doctors actually be performing surgery in healthy, non-consenting individuals, much less be eliciting any kind of "decision" from parents?

How is approaching parents of a healthy, non-consenting child, and soliciting a non-therapeutic, permanently altering procedure and eliciting some kind of "decision" NOT charlatanism or medical fraud?

How is it not a criminal act to physicians to place the duty of making a medical value judgement on naive parents, who are trusting them for non-interested medical advice?

What parents WOULDN'T choose circumcision for their children, being told that they would succumb to cancer and AIDS otherwise?

Doesn't it strike people as odd that doctors are asking parents to weigh "benefits and risks" that could not bring medical organizations in or outside the US to endorse infant circumcision?

Why don't doctors inform parents of this fact, instead of stoking in them a false sense if entitlement?

Shouldn't doctors know better than to realize a procedure they know has no therapeutic value in healthy, non-consenting children?

Even if the parents demand circumcision for their children, isn't it the duty of a physician with integrity to refuse to do this? (As he would with any other non-medical procedure a parent would demand?)

Why are physicians able to absolve themselves by pointing to parents and saying "They made me do it?"

Cut Parents Some Slack
On various mediums where the circumcision debate is happening, it seems the prevailing attitude amongst people against circumcision, and even amongst angry circumcised men themselves, is to blame parents. On foreskin restoration forums, on Facebook, on news commentaries, I often read about angry circumcised men who resent their parents, who have had nasty fights with them to the point of breaking off relationships.

It doesn't help that there is also this attitude amongst parents who have circumcised their children, or plan on circumcising their future children, to have a sense of entitlement to having their children circumcised. "I'm the parent, I decide," seems to be the prevailing attitude amongst parents who advocate for infant circumcision. Of course this attitude draws the ire of angry men and angry intactivists, aggravating the situation.

Adding to the situation is that, as already mentioned, medical professionals place the onus of "the great decision" on parents. Angry intactivists, angry sons, and the very medical profession fleeing from professional responsibility. So much weight on parents' shoulders!

But what do parents say when asked as to why they had their sons circumcised?

Most parents have their sons circumcised out of tradition, because it is a religious conviction, or because the father and his father were circumcised. But, almost as if parents knew this weren't enough, these alibis are reinforced with "My doctor told me it was best." Or "My doctor told me it's cleaner and it prevents many diseases."

I say, parents should be cut some slack.

It would be one thing if parents actually ponied up, bought an exacto knife and attempted to perform the procedure themselves. Most just agree to it because they are told not doing so will result in penile cancer or AIDS. I believe that most parents actually have the well-being of their children in mind. I believe that most parents, being given the facts not being disclosed to them by their physicians, would refuse to have this done to their children. I believe that most parents, once they understood what circumcision is, would take it all back if they could.

Parents shouldn't be blamed.

(They also shouldn't be congratulated and/or encouraged to "celebrate" their ignorance, but I already address this on another blog post.)

Maybe some can, but most simply don't know.

Remember who holds the professional license.

Remember whose professional duty it is to know better.

Remember who ultimately holds the knife.

The following pie chart demonstrates how many circumcisions are carried out by parents in this country.

It's physicians in which parents place their trust.

And it's physicians who betray this trust.

This Is Not About Judging Parents
I think it needs to be made clear to both intactivists and parents of circumcised children alike; the point of intactivism is not to be making parents feel guilty.

One of the greatest obstacles for intactivism is that parents who circumcised their chidlren will often get on the defense, accusing those who oppose circumcision of "judging" and trying to make parents feel guilty, when that's not the point at all.

The point of intactivism is to bring attention to the fact that the forced circumcision of healthy, non-consenting minors is a violation of the most basic of human rights, and to educate and enlighten both doctors and parents alike, so that this madness ends.

Parents who honestly wanted the best for their children need not feel judged. If I didn't know what I know now, and a doctor told me that my son would surely develop penile cancer and die of AIDS, I think I would probably choose circumcision too.

Can parents be blamed because they were asked to make choices based on skewed or limited information? If they were even given information at all?

No.

As I express in this blog post, the burden of responsibility rests in physicians who disseminate misinformation, and who profit at the expense of parental naivete, and the fact that children cannot speak for themselves. While parents, at least for the time being, are given the final say, it is doctors who choose what information to give to, and not give to parents. Doctors are either guilty of dispensing misinformation, or failing to update their information databases. (Actually, they're guilty of even bringing the subject up in the absence of medical necessity.)

In avenues where I have expressed this, I have often been berated by angry intactivists and men. They tell me:

"The information is out there. Maybe one day parents could claim ignorance, but now we have the Internet. You've got to be real dumb, or willfully ignorant if you say you don't know better."

This is true to a certain extent. Yes, the information is out there, and people can look if they wanted. Parents, if they took the time, could sift through all the medical gobbledygook, and come to their own conclusions.

But whose job is that?

Isn't it doctors who are paid big bucks to determine the medical validity of a surgical procedure?

Doctors are supposed to have gone to school for many years to learn their trade.

Why would parents, most of whom never went to medical school, be more qualified than a learned doctor to determine the medical necessity of a surgical procedure?

That's what I don't understand, and I've asked this above.

The AAP has concluded, as it did in its last statement, that the "benefits are not enough to recommend circumcision." They still place the onus on parents to weigh the "pros and cons," and make a "decision." "Pros and cons" that could not convince an entire body of qualified medical professionals to endorse circumcision. But suddenly, parents will have better knowledge and the power to discern the medical literature an entire professional medical organization could not?

The bottom line is that parents, and most people, would still rather believe a man in a white lab coat than they would some website on the Internet, or some angry activist who can be easily dismissed as a conspiracy theorist. That people place too much trust in doctors, putting them up on a pedestal and deifying them is a sad state of affairs, but its reality.

It's also why doctors, of all people, are responsible. They are given trust by well meaning parents. And they, taking advantage of their position of power, betray this trust.

So intactivists, go easy parents.

Angry men, don't judge your parents so harshly.

They are not to blame.

Instead, blame physicians who continue to profit at the expense of the basic human rights of healthy, non-consenting individuals and their parents.

Blame the complacent system that allows this kind of charlatanism and medical fraud to continue unchecked.

Challenge institutions of higher education and professional medical organizations that continuously shirk their professional responsibilities and pawning them off on naive parents.

I close with my Mission Statement, which can always be viewed in my About page:

Mission Statement
The foreskin is not a birth defect. Neither is it a congenital deformity or genetic anomaly akin to a 6th finger or a cleft. Neither is it a medical condition like a ruptured appendix or diseased gall bladder. Neither is it a dead part of the body, like the umbilical cord, hair, or fingernails.

The foreskin is not "extra skin." The foreskin is normal, natural, healthy, functioning tissue, 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 integrity, autonomy and self-determination are inalienable human rights. I am against the forced circumcision of healthy, non-consenting minors because it violates these rights.

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

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

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

GRANOLA BABIES: Responses to "Celebratory" Ad

Since Granola Babies posted an inflammatory ad on Facebook, people have tried responding in different ways. While defenders of Granola Babies and their ad claim that their message was not meant to be inflammatory, and that all they've seen since posting the ad were "judgment" and "personal attacks," even gentle responses questioning the ad have been deleted, and some people have been outright banned for kindly and non-judgmentally suggesting the ad could send the wrong message. Granola Babies is not letting the other side be heard, silencing any dissenting views, which was the whole reason for my previous post.

Granola Babies has made it clear that they are not going to allow anyone to contradict them, and play the victim card to try and gain sympathy and corroboration from others, so intactivists have taken it upon themselves to publish the fact on their own blogs, and/or creating parodies of the Granola Babies ad themselves. (You've already seen mine.) Within the past twenty-four hours there have been a few recreations of the ad. A compilation of them can be seen on the Facebook group Saving Our Sons.

In this post I will share some of my favorites.

Given the fact that the name "Granola Babies" gives the impression that it's a crunchy group, the ad should have looked like this:

Originally posted on the Facebook group End Routine Infant Circumcision (4ERIC).

Among co-sleeping and breastfeeding, circumcision is a non-sequitur, beginning with the fact that co-sleeping and breastfeeding do not involve bodily mutilation. Furthermore, it is usually parents who co-sleep and breastfeed who are constantly having to justify themselves and find refuge among the crunchy crowd. Parents who circumcise don't have to work very hard to find support from their family members, their doctors, the news media etc. Just check out major parenting forums like CafeMom. To be more accurate, Granola Babies should have included "He is circumcised." with "My baby will never sleep with us.", "I let him cry it out."and "I exclusively bottle feed her."

It's interesting that advocates of Granola Babies and their ad say that intactivists have been nothing but "judgmental" and "attacking." It seems while any criticism of circumcision is misconstrued and exaggerated as a "judgmental attack," crunchy moms who choose leave their boys intact have to endure comments like "You didn't circumcise him? Ew, gross!" Or "He'll never get laid." The same people that utter these comments will turn around and say "MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS! WE'RE THE PARENTS, WE DECIDE! DON'T YOU DARE JUDGE ME!" if you suggest there's anything wrong with circumcision.

It's parents who choose to leave their children intact who have to take the heat, and who find refuge in crunchy groups. Parents who circumcise their children do not have to work hard to find the support for their "decisions" that they need. Most parenting forums will go as far as deleting any comment that has anything bad to say about circumcision, as thoughtful and constructive as it may be, in order to pander to moms and dads that circumcise. But for whatever reason, Granola Babies thought it is parents who circumcise their children who deserve a break.

It was easy to spot the non-sequitur here, wasn't it.

Somehow, I don't think female circumcision is a "parental choice" Granola Babies is willing to "celebrate."

I ask, do parents who "choose" to circumcise their daughters love their children more, or less than parents who "choose" to circumcise their boys?

This is probably Granola Babies' ad at the most basic level. They are a business after all. Pandering to mothers who chose to circumcise their boys and making them feel entitled for the sake of gaining their business will probably have been the worst business decision they ever made.

Up until now, the responses have been sarcastic and vengeful. But let's take a look at a different response. This one, on the Saving Our Sons Facebook page seems to be the most liked:

 

Perhaps this is what advocates of Granola Babies claim their ad was going for?

It's been pointed out to me on this very blog and in other mediums that there are mothers who have come to regret having had their sons circumcised. These mothers will have circumcised their sons because they actually thought was best for them. The fact that they come to regret a decision they made, and admit that they were wrong shows how much they love their sons, and how open minded they are to new information .

But this isn't about that.

I've said it in my last blog post, but I can't blame parents that "chose" to circumcise their sons. I think most parents have the best intentions for their children at heart, even parents that chose to circumcise their children. I asked in my last post, what parent would NOT choose to circumcise their child, having heard from doctors the horrors that would befall him were he not?

Some blame parents still; in my minds eye, parents are given information by the doctors they trust, and doctors take advantage of this trust to profit at their children's expense. "This is the age of information," some say. "Any parent could look up this information and come to the conclusion that circumcision is something they do not want to do to their kids." But why should they trust what they find on the internet over the authoritative "advice" from the doctors they trust?

Whose responsibility is it to know better? Who wields the knife? Who waives their credentials about insisting everybody call them "doctor?" Who went to school for 10 years or so to earn their degree? Whose professional responsibility is it to KNOW better? But somehow when it comes to circumcision they're suddenly "too stupid to know," and parents must weigh the "evidence" ("evidence" which no medical organization in the world can use to recommend circumcision by the way...) and come up with their own conclusion as to whether a surgical procedure their DOCTOR is offering them for their child is medically necessary or not?

In my opinion, it's not parents who are to blame; it is the doctors who take advantage of parental naivete and the bloated sense of entitlement they help stoke. A parent can look up all the information, but most do not know how to discern it, not to mention it is a doctor's professional responsibility to know better; it's why he gets paid the big bucks. It is medical fraud that a doctor can get away with placing the onus of "the big decision," one that cannot actually exist without medical or clinical indication, on parents, in order to absolve himself from the responsibility of a surgical procedure HE PERFORMS and should thus KNOWS BETTER than parents as to whether it is medically necessary or not.

It is a mistake to attack and humiliate parents over something they honestly didn't know any better about, and who would take it all back if they knew what they were doing to their children.

I'm not advocating that.

But I also do not advocate corroberating with parents, rewarding willful ignorance, making them feel justified and entitled by calling circumcision a "choice" to be "celebrated."

This ad comes off as pandering to parents who circumcised their children in order to gain their confidence and business, all at the expense of children's basic human rights, and it's why it is so infuriating to me.

EDIT:

Saw this in my Facebook news feed today and I thought I'd add it:

 

One of the comments (in response to other Facebook users who expressed disgust) read:

"I am stunned that people are missing the irony in this photo; no one advocates circumcising girls, but people seem to think of circumcising boys as an acceptable ”option” in parental decision making. By switching the sexes around this picture shows our cultural blindness to the brutality of male circumcision, the same cultural blindness that parents in countries that circumcise females also have."

I couldn't agree more.

DISCLAIMER:

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

REPOST: If You Can't Stand the Heat...

Even after posting an inflammatory graphic, Granola Babies has the nerve to insist that their Facebook page is "not a platform for the circumcision debate." Another page, "Bitchin Parents," has reposted the same graphic and is currently dealing with deleting comments made by people who disagree, dismissing them as "hate," and outright blocking them.

Apparently, Granola Babies is a business and their graphic was supposed to be some sort of business move. Well, they should have thought things through before shooting themselves in the foot.

Crunchy moms, now you know where NOT to shop, and where to steer other crunchy moms AWAY from.

Once again, they're gravely mistaken if they think they can just post controversial material, and just expect nobody to say anything. May this be a lesson to them; if you don't want the "circumcision debate" on your page, then don't incite it. YOU'RE GOING TO HEAR FROM INTACTIVISTS.

In case people haven't noticed, it's no longer socially acceptable to mutilate your child's organs. If you're going to post material endorsing it, you better be ready to deal with the blowback.

This reminds me of a post I made a long time ago. One good turn deserves another, and I think it warrants reposting:

If You Can't Stand the Heat, STAY OFF THE NET

Originally posted Tuesday, March 6, 2012

You know what absolutely gets on my nerves? When some idiot parents find it gracious to post their child's circumcision on the web for the whole world to see. Some parents actually think it's "cute" or "funny" to post their son's circumcision "story" on a blog, or they actually have the nerve to record it and put it on YouTube of all places. It's the one time on the net where it's perfectly kosher to be pimping your child's dick online and not have it be called kiddy porn.

But you know what pisses me off even more? When said parents actually have the NERVE to tell people leaving comments to "MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS! WE'RE THE PARENTS, WE DECIDE. DON'T YOU DARE JUDGE ME."

Really?

You actually post your son's naked body, figuratively or literally online for the whole world to see, and then you're surprised to read that some people actually find your cute little "story" offensive and/or disgusting?

Seriously?

I've got news for you.

Once you post shit online, it's fair game.

People are going to give you a piece of their mind, whether you want it or not.

If you don't want to hear it from others, or be "judged" for the so-called "decisions" that you take, then at least have the decency to make posts about your PERSONAL, "PRIVATE" LIFE visible ONLY TO THOSE IN YOUR PERSONAL, PRIVATE CIRCLE.

Or better yet, keep your sick, disgusting "life" OFFLINE. NOBODY WANTS TO SEE YOUR SON'S GENITALS BEING MUTILATED, much less KNOW about them. They're not even YOUR privates, how in the HELL do you feel entitled to have them mutilated to suit YOUR tastes and preferences, much less POST THEM ON THE FUCKING INTERNET FOR THE WHOLE WORLD TO SEE???

UGH!!!

Such parents should get thrown in JAIL for pimping their children's PERSONAL PRIVATE PARTS ONLINE. This is tantamount to S&M KIDDY PORN.

I DO NOT WANT TO SEE, NOR KNOW ABOUT YOUR CHILD'S GENITAL MUTILATION.

WAKE UP PEOPLE.

The world is waking up to the fact that yes, like female infant circumcision, male infant circumcision IS TOO GENITAL MUTILATION.

If you don't want to hear it from others, if you do not want to hear other people's "opinions," then do the world a favor and DON'T POST ON THE INTERNET.

This fucking PISSES ME OFF.

If you don't want people talking about your unmentionables,

DON'T AIR THEM OUT IN PUBLIC.

If You Can't Stand the Heat, STAY OFF THE NET

You know what absolutely gets on my nerves? When some idiot parents find it gracious to post their child's circumcision on the web for the whole world to see. Some parents actually think it's "cute" or "funny" to post their son's circumcision "story" on a blog, or they actually have the nerve to record it and put it on YouTube of all places. It's the one time on the net where it's perfectly kosher to be pimping your child's dick online and not have it be called kiddy porn.

But you know what pisses me off even more? When said parents actually have the NERVE to tell people leaving comments to "MIND YOUR OWN BUSINESS! WE'RE THE PARENTS, WE DECIDE. DON'T YOU DARE JUDGE ME."

Really?

You actually post your son's naked body, figuratively or literally online for the whole world to see, and then you're surprised to read that some people actually find your cute little "story" offensive and/or disgusting?

Seriously?

I've got news for you.

Once you post shit online, it's fair game.

People are going to give you a piece of their mind, whether you want it or not.

If you don't want to hear it from others, or be "judged" for the so-called "decisions" that you take, then at least have the decency to make posts about your PERSONAL, "PRIVATE" LIFE visible ONLY TO THOSE IN YOUR PERSONAL, PRIVATE CIRCLE.

Or better yet, keep your sick, disgusting "life" OFFLINE. NOBODY WANTS TO SEE YOUR SON'S GENITALS BEING MUTILATED, much less KNOW about them. They're not even YOUR privates, how in the HELL do you feel entitled to have them mutilated to suit YOUR tastes and preferences, much less POST THEM ON THE FUCKING INTERNET FOR THE WHOLE WORLD TO SEE???

UGH!!!

Such parents should get thrown in JAIL for pimping their children's PERSONAL PRIVATE PARTS ONLINE. This is tantamount to S&M KIDDY PORN.

I DO NOT WANT TO SEE, NOR KNOW ABOUT YOUR CHILD'S GENITAL MUTILATION.

WAKE UP PEOPLE.

The world is waking up to the fact that yes, like female infant circumcision, male infant circumcision IS TOO GENITAL MUTILATION.

If you don't want to hear it from others, if you do not want to hear other people's "opinions," then do the world a favor and DON'T POST ON THE INTERNET.

This fucking PISSES ME OFF.

If you don't want people talking about your unmentionables,

DON'T AIR THEM OUT IN PUBLIC.

So What Prompted this Rant?
So some Norine Dworkin-McDaniel woman dares to write on her blog, the "funny" story of how she convinced her push-over husband to go through with a circumcision for their son.

The story is actually quite tasteless. And what was the alibi that finally convinced Dworkin-McDaniel's husband to acquiescence to his son's genital flaying?

The prospect of future hypothetical women refusing to give the boy a blowjob.

Wow.

They thought about it, erm, long and hard.

Get it?

Hardy har har...

That was so funny I nearly died!

(Not...)

No but wait. It would have been nice if the story ended there. Oh, no, no, no.

Some OTHER idiot blogger had to give this story a "prize."

A "PRIZE???"

A prize for WHAT?

"Best excuse to mutilate a child's genitals?"

No. The words used to "award" this woman are "fearless and funny."

I'll say, "fearless?" In this world where male infant genital mutilation is losing favor in the civilized world fast?

You betcha.

"Funny?"

HARDLY.

There is nothing EVER funny about "choosing" to violate the most basic of human rights of a healthy, non-consenting individual.

You can read about the "winning" blog post, and the "prize" given here.

Mr. Dworkin-McDaniel Retaliates
It seems MISTER Dworkin-McDaniel was not happy with the negative response his wife's blog post earned, and so he felt the need to fire back at those who expressed disgust at his wife's "funny little story." He posted a long response on a pro-intact group on Facebook, and I'm going to tear it apart on this blog.

Writes Dworkin-McDaniel:
"Stewart Dworkin-McDaniel here, Norine’s “emasculated” husband, just wanting to weigh in on some of the less than charitable (and profoundly stupid, judgmental, and uninformed) comments regarding my wife’s brilliantly funny essay."

Well golly-geepers, gee-whiz! It appears we may have struck a nerve. By now he must know that not everybody found his wife's essay as "brilliantly funny" as he did. 

As a central character in what was intended to be a light witty distillation of our discussions regarding our decision to have our son circumcised, I feel the need to respond to the vitriolic comments attacking my wife and me that stemmed from our mutual decision. 

The road to hell is paved with good intent. "Light and witty" for WHOM? For WHOM was this blog post written? For others, or for yourselves? Sorry, not very many people agreed with you, did they.

Let's talk about the "big decision" trope.

What other parts of your child's body could you "decide" to remove at your whim?

The question that will always be asked on this blog is, without medical or clinical indication, how is it a doctor can even be performing surgery on a healthy, non-consenting child, much less be stoking a parent's sense of entitlement? 

Usually, with any other surgery, there must be a medical necessity before a doctor can even consider performing it, let alone consult the parents for any kind of "decision."

So, what was wrong with your son?

"First, Norine and I are both staunch atheists so our decision was not in any way driven by religious duty or dogma."

This just means that you were looking for non-religious ex-posto-facto reasons to go through with a pre-determined "decision" to keep a controversial tradition.

"I actually find the concept of a traditional Jewish Bris to be in very poor taste. Throwing a party to celebrate an invasive medical procedure to cement some mythical pact with an old testament deity is not my idea of making an informed medically sound decision." 

Translation: We wanted to circumcise our son, but we wanted to find smart-sounding "scientific" reasons to do it because using "religion" as an excuse is falling out of favor, as evidenced by other "traditions" that would never fly with the same excuse. (IE, female circumcision, slashing your child's head on the day of Ashura, ritual scarring, tattoos, etc...) 

"Also, I find comments comparing male circumcision to clitioridectomy to be especially distasteful and profoundly uninformed." 

You know what I find distasteful?

Attacking and destroying a straw man to make your argument look good.

Talk about profoundly uninformed; did you know that not all female genital cutting involves the removal of the clitoris? Did you know that a couple of years ago the AAP briefly approved of a so-called "ritual nick" before they were forced to back-pedal by human rights groups?

You know what I find to be "distasteful?"

Comparing the lesser of two evils.

You can't get away with rape "because murder is worse." You can't get away with shop lifting because "Hey! You could be robbing a bank." 

Cutting off part of a child's genitals with no medical or clinical indication is wrong, male or female. 

"Female circumcision is a detestable, horrific act performed in misogynistic cultures to control women, deprive them of pleasure, and make them servile. It should be prosecuted at every opportunity in a civilized world. Male circumcision on the other hand, has been shown to have real benefits for the recipient in a non-religious context, both medically and psychologically and is in no way comparable to the disgusting violation of the female genitalia (which is without exception, performed on “religious grounds”)." 

But WE'RE the "uninformed" ones.

Here, let me enlighten you Mr. Dworkin-McDaniel. Female circumcision is performed on women BY women, because it is believed to make them more "pure," more "hygienic" and more desirable in the eyes of a male suitor. Does that sound familiar, Mr. "I want my son to get blowjobs?"

 Women performing "sunat" operations on girls.

Did you know that, according to Rabbi Maimonides, to deprive men of pleasure and make them "servile" to "g-d" was supposed to be the whole point of male 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."
~Rabbi Maimonides

You are "just fine" and your organs work to your satisfaction. But you know, millions of circumcised women will testify as you do; they are just as sexually satisfied as you are, thank you very much. You would be interested to know that, contrary to popular belief, female circumcision is not always as "damaging" as you would like to lead others on to believe.

Did you know that contrary to popular belief, no, circumcision DOESN'T destroy a woman's ability to orgasm? Studies show that even when a woman has undergone the worst kind of female genital mutilation (there are many types, did you know that?), that women are still quite able to orgasm? You can read them for yourself here, here, and here.

Closer inspection reveals that nobody actually cares about whether or not female circumcision reduces sexuality or not; what's more important is that male infant circumcision is justified.

But let's continue on a bit with the so-called "benefits."

Neither you nor your wife were interested in these. If I am to believe your wife's blog, this was about whether or not your son would get "blow jobs" as an adult. The "benefits" seem to be secondary.

This point needs to be made clear; neither you nor your wife ever cared about "benefits." Nobody ever does. Those are ex-posto-facto alibis that come AFTER the fact.

Or let me ask, would you have changed your mind had you not found enough "benefits?"

Tell me, is there any number of "benefits" that would make you change your mind and consider female circumcision for your daughters? Some research shows that female circumcision might actually prevent HIV transmission. Read about this here, here, and here.

What if it guaranteed her getting eaten out as a woman? Would that change your mind?

No. It wouldn't.

The point is, "research" and "science" don't actually matter.

Your "decision" to go ahead with your son's genital mutilation runs deeper than that, and you know it. 

"But I digress; back to my son’s foreskin. I am a scientist. A degreed biologist and chemist (with a minor in philosophy by the way)." 

You know who was also a scientist?

Joseph Mengele. 

"Therefore when I look at an argument; as a scientist, I apply the rigorous, critical weighing of evidence and data that the scientific method demands and I do not deviate from those axioms and precepts. Philosophically, the arguments range far and wide from Bentham and Mill’s utilitarianism with respect to human suffering to Norine’s comment about the blowjob which was (and most importantly, was supposed to be) a humorous way to drive the point home to me that the foreskin can be an intimidating (and by some accounts) a distasteful distraction to fellatio (ever heard of smegma????)" 

Like the so-called "benefits" of circumcision, you do not care about the "science" either, for if you did, you would find that it is all rather flimsy.

Did you know that no medical organization in the world recommends the circumcision of infants? I challenge you to go through the position statements of all the major medical organizations in the industrialized world. They will all tell you that all the "scientific evidence" is dubious and speculative at best, and that there is not enough of it to recommend circumcision. One has to wonder how ever did you come to a different conclusion than the most respected medical organizations in the world.

Yes, we've heard of smegma. Tell us, how much of it collects around Ms. Dworkin-McDaniel's vulva?


Oh, she cleans well enough?

Did it ever occur to you that the rest of the men in the world also have the good sense to keep their organs clean?

Do you dare posit that men outside of the United States have a hard time getting a blow job from their partners?

I'm sorry, but as I will keep repeating, your wife's post was anything but "humorous." 

"If Norine’s detractors really think that I consented to the procedure solely on the basis of my son having better, future (a long way in the future I trust!!) sexual experiences, then I marvel at their stupidity and narrow-mindedness. My decision to acquiesce was based on the enumerable studies Norine presented to me regarding the benefits of circumcision that have nothing to do with Yahweh but are based on good solid science." 

Then she should have written that.

Not humorous, AND out-of-touch.

THIS got a "prize?"

No, you and your wife's decision had absolutely NOTHING to do with "science," as I am about to point out. 

"Lower incidence of certain cancers, lower incidence of genital and urinary infections, and decreased chances of contracting or spreading STD’s including AIDS." 

If you were a true "scientist," you would find that all of the "evidence" is rather lacking. You would find that when you compare cancer rates between countries that do and do not circumcise, there is no difference; circumcised men can and do succumb to penile cancer. You would find that the "reduction" that circumcision is supposed to offer is actually quite exaggerated.

You would find that the incidence of UTIs in males is already quite rare; UTIs are more prevalent in females, and are easily treatable with anti-biotics, in boys as they are in girls. The "difference," if any, between UTIs is actually infinitesimally minute, and that circumcision may actually INCREASE them. You would find that a lot of the "research" has been discarded as hopelessly flawed. You would find that the STD's that circumcision are supposed to prevent, including HIV, are more prevalent in the US, where 80% of males are already circumcised from birth, than in other countries in Europe, and the rest of the world, where circumcision is rare.

You would find that, the "research" in Africa is hopelessly flawed. You would find that even if the "research" and the "science" were correct, circumcision would still fail. It would be so ineffective at preventing anything that "experts" that "recommend" circumcision cannot stress the use of condoms. Did you know that condoms don't require a penis be circumcised to function properly?

But this isn't about "science," or "research," now is it.

No. This is about fulfilling cultural expectations, while sounding intelligent at the same time.

Think about this:

Is there any number of "scientific studies?" Any amount of "research" that would EVER cause you to change your mind about female circumcision?

What if the "science" was "solid" and it was proven "beyond reasonable doubt" that female circumcision could "reduce the risk" of some STD that your daughter will most likely not even be at risk for?

The answer is no, you wouldn't.

You and your wife's "decision" to circumcise your son was pre-determined, and this "blog essay" was supposed to be your self-serving justification.

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

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

"I’d love to know how many negative comments came from people who have had tummy tucks, face lifts, liposuction, cosmetic dentistry, or other medical procedures that were strictly vanity motivated. In my mind, that’s self-inflicted mutilation with no regard for weighing medical evidence as to the safety or necessity of the procedure. In short, don’t lecture us about our family medical decisions while you admire your silicon breasts in the bathroom mirror." 

A straw-man demolition, and non-sequitur arguments.

The assumption is that there were indeed dissenters in Dworkins-McDaniel's readership who had cosmetic surgery such as tummy tucks, face lifts, liposuction etc. Problem is, his argument fails even if his assumption were correct.

Mr. Dworkins-McDaniel conflates elective surgery that adults may choose for themselves, and infant circumcision, which is being imposed by parents and a doctor on a healthy, non-consenting child. If there is no medical indication for surgery, then there is no "family medical decision" to make.

The problem isn't adults choosing cosmetic surgery; the problem is adults imposing cosmetic surgery on a healthy, non-consenting child.

As long as otherwise intelligent people are forcing cosmetic surgery on their children for their own sexual justifications, and as long as they're posting their stories on the NET WHERE EVERYONE CAN SEE, yes we WILL lecture you.

So listen to what we have to say, or stop posting your "family decisions" online.


Thanks. 

"There are also psychological implications with respect to an un-circumcised child being ridiculed, ostracized, or worse by their peers but those issues need not concern us here since the mental health and welfare of the child doesn’t seem to factor into any of the more negative comments posted." 

Scraping the bottom of the barrel I see.

And what are you teaching your child by mutilating him so that he is not "ridiculed" or "ostracised" by his hypothetical peers?

"It is more important that you fit in and give in to societal pressures than to be yourself, and have others accept you for who you are, as you are."

So are you going to send him to straight school if he turns out to be gay?

Are you going to give him a rhinoplasty if his nose gets too big? Are you going to trim his ears if they start getting too wide? Are you going to bleach his skin if it starts getting too dark? Where does it stop?

Conformity may actually, quite possibly be the WORST reason to perform circumcision on a child.

"Finally, the referencing of websites and studies that bolster your position is absurd, touting them as if they are gospel truth. I can find many expert and scholarly opinions in the opposing camp. It is a hollow position akin to “whoever yells the loudest is right” and it carries no weight with me." 

You were supposed to RESEARCH the material given to you, and confirm the SOURCES. Don't tell me you actually just READ what is written on webpages, and believe the bits and pieces that suit you at face value??? You would have found that there is actually very little evidence to support your "decision." Yeah, some "scientist" YOU are...

"I can find websites that profess that the world is flat, JFK was murdered by the phone company, and we never landed men on the moon (Neil Armstrong was cut by the way)." 

More straw-men demolition. Unlike these websites, our sources can actually be confirmed. There is no "controversy," even among the scientific elite. With a little research you would find that the trend of opinion on routine male circumcision is overwhelmingly negative in industrialized nations.

No respected medical board in the world recommends circumcision for infants, not even in the name of HIV prevention. They must all point to the risks, and they must all state that there is no convincing evidence that the benefits outweigh these risks. World medical authorities that agree include the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, American Medical Association, the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Family Physicians, the Canadian Paediatric Society, the British Medical Association, and the Royal Dutch Medical Association.

It ought to baffle readers how a "man of science" like you could have ever arrived at the conclusion you have.

"The bottom line (voiced by the more enlightened and informed respondents on the comment board whether they agree with us or not), is that we made a personal, private decision based on sound medical evidence and ultimately, and that decision was NOBODY’S BUSINESS BUT OURS (and apparently better than half of the US populous currently shares our opinion/decision).

Ah yes, strength in numbers.

Unfortunately for you, it is quite possible for large populations to be wrong. Take female circumcision, for example.

No, the bottom line is, if it's a "personal, private decision," and it's "nobody else's business but ours" you should have NOT POSTED IT ON THE NET.

Once it's on the NET, then it stops being "personal and private."

Do you get it?


"Perhaps in the future there will be a definitive verdict on the circumcision decision but that day is not today." 

Or so you would like to believe.

I encourage you to read the position statements of the best medical authorities in the world. They all state that there isn't enough evidence to endorse infant circumcision. It should strike you as odd that parents are expected to make a "decision" based on evidence that major medical organizations in the world could not use to come to a reasonable conclusion. 

"I’m sure when I let my son read this many years from now, he will not only forgive us for getting him cut, (we have his foreskin in cryonic suspension in case he wants it back; oh, by the way, that’s funny) but he will be glad that his mother and I spent so much time weighing the decision based on the prevailing knowledge from the medical establishment available to us at the time." 

"Here you are son... a part of your penis that you will never get to experience thanks to us."

Actually, no that's not very funny at all.

How do you know he won't be pissed as all fuck, not only that you mutilated him, but also that you publicized his mutilation online and felt the need to respond apprehensively to those who didn't think it was "funny?"

How do you know he won't feel anger and hatred towards you for using bullshit excuses to carry out a cultural ritual to permanently mutilate his organs for life?

How do you know he would have cared less about any "medical benefits" that are already easily achieved with less invasive means?

Just how do you know he's not going to grow up to hate your guts?

Let's hope he doesn't and, as you say, he grows up to "thank" you.

But be aware that that other possibility exists. 

"As a footnote, what I find so sad and pathetic is that I needed to write this at all." 

And yet, you chose to go ahead and write it...

"I find the negative comments directed at us (Norine) to be just as offensive and unenlightened as those who deem gay marriage or abortion to be wrong in black and white terms with no room or desire for discussion. IF YOU DON’T AGREE WITH GAY MARRIAGE, DON’T MARRY SOMEONE OF THE SAME SEX, IF YOU DON’T AGREE WITH ABORTION, DON’T HAVE ONE, IF YOU DON’T WANT TO GET YOUR SON CIRCUMSISED, THEN DON’T. Just don’t tell the rest of us we’re immoral and barbaric if we decide to do otherwise." 

Again, false comparisons, and yet another straw man demolition.

Marriage is something that two consenting adults decide to do.

Abortion is a decision taken by a woman deciding to exercise her freedom of choice to do whatever she wants with her body.

(Actually, the abortion debate is a red-herring; neither side of the abortion debate can successfully argue in favor of child genital mutilation. If you are "pro-choice," then you must believe the maxim "my body, my choice" applies to BOTH sexes. And if you are "pro-life," then you must certainly advocate for a child's right to his own body, as you do his "right to life.")

Infant circumcision involves the genital mutilation of healthy, non-consenting minors.

It violates the most basic of human rights, that of the right to one's own body. For this reason male and female circumcision, though not always comparable, are exactly the same in principle.

"If you don't want to get your son circumcised, then don't" doesn't work if you change the word "son" with "daughter," does it.

No, as long as you or your wife, or anybody else is willing to post their pitiful self-justification stories online for the whole world to see, you had better be ready to hear it. If this is "nobody's business but yours," then keep it to yourselves and don't post it publicly on the net.

By the way, I am the satisfied owner of a well groomed (and well-attended) penis. 

I'm not sure what purpose this last bit was supposed to serve. Self-reassurance for having a mutilated member maybe?

The True Purpose of That Blog Post
I'm not buying it. From your reply I can already tell that there was no actual convincing your wife actually had to do. The "decision" was already made. The true purpose of your wife's blog post was to fill a void in her psyche that would otherwise be filled with the joke-telling and whistling in the dark that happens at a bris. She may call herself "atheist," but as someone of Jewish heritage she felt the need to circumcise her son out of conviction. It must have freaked her out to think of raising an intact boy; she probably couldn't handle the daily visual reminder that she's renounced her connection with her Jewish heritage, and so she dug up every scientific sounding article she could that would support her view and make her "decision" sound "intelligent." She wanted to come off as being the "intelligent one," and you the more "sex-oriented male" type, which I find rather sexist and insulting, and can't see for the life of me why you let her write shit like that about you.

The true purpose of your wife's blog post was not so much to tell about how you guys arrived at your "decision," but more to tell about how the both of you mulled over something that was already decided. It was about providing comic relief for the both of you, and she was hoping her readers were just going to laugh along with you.

Well, she was wrong.

Her article was NOT "fearless and funny," but rather, utterly failed to conceal her fear and anxiety. It was a pitiful attempt to secure corroboration and approval. I'm sorry, but there is no virtue in mulling over doing something you KNOW is wrong.


The 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 normal, natural, healthy, FUNCTIONING 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.

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.

SHAME on "Two Kinds of People" for enabling Norine Dworkin-McDaniel. SHAME on "Two Kinds of People" for perpetuating the illusion of "the great circumcision decision." SHAME on them for awarding the trivialization of child male genital mutilation. SHAME on them for thinking this disgusting article was "funny and humorous."

"Genital mutilation is no joke."
~Christopher Hitchens

DISCLAIMER:
What I've expressed in this blog is my own individual opinion, and it does not necessarily reflect the view of all intactivists. ~Joseph4GI