tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-548248685729133691.post7781581090458153724..comments2024-01-17T13:16:10.378-08:00Comments on Joseph4GI: Politically Correct Research: When Science, Morals and Political Agendas CollideJosephhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14190648498809795551noreply@blogger.comBlogger36125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-548248685729133691.post-46854368666015155992018-08-11T18:29:10.275-07:002018-08-11T18:29:10.275-07:00I agree with Lawrence. But this is just another ex...I agree with Lawrence. But this is just another example of American arrogance, in trying to defend an indefensible position and then trying to foist it on the rest of the world by citing specious self-serving medical research. It is clear that MGM is morally wrong, but America (and the medical establishment here, who make billions out of it) isn't going to admit defeat anytime soon.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14307482863675541489noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-548248685729133691.post-28948806575101224342015-12-05T05:47:12.205-08:002015-12-05T05:47:12.205-08:00Most circumcised men do not feel sexual pleasure, ...Most circumcised men do not feel sexual pleasure, because all sexual pleasure is in the foreskin. They SAY they have lots of sexual pleasure, but this is not possible if the ridged band and frenular delta are removed as all the fine touch receptors are there. Most are mutilated at birth and simply don't know what sexual pleasure is. Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16253399078878357233noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-548248685729133691.post-8739804947414509992015-09-21T17:35:40.272-07:002015-09-21T17:35:40.272-07:00If intactivists accept this arbitrary rule, then w...If intactivists accept this arbitrary rule, then we condemn ourselves to forever be trying to "prove" that circumcision is wrong with "science." Pro-cutters will always come up with some "study" that circumcision prevents this or that, and we will always be having to disprove it. Effectively the cutters' rule makes it so that, as long as male circumcision continues to be in limbo, as long as this "battle of the research" continues, mutilators are free to continue to inflict this on healthy, non-consenting minors.<br /><br />I posit that we need to reject this idea for the smoke and mirrors it is.<br /><br />Genital mutilation, whether it be wrapped in culture, religion or “research” is still genital mutilation.<br /><br />It is mistaken, the belief that the right amount of “science” can be used to legitimize the deliberate violation of basic human rights.<br /><br />Not even if it could be made "painless," not even if it offered "medical benefits," not even if sexual experience would remain unscathed would forced genital cutting ever be justified in girls and women.<br /><br />We need to stop pretending like wrong could ever be justified with "science and research," because it can't.<br /><br />We need to shine light on idiocy of these ideas, and challenge researchers to treat human male organs as any other body part, treat its diseases as they treat any other diseases.<br /><br />Without medical or clinical indication, reaping profit by performing non-medical surgery on healthy, non-consenting individuals is medical fraud.<br /><br />When a disease occurs, we begin by finding the cause for the diseases, and leave surgical intervention as a very last resort.<br /><br />When anatomy is presented, we begin by listing its functions, not its potential diseases. We don't begin by describing the breasts as "those lumps of flesh and fat that could be affected by cancer, and which are removed by mastectomy."<br /><br />I think I agree with what you are saying.<br /><br />Again, it is not intactivists who have made it about "science and research," it's pro-genital mutilation zealots.<br /><br />And that's why we're here.Josephhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14190648498809795551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-548248685729133691.post-15266953229062357642015-09-21T17:35:18.213-07:002015-09-21T17:35:18.213-07:00Thank you for your input.
First off, sorry that m...Thank you for your input.<br /><br />First off, sorry that my page isn't so good. I'm no web designer, so I'm just using Blogger's ready-made format. There could be a few reasons why this has happened to you. Perhaps you didn't know you needed some sort of blog account to reply? (It looks like your options are Blogger, LiveJournal, WordPress, TypePad, AIM or OpenID. Perhaps your browser is not very good? Perhaps your computer is slow. This has happened to me before, and it's the pits. For me, though, it tends to happen on certain pages which, for whatever reason, refresh automatically, erasing whatever you wrote. For this reason, if I notice this happens, I type out my opinion on say, Notepad, and then copy/paste. Again, sorry this has happened to you, but it is beyond my control.<br /><br />Of course it's stupid that you need "research" to "prove"that cutting off part of the body affects function. That's kind of my point in this post.<br /><br />I've already mentioned it in my post, but I think the logic that we need "research" to redeem the value of a body part is asinine. The logic in most, if not all "circumcision research" is ass-backwards.<br /><br />Normally, researchers look for the best way to cure or prevent disease, not reasons to make surgery indispensable. Normally, researchers try to find the reason why a body part is there, what function it serves, etc., not why it's "useless" and why it must be cut off. Normally, the body OEM as nature has created it, is the standard, not a forced, artificial phenomenon. We don't present the vulva without labia and/or clitoris as a textbook example in literature on human anatomy. We don't present the human ear with inch-wide gauges as an example of the human ear. We don't present a woman's body as ever missing a breast.<br /><br />It seems it's only with male circumcision where "researchers" take every scientific principle and turn it on its head.<br /><br />I think it's dumb that we need "research" to prove our point, but if you have read through my post, that is the challenge pro-genital mutilators have placed before us.<br /><br />It's circumcisers who have established the maxim that:<br /><br />"If the practice is scientifically proven to be "harmless," even "beneficial," then it is morally justified, perhaps even a social imperative.<br /><br />If it is shown to be "harmful" and have bad side effects," then it is morally reprehensible and must be condemned."<br /><br />And I argue that this is a trap. (More below)Josephhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14190648498809795551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-548248685729133691.post-61024968707183927992015-09-21T14:19:27.019-07:002015-09-21T14:19:27.019-07:00Your page is crap. I just wrote a fucking post and...Your page is crap. I just wrote a fucking post and then it made me sign in and erased my fucking post. Dumb fucking waste of my time. The jist - your a fucking idiot if you need research to prove that cutting a part off the body affects it's fucking function. Your cutting off the most neurally dense tissue in the human body. Don't believe it take a histology class and look under a fucking microscope. At what point does common sense come into play. Yes if I release my pen into the air it will fall. Do I need a study to prove that?Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08175305213641530208noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-548248685729133691.post-16376091344930006102013-11-13T06:57:11.109-08:002013-11-13T06:57:11.109-08:00SHOULD science decide whether a practice is ethica...SHOULD science decide whether a practice is ethical or not?<br /><br />Is the desire to make something ethically acceptable or ethically repugnant influencing scientific outcome?<br /><br />Even IF science found that genital cutting is "not that bad," and/or even "beneficial," would it be ethical to impose forcibly cutting off part of a non-consenting person's genitals?<br /><br />Or is whether what we forcibly do to others, ethically acceptable or ethically repugnant, completely governed by scientific outcome?<br /><br />These are the questions I invite the reader to consider.Josephhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14190648498809795551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-548248685729133691.post-13463656889412869742013-11-13T06:47:30.893-08:002013-11-13T06:47:30.893-08:00SHOULD science decide whether a practice is ethica...SHOULD science decide whether a practice is ethical or not?<br /><br />Or are ethics, ethics regardless of scientific outcome?<br /><br />At least with male circumcision, circumcision advocates assert (correct me if I'm wrong?) the former.<br /><br />IF this is true, and that's a big IF, then I say, it only follows that, IF a similar body of "evidence" showed female circumcision were "not only harmless but also beneficial," then opponents of FGM should be ready to change their minds.<br /><br />I ask, in such a hypothetical scenario, would that change our views that forcibly circumcising a girl or woman is wrong?<br /><br />I posit, that with female circumcision, there would not ever be enough "research" or "evidence" that would ever justify forcibly doing so to a girl or woman; that there would be no question as to the violation of principle.<br /><br />That it's real easy to say "well there is so much evidence that says circumcision is a good thing, therefore ethically it's OK" because it's already an accepted practice, and that it's real easy to say "there is so much evidence that says female circumcision is a bad thing, and therefor a bad thing" because we already find the forced circumcision of girls and women to be horrendous practice.Josephhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14190648498809795551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-548248685729133691.post-81691504988928945262013-11-13T06:25:53.892-08:002013-11-13T06:25:53.892-08:00It is my opinion that "strong scientific evid...It is my opinion that "strong scientific evidence" is not going to sway parties against FGM, or who are for MGM, because this really isn't about "science and research." This is about concealing ulterior motives and agendas with a feigned interest in public health.<br /><br />Male infant circumcision advocates talk an awful lot about "scientific research" and the "medical benefits of circumcision," and the "many gold-standard peer-reviewed papers" that supposedly "moved" them to their current position. When asked if they support FGM, the same advocates say that "the evidence for FGM is lacking," so they don't support it.<br /><br />I ask, would that the same body of evidence to support the same claims existed for FGM, would those who oppose FGM change their minds?<br /><br />I say "no."<br /><br />I find the fact that there is "a large body of evidence in favor of male circumcision" (which, by the way, no medical organization in the world has found sufficient enough to endorse infant circumcision...), but a "little scientific evidence for benefits in female circumcision" to be suspect, given the attitudes demonstrated by Johnsdottir's critics (a desire to suppress positive research regarding female circumcision), and in male circumcision advocates like Brian Morris (a desire to suppress negative research regarding male circumcision, to the point of fighting to keep it from being published).<br /><br />The current status of what male circumcision advocates and female circumcision opponents call "strong empirical evidence" is nothing more than a farce created by none other than themselves.<br /><br />I posit that with female circumcision, ethical concerns are placed before scientific research. The effect of these concerns, though well-meaning, has resulted in an exaggeration of "research" showing nothing but negatives, but the suppression of research which places female circumcision in a positive light.<br /><br />I posit that with male circumcision, it's quite the opposite; forcibly circumcising a boy poses an inescapable ethical problem that circumcision advocates would like to correct with "research."<br /><br />While with female circumcision, ethics effect the outcome of "research," leading people to manipulate it such that a negative outcome is always achieved, with male circumcision, the outcome of "research" is manipulated so as to justify, if not necessitate male circumcision.Josephhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14190648498809795551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-548248685729133691.post-51671879734525880442013-11-13T05:35:15.743-08:002013-11-13T05:35:15.743-08:00"I think that people would be willing to chan..."I think that people would be willing to change their minds regarding FGM if there was enough strong empirical evidence to support its practice."<br /> <br />And I disagree.<br /> <br />I posit that the reason that "strong empirical evidence" exists for male circumcision, but not female, is because very passionate groups of people are busy exaggerating "benefits" for MGM, while suppressing negatives (see Brian Morris), while the opposite is true for FGM.<br /><br />Nobody wants to find positives for FGM because they already think it's a horrendous practice. Nobody wants to find negatives with MGM, because it is a moneymaker, because bad mouthing infant circumcision renders you worse than Hitler. While there is a flood of "research" for MGM, the same passion to experiment with FGM does not exist. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.<br /> <br />"However, in the specific case of Dr. Johnsdotter's research, I don't think many people would be willing to endorse the practice based on one study showing that it is "no so bad" (not even positive) vs. the wealth of empirical evidence showing the detriments of this procedure."<br /> <br />And just who has written this "wealth of empirical evidence?" Why, instead of researching "negative effects," aren't there any "researchers" to see what "correlation" exists between FGM and the reduction of some disease?<br /><br />Observe the actions of Johnsdotter's critics; would that they would have their way, Johnsdotter's work would not be published "because it plays into the hands of those who support FGM." In other words censorship. This leads me to believe that there are people in high places making sure that only negative material gets published regarding FGM, and that positive material is criticized, if not suppressed.<br /><br />Observe the actions of Brian Morris. He actually commands legions of others who coincide with his view that the world's male population ought to be forcibly circumcised, to attempt to suppress research that contradicts his view. What am I to make of the "wealth of evidence" in favor of male circumcision? And the absence of evidence to the contrary?<br /> <br />Instead of exerting time and effort in trying to secure the continuance of circumcision, why aren't "researchers" looking to find better solutions? Incidentally, instead of looking for better solutions, why are "researchers" bent on making circumcision THE solution?<br /> <br />"Just because people are not willing to change their belief in FGM based on this one study does not mean people wouldn't be willing to change their belief if there was stronger scientific evidence."<br /> <br />Jonsdotter is not the only example I cite. There are at least two papers that report a lower incidence of HIV in circumcised women. And yet, there is no team of "researchers" wanting to realize "randomized control trials" to see if FGM could "prevent HIV."<br /> <br />I maintain, that it is people's belief and politics, not "scientific research," which dominates this issue.<br /> <br />That people aren't interested in allowing science to shape their views, but rather, clothe their views in science to ascertain their acquiescence.<br /> <br />Like creationists, for example.<br /> <br />That this isn't about science and medicine at all.<br /> <br />Science seeks to find newer, better ways to fight disease, not preserve religious blood rituals from the Stone Age.Josephhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14190648498809795551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-548248685729133691.post-18458779608094804652013-11-13T05:27:57.396-08:002013-11-13T05:27:57.396-08:00In a perfect world, scientists and researchers are...In a perfect world, scientists and researchers are neutral, impartial, dispassionate observers with no agendas or conflicts of interest to hide. They merely observe, record, report their findings and encourage others to do the same.<br /> <br />They are not merely interested individuals with a confirmation bias, reporting only data and findings that agree with their views, while suppressing that which is devastating to their case, and/or discourage others from analyzing it.<br /> <br />But this isn't a perfect world.<br /> <br />I posit that "researchers" of circumcision, male and female, have no real interest in medicine and/or public health, but an unstated interest in justifying, if not pushing their own ulterior views and agenda.<br /> <br />I posit that if researchers reported dispassionately their findings, we would find the true implications of male and female circumcision. We would find how much complication male circumcision actually causes. We would find precisely how many women are suffering from problems caused by FGM, how many, like males living with their circumcisions, are actually living happy, well-adjusted lives.<br /> <br />I posit that the true negatives/positives of genital cutting of either sex are not known, because the issue of male and female circumcision is dominated by self-serving agendas and politics.<br /> <br />That no one actually cares about the "medical benefits" or negative effects of the genital cutting of either sex inasmuch as it condemns or justifies a preferred/despised version of forced genital cutting.<br /> <br />That the positives of male circumcision are exaggerated, while the negatives are suppressed by interested individuals, while the vice-versa is true for female circumcision.<br /> <br />That in the case of human genital cutting, science doesn't govern ethics, but the other way around.<br /> <br />That while male circumcision advocates would like to feign an interest in research and public healthy, those opposed to female circumcision will not admit any scientific conversation that places female genital cutting in a positive light, and vice-versa.<br /> <br />That if the same "rigor" applied to male circumcision "research" were applied to female circumcision research, we would find that FGM isn't so bad. That if the negatives of MGM were not suppressed but accurately reported, that we would find there are more risks than interested individuals would like you to believe. <br />Josephhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14190648498809795551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-548248685729133691.post-36542273389351013412013-11-13T05:24:18.454-08:002013-11-13T05:24:18.454-08:00"Your main point seem[s] to me to be: 'If..."Your main point seem[s] to me to be: 'If ethics stand alone regardless of "research" for FGM, then the same is also true for MGM.'"<br /> <br />Or at least *should* be.<br /> <br />"I disagree with your premise that ethics stand alone regardless of research for FGM."<br /><br />It's not a "premise" as much as it is my opinion given my observation. And you are entitled to your own. Feel free to disagree with me all you want. <br /><br />"I would go as far to say that this is a straw man argument, obviously flawed."<br /><br />I find this statement to be rather fallacious. I am stating my opinion based on my own observations.<br /><br />"Clearly, ethics do not stand alone in the argument against FGM."<br /><br />Clearly? I beg to differ, and I think I have given good examples in my post.<br /><br />"People (in general) are strongly against FGM because of a combination of ethical and empirical concerns."<br /><br />I disagree. I posit that people were strongly against FGM first. I posit that with FGM, ethics came before "research." "Research" reporting the negative effects of FGM were highly influenced by "researchers" with a confirmation bias who weren't looking for positive effects.Josephhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14190648498809795551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-548248685729133691.post-92070164073408698792013-11-11T13:18:18.600-08:002013-11-11T13:18:18.600-08:00Joseph,
Though I agree with many of your points, ...Joseph, <br />Though I agree with many of your points, I find that your overarching premise to be false and damaging to your argument. <br /><br />Your main point seem to me to be: "If ethics stand alone regardless of "research" for FGM, then the same is also true for MGM."<br /><br />I disagree with your premise that ethics stand alone regardless of research for FGM. I would go as far to say that this is a straw man argument, obviously flawed. Clearly, ethics do not stand alone in the argument against FGM. People (in general) are strongly against FGM because of a combination of ethical and empirical concerns. <br /><br />"if people believe that it is "research" that decides the ethics of male circumcision, and that the "evidence says it is harmless, perhaps even beneficial," then they should be ready to change their minds regarding female circumcision, when the research, like Johnsdotter's, starts showing it's not so bad after all."<br />-I think that people would be willing to change their minds regarding FGM if there was enough strong empirical evidence to support its practice. However, in the specific case of Dr. Johnsdotter's research, I don't think many people would be willing to endorse the practice based on one study showing that it is "no so bad" (not even positive) vs. the wealth of empirical evidence showing the detriments of this procedure. Just because people are not willing to change their belief in FGM based on this one study does not mean people wouldn't be willing to change their belief if there was stronger scientific evidence. Scientisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16115384268513125820noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-548248685729133691.post-16900474959972980172013-02-18T05:17:13.496-08:002013-02-18T05:17:13.496-08:00Joseph, this is the best piece you have written, a...Joseph, this is the best piece you have written, and one with which I wholeheartedly agree. I will address medical claims if people make them to me, but at the base, my "thesis" against circumcision is that if some men are happy to be circumcised, and some men are not, and if the proposed "benefits" of circumcision can be had in other ways, then it is up to the man attached to the penis to decide if those benefits move him enough to be circumcised. Lilli@moralogous.comhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01119181141159978461noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-548248685729133691.post-45817677242875663972013-02-12T07:18:40.154-08:002013-02-12T07:18:40.154-08:00Nice! I've made it very clear to the folks the...Nice! I've made it very clear to the folks there my opinion on their policy. Their policy is reliable secondary sources. As has been shown, their policy has actually the opposite intention. See: http://www.cochrane.org/news/blog/how-well-do-meta-analyses-disclose-conflicts-interests-underlying-research-studies . Most of the time, these "reliable secondary studies" are not vetted properly. So, what Wikipedia is doing, in effect, is ONLY accepting studies by special interests who are promoting a certain point of view. It's special interests who often fund these meta-studies. In the case of circumcision, the meta-studies are funded by circumcision advocates (circumcision device makers, circumfetishists, etc.). Primary studies (the ones with the actual facts) are avoided. Furthermore, editors aren't allowed to vet these "reliable secondary studies". So basically, NOBODY is vetting them. The peer review doesn't, and the Wiki editors aren't allowed to. So the result is they get to be cited in articles without any review at all. It's a lovely straw man they've built themselves over there!Erik Lotspeichhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08747594192456342935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-548248685729133691.post-75111544021641507812013-02-12T07:13:29.837-08:002013-02-12T07:13:29.837-08:00Hi Joseph,
Let me bring this home because I think...Hi Joseph,<br /><br />Let me bring this home because I think we're still on different planes.<br /><br />1. I have always believed in genital integrity for both sexes and I believe the comparison is the best argument we have (e.g. is there enough medical evidence that would justify FGM?). As the answer outside of FGM practitioners is universally 'no', then why male circ? My MGM/FGM blog entry is my most popular blog entry and it has been well received.<br /><br />2. I have backed away slightly from the argument in #1 in my intactivist discussions with others somewhat not because I don't believe in it, but because of the practical reasons that many recoil/shut down from it.<br /><br />3. I will revisit how I communicate the argument in #1 to make it more effective; your blog entry here will help with that.<br /><br />4. I am not 'obsessed with research' as you seem to think. But rather, I use the research as part of my overall argument. In particular, the ONLY reason why I am interested in the research aspect is because I would like to fix/change/correct Wikipedia. Wikipedia is the #1 result in Google when you search for "circumcision" and many consider it authoritative (I am aware that you don't). To be honest, I can't stand doing medical research because the full text of most articles you have to pay for and it's tedious and time consuming.<br /><br />5. My efforts have made improvement on the Wikipedia article (you think it's bad now? It was worse before). Others besides me have made great improvements as well.<br /><br />6. I do believe that there are certain areas of research where we can do better. Lots of that is due to corruption in the medical industry, bullying in the medical research community, and censureship of results.<br /><br />I hope this clears things up. I do respect you and your views very much. What we think as the most important battlegrounds for this fight seems to differ. And that's good. We can attack this problem from more than one angle. You can feel free to e-mail me anytime. Just tack a @yahoo.com on the end of my Twitter username or contact me on Twitter (see my blogger profile).Erik Lotspeichhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08747594192456342935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-548248685729133691.post-71406635166267253142013-02-09T19:08:21.244-08:002013-02-09T19:08:21.244-08:00Ghost Orchid, I hope this restores your faith in W...Ghost Orchid, I hope this restores your faith in Wikipedia...<br /><br />http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2257482/The-war-Wikipedia-fooled-years-Bicholim-Conflict-article-elaborate-4-500-word-hoax.html<br /><br />Best,<br /><br />Joseph4GIJosephhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14190648498809795551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-548248685729133691.post-92121596404879590362013-02-09T15:34:26.676-08:002013-02-09T15:34:26.676-08:00"I will try your approach in earnest from now..."I will try your approach in earnest from now on as I really do prefer it. I know you think I must be some bad debater, etc. but I do believe there is some truth to the practical considerations I point out in using arguments of this type."<br /><br />Try the approaches that are appropriate for the right situations. It is kind of hard to understand where you are coming from, and it seems you don't understand where I am coming from.<br /><br />Are you talking with parents who need factual information? Or are you talking with circumcision advocates who bandy about "research" to defend the idea that it is morally acceptable to mutilate the genitals of a healthy child?<br /><br />There are times, yes, when we must address medical fact. Somebody may be mistaken, and s/he may need to be corrected.<br /><br />Then, there are times when people want to make the argument that the ethics of cutting the genitals of a healthy, non-consenting child depend on the outcome of a "study." People at the highest levels of medical science and social policy.<br /><br />And that is what is being talked about in this blog post.<br /><br />"Maybe I lack confidence, I suppose, for not move forward with what I truly believe is the most compelling argument because of what my wife and others have said about it. Maybe I should trust myself more. Thanks again for the discussion!"<br /><br />Broaden your horizons. Sharpen your debate and argument skills. Become aware of logical fallacies and how people use them. Learn to challenge people using their own line of thinking. Learn how to make people catch themselves in their own snares. Learn how to ask people why they think the way they do.<br /><br />The bottom line is this; if people believe that it is "research" that decides the ethics of male circumcision, and that the "evidence says it is harmless, perhaps even beneficial," then they should be ready to change their minds regarding female circumcision, when the research, like Johnsdotter's, starts showing it's not so bad after all.<br /><br />The idea that the ethics/morals of the forced, non-medical genital cutting of a healthy, non-consenting individual is decided by the outcome of some "study" is flawed, and Johnsdotter's work couldn't provide us with a better example.<br /><br />This notion ought to be challenged, unless opponents of FGM are ready to welcome Johnsdotter's "research" and change their minds.Josephhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14190648498809795551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-548248685729133691.post-70336447427156119272013-02-09T15:32:38.896-08:002013-02-09T15:32:38.896-08:00"These stubborn folks respond with "well..."These stubborn folks respond with "well FGM is completely different". Then you describe how it is not completely different. Well they just ignore you at that point. Because that's the point where you have to start talking about prepuces and clitoral hoods and people just shut down."<br /><br />You're a bit difficult to understand, or maybe you're just confused; it seems you're arguing that we have to counter "research," and that that's how people must be convinced.<br /><br />Johnsdotter is providing for us a good example of how the "research" idea could backfire. She provides scientific information that shows female genital cutting isn't as bad as anti-FGM activists believe.<br /><br />Now, it seems your telling me that people will shut down to medical science.<br /><br />So which is it?<br /><br />And, I ask again, what good is "more research" and the medical argument, when people are just going to listen to, and ignore what they want anyway?<br /><br />You're making my point; that this is not about ethics or research at all, but about people trying to find the "research" that confirms their long-held beliefs.<br /><br />Parents who already have it set in their minds that they want to circumcise their children are not going to listen to reason.<br /><br />So we have to hold those who have the duty to listen to reason accountable; doctors, researchers etc.<br /><br />This idea that "research" determines ethics leaves the door open to different kinds of corruption, as I describe in this blog. It corrupts science and its outcomes, which is a problem Johnsdotter is pointing out.<br /><br />"The reasonable and rational people will be convinced right away! I'm talking about the stubborn folks. I want to be able to convince EVERYBODY and this is the entire reason for my dialog with you here."<br /><br />Like your Wikipedia endeavor, I'm afraid you take on too daunting of a task here.<br /><br />You won't be able to convince everybody; there are going to be folks that are simply set in their ways and will not listen. You shouldn't waste time with them.<br /><br />When talking to your average American Joe, you have to pick your battles. Some will listen, others will not.<br /><br />But the scientific community are people who are supposed to be fountains of scientific knowledge, and not belief and opinion. People look to scientists and researchers because they are supposed to dispense the facts, untainted by personal conviction or political agenda.<br /><br />Is medical opinion, and in turn the opinions of parents etc., being shaped and molded by scientific data? Or by the opinions of a few "researchers" and "scientists" with the agenda to preserve circumcision?<br /><br />That is the question.<br /><br />"Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind." ~Dr. SeussJosephhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14190648498809795551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-548248685729133691.post-4236246222977296812013-02-09T15:28:58.977-08:002013-02-09T15:28:58.977-08:00"I want you to be right because I want an irr..."I want you to be right because I want an irrefutable way to prove our case."<br /><br />I want to be right because I can effectively make an argument, not because I want people to believe in me.<br /><br />"You can assume I'm a bad debater, but I am speaking from practical experience that there are many people who just don't buy the ethical-only argument..."<br /><br />Um... Yeah. At this point, we're beginning to argue about arguing, and that is going to take us off on a tangent. Let's just stick to the argument, yes?<br /><br />So back to the point, you miss a lot of what I'm trying to say. In this blog post I highlight the fact that Johnsdotter is challenging the notion that "ethics" can be argued through "research." That if we destroy this idea, then the entire house of cards falls apart.<br /><br />You seem to be conflating challenging this idea with trying to convince parents, or others who are actually looking to circumcise their sons. That's slightly different than what I'm talking about in this blog post, which is to challenge a widely held belief which permeates not only parents and doctors, but the way "science" and "research" is conducted.<br /><br />To talk with parents, to talk with others who are trying to make a medical case for circumcising healthy children, you will most likely have to talk about scientific fact, and yes you will have to point them to research to argue the point that circumcision is not medically necessary, and that any "benefit" can already be easily achieved through non-surgical means. Furthermore, you will have to show them the proper care of an intact child, which will again, entail showing links and resources.<br /><br />But this is simply a part of educating.<br /><br />I've said it before, but I never said that bad science should not be countered. It should be countered because the truth needs to be known, and parents need to know facts. Parents need to know that there is actually no medical reason to mutilate the organs of a healthy child, that any "disease" circumcision is supposed to cure can already be easily treated, prevented etc.<br /><br />And this is not hard to do; the medicine is already on our side. The proof is in countries where circumcision is hardly practice, and where men are living long and healthy lives. The proof is in our own country, where 80% of adult males are already circumcised, and yet we have higher STD transmission rates than in Europe, where circumcision is rare.<br /><br />My blog post addresses something bigger; an idea that is accepted at a higher level. Challenge the "researchers," the "scientists," and the organizations that operate on this mantra, and the whole thing collapses. If we invalidate idea at top levels, the WHO, medical organizations etc., like Johnsdotter is doing, then it will only follow that doctors will have to stop approaching parents. Medical organizations will have to take a firm stance on circumcision, as they take with any other surgical procedure. Unless they want to embarrass themselves, Wikipedia, WebMD will have to update their information.Josephhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14190648498809795551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-548248685729133691.post-26853449265605141872013-02-09T15:26:52.069-08:002013-02-09T15:26:52.069-08:00"No, I would not give up."
What would y..."No, I would not give up."<br /><br />What would your argument be? I'm curious as to how you would do battle with "research" not being on your side.<br /><br />You have to consider Johnsdotter's challenge; "research" may be correct, and male circumcision may not be as catastrophic as we think.<br /><br />"When I first started doing this intactivist thing, I believed that the comparison to FGM was one of the most compelling reasons against male circ. Many intactivists recoil from any comparisons to FGM. Many in the anti-FGM community don't appreciate it either. I backed off from this position. I still do believe it is the most compelling and basically that you are right: if male circ is OK then it must be OK if there were some evidence that some form of FGM had medical benefits for girls. And unfortunately for the anti-FGM movement, some of this evidence does exist (UTIs, HIV) there are goals to medicalize it."<br /><br />And Johnsdotter is challenging this notion with her work. Once authorities are forced to recognize that this "research makes right" mantra is a dangerous sham, all this "research" that shows "benefits" will lose validity.<br /><br />"... My wife and these female intactivists said arguments should be made on their own without the need to compare to FGM. I personally believe this is the only way we'll win so my core belief is similar to yours..."<br /><br />I'm afraid they're rather different. My core belief is that MGM and FGM are precisely the same in principle. What you do to one sex, you do to the other. You can't have one without the other.<br /><br />It is a mistake to acquiescence to the idea that there should be a firewall between FGM and MGM. This forced wedge between the two is slowly, but surely, being broken down.<br /><br />Johnsdotter, as well as others, are posing a challenge that is irrefutable. Your friends will not be able to argue that these should be kept "separate" for long.<br /><br />"I'm sure you have the idea now that I'm somewhat incompetent as a debater. I don't believe this is the case."<br /><br />Rather than telling me this, prove yourself.<br /><br />"I do tend to argue the male circ issue from all sides (medical & ethical). Sticking to ethical is much easier to prove and you can prove it without citing a gazillion sources."<br /><br />It's also easy to argue "medical," as, the way things stand now, there is no medical case for circumcising healthy, non-consenting individuals. That battle is over and won.<br /><br />People seem to keep believing that it could be ethically permissible to mutilate the genitals of a healthy, non-consenting minor, if only they could produce the right number of "studies" which show "harmlessness" and "benefit."<br /><br />Here, Johnsdotter challenges that notion. This is important because she shines light on the corruption of science for political gain. If this notion is invalidated, then all arguments regarding "research" fall apart. "Wikipedia," "WebMD" etc. will all not have a leg to stand on. But it seems you're failing to see.Josephhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14190648498809795551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-548248685729133691.post-54240927771834984432013-02-09T15:25:18.429-08:002013-02-09T15:25:18.429-08:00"What you have here is scared parents who see..."What you have here is scared parents who see their baby in the hospital with a high fever (fearing death) and looking for something to blame. They will blame the thing that the doctor told them was the reason for their son's condition. Statements like UTIs are easily treated are not interesting to them."<br /><br />And like I said. The statement would come from the AAP, a trade group of professional doctors. It is simply a matter of fact that all the "research" concerning circumcision as a way to prevent UTIs is considered flawed and inconclusive by the most prestigious medical organizations in the world.<br /><br />If parents will not listen to this, then here is proof that merely "refuting studies" is not going to make a difference.<br /><br />"Well your blog is fantastic, so I'm not surprised. But I'm not going to believe that the average American is going to joseph4gi.blogspot.com before Wikipedia to look up info."<br /><br />I'm not going to believe that the average American trusts Wikipedia wholeheartedly and is the first place anyone looks. Furthermore, I'm not going to believe Wikipedia represents anything further than the opinion of self-interested computer geeks at Wikipedia.<br /><br />The underlying premise on which this is all based is the idea that ethics are decided by the outcome of "research."<br /><br />People like Johnsdotter are challenging this idea in high places, such as the WHO, and this is important because it pertains to the genital mutilation of both sexes.<br /><br />Destroy this idea, and the entire house of cards comes tumbling down.<br /><br />"Many people do find info on social networks, but they also look to Wikipedia, parents.com, webmd, and what to expect. I won't agree with you that these sources aren't important. Folks will say "well if you're right, why isn't the info in these 'authoritative' sources?""<br /><br />And you should respond "because the authoritative sources are failing to update their resources." And then point them in the right direction, giving them links to the research that is not found on Wikipedia, WebMD and whatnot.<br /><br />It's kind of the job of an intactivist to be pointing parents in the right direction, and be giving links to research that other "authoritative resources" fail to recognize.<br /><br />It's also the job of an intactivist to inform himself on what actually the "authoritative" resources are saying, so that you can use this to your advantage.<br /><br />How well-worded are you on what the AAP has to say? ACOG? AAFP? The BMA? RACP?<br /><br />The words of these trade organizations carry more weight than any parenting website, WebMD, even Wikipedia.<br /><br />Read their position statements; not a single one is able to use the current body of "research" to endorse male infant circumcision. Some, like the AAP, actually talk about forced retraction, UTIs etc.Josephhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14190648498809795551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-548248685729133691.post-38118408554621282982013-02-09T05:21:23.180-08:002013-02-09T05:21:23.180-08:00"I'm not sure what I'd suggest with r..."I'm not sure what I'd suggest with relatives who are neither interested in ethics or research, but in circumcising Jr. at all costs."<br /><br />What you have here is scared parents who see their baby in the hospital with a high fever (fearing death) and looking for something to blame. They will blame the thing that the doctor told them was the reason for their son's condition. Statements like UTIs are easily treated are not interesting to them.<br /><br />"My stats indicate I'm visited rather well, thank you very much."<br /><br />Well your blog is fantastic, so I'm not surprised. But I'm not going to believe that the average American is going to joseph4gi.blogspot.com before Wikipedia to look up info.<br /><br />Many people do find info on social networks, but they also look to Wikipedia, parents.com, webmd, and what to expect. I won't agree with you that these sources aren't important. Folks will say "well if you're right, why isn't the info in these 'authoritative' sources?"<br /><br />"Do you simply give up? Because those challenging you with the "research" game have won?"<br /><br />No, I would not give up.<br /><br />When I first started doing this intactivist thing, I believed that the comparison to FGM was one of the most compelling reasons against male circ. Many intactivists recoil from any comparisons to FGM. Many in the anti-FGM community don't appreciate it either. I backed off from this position. I still do believe it is the most compelling and basically that you are right: if male circ is OK then it must be OK if there were some evidence that some form of FGM had medical benefits for girls. And unfortunately for the anti-FGM movement, some of this evidence does exist (UTIs, HIV) there are goals to medicalize it.<br /><br />My wife is not an intactivist and is the type who doesn't see a compelling need to fight society as I do. She told me that she believes comparisons to FGM will only turn people off. She said that the instant I bring up any comparisons (no matter how good they are such as the analogous Sunat, female prepuce removal) that people would immediately shut down and not hear my arguments. She said this is why I should never use this argument. Many female intactivists in the community have said exactly the same thing. My wife and these female intactivists said arguments should be made on their own without the need to compare to FGM. I personally believe this is the only way we'll win so my core belief is similar to yours...<br /><br />I'm sure you have the idea now that I'm somewhat incompetent as a debater. I don't believe this is the case. I do tend to argue the male circ issue from all sides (medical & ethical). Sticking to ethical is much easier to prove and you can prove it without citing a gazillion sources. I want you to be right because I want an irrefutable way to prove our case.<br /><br />You can assume I'm a bad debater, but I am speaking from practical experience that there are many people who just don't buy the ethical-only argument---even when presented as you describe. These stubborn folks respond with "well FGM is completely different". Then you describe how it is not completely different. Well they just ignore you at that point. Because that's the point where you have to start talking about prepuces and clitoral hoods and people just shut down.<br /><br />The reasonable and rational people will be convinced right away! I'm talking about the stubborn folks. I want to be able to convince EVERYBODY and this is the entire reason for my dialog with you here. I will try your approach in earnest from now on as I really do prefer it. I know you think I must be some bad debater, etc. but I do believe there is some truth to the practical considerations I point out in using arguments of this type. Maybe I lack confidence, I suppose, for not move forward with what I truly believe is the most compelling argument because of what my wife and others have said about it. Maybe I should trust myself more. Thanks again for the discussion!Erik Lotspeichhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08747594192456342935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-548248685729133691.post-46676080432669888152013-02-09T04:44:32.497-08:002013-02-09T04:44:32.497-08:00One of my friends who is reading this conversation...One of my friends who is reading this conversation contacted me privately and we talked about the possibilities of a few things being conflated here.<br /><br />Remember that in this blog post, I address specifically the premise challenged by Johnsdotter, that whether a practice is ethical or not depends on the outcome of some "study."<br /><br />This is the underlying premise by which "research" is written in support of circumcision, and whereby American medical organizations try to inch closer to a recommendation, and whereby parents are led to believe that they are entitled to, even compelled to make, some sort of "choice."<br /><br />Challenge this de facto rule and the entire argument falls apart; the so-called "research" suddenly seems lackluster.<br /><br />Researchers with integrity like Johnsdotter are challenging this premise, making people at the WHO, and anti-FGM (but pro-circ) activists squirm.<br /><br />Until this idea is toppled, yes, we have our work cut out for us, to coin a phrase.<br /><br />Until ethics are recognized for both sexes, parents ought to be enlightened to facts their doctors are not informing them about, and I agree. But educating parents is, at least in my view, a bit beyond the scope of this article, which addresses a slightly bigger problem.<br /><br />The way I see it, it's not a matter of refuting research; the current body of medical literature is actually clear, and there is much misinformation being circulated by doctors and parental pundits alike. It's a matter of disseminating correct information and educating parents of the facts.<br /><br />It is no scientific secret that "phimosis" is over-diagnosed in children, that doctors are mistakenly telling parents to forcibly retract their childrens' foreskins "for cleaning," that circumcision prevents UTIs etc.<br /><br />In this sense there is no "refutation" going on; simply dissemination of the facts which are already scientifically confirmed.<br /><br />Believe it or not, scientific literature is already on our side.<br /><br />American doctors continue to take advantage of parental naivete, however, because nobody is taking them to task. Those days are drawing to a close however, as bodies against circumcision single them out and challenge them. (See Bloodstained Men, demonstrations at AAP and ACOG trade shows, etc.)<br /><br />But we shouldn't rest on our laurels; the premise addressed in this blog post needs to be challenged.<br /><br />Consider Johnsdotter's warning.<br /><br />Even if the research showed circumcision to be harmless (it is actually irrefutable that circumcision removes thousands of nerve endings and that it permanently alters the mechanics of the penis) even if it is shown to prevent disease (circumcision cannot immunize the body against a single pathogen, and there is not a single scientist or researcher that can deny this fact), it would still be morally reprehensible to take a healthy, non-consenting individual and cut off a healthy, normal part of his genitals, especially since there are better, more effective, less invasive ways to prevent argued diseases.Josephhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14190648498809795551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-548248685729133691.post-50355435248770498922013-02-08T23:28:38.199-08:002013-02-08T23:28:38.199-08:00"Of course what you state here is correct. I ..."Of course what you state here is correct. I think it's a great place to start the discussion and I do believe the ethical/human rights case is all that should be necessary."<br /><br />It is either true for both sexes, or not true at all.<br /><br />Consider that perhaps the reason why you do not have much success may be simply because you simply need more practice in making your argument.<br /><br />These are solid arguments that, to date, at least in my case, no one has been able to refute.<br /><br />"Your points in summary 1-4 above are fantastic. Every single one is part of the solution."<br /><br />Thanks.<br /><br />"I just can't shake the notion that focusing on ethics while everyone else is focusing on medical benefits is preventing intactivists from reaching a group of people obsessed with medical benefits."<br /><br />To me it's the opposite; I believe too many intactivists are busy trying to "disprove" pro-circs with "research," and I think this is wasting too much time and effort.<br /><br />Now, that's not to say that bad research doesn't need to be refuted, because I'm not saying that.<br /><br />Bad research needs to be refuted because it's bad research and it taints the credibility of the scientific method.<br /><br />But I think in all their refuting, intactivists seem to be forgetting that our moral argument stands on its own.<br /><br />I believe intactivists fail because they give in to the mistaken idea that the acceptability of a procedure rides on the outcome of "research."<br /><br />Once again, Johnsdotter provides an inignorable example of why this line of thinking is dangerous, fallacious and wrong.<br /><br />"This is why I talk about research. Not because I personally find research necessary to justify leaving children intact in my own mind. But to convince others."<br /><br />I have asked you before, but you either seem to have failed to see the question, or are intentionally evading it.<br /><br />There is not a doubt in my mind that the "scientific research" regarding circumcision has been hijacked by people with a pro-circumcision agenda. It is my personal view that scientific scrutiny would reveal that most of what is out there is grossly exaggerated and/or completely fabricated by circumcision advocates to support their own view that all males should be circumcised.<br /><br />But, what would you do in the hypothetical situation that this were all proven true?<br /><br />Consider this hypothetical reality; the research all shows that the "benefits" of circumcision are real.<br /><br />Do you simply give up? Because those challenging you with the "research" game have won?<br /><br />Or do you persist?<br /><br />Please answer this question, as I'm curious to know what you would do.<br /><br />I know what I would do; I would be like Johnsdotter. I would acknowledge research that shows circumcision is "harmless," even "beneficial," but would still argue that the principle of taking a knife and cutting off part of the genitals of a healthy, non-consenting person is still wrong.<br /><br />I wouldn't want to be like Hussein, denying research, and arguing that results that do not coincide with my personal convictions should not see the light of day.Josephhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14190648498809795551noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-548248685729133691.post-42061210501536795082013-02-08T23:28:26.210-08:002013-02-08T23:28:26.210-08:00"And I know you think I'm missing your po..."And I know you think I'm missing your point. But I just haven't had luck convincing people with the non-medical approach to intactivism."<br /><br />Perhaps it may be due to the exact same reason you mention above? (Perhaps you have trouble articulating your point?)<br /><br />Talk to parents against circumcision on Facebook. They will tell you they've had much success.<br /><br />"These people "won't believe my facts" or "Wikipedia says foreskin causes all these health problems, better to get rid of it".<br /><br />Maybe it's the people you're talking to?<br /><br />The people I talk to are careful not to mention Wikipedia. That is, unless they wish to embarrass themselves.<br /><br />Because I will set them straight.<br /><br />"So again, it's the medical benefits that justify the ethics of circumcision for these people."<br /><br />And again, it is because they get us to play their "research makes right" game.<br /><br />Instead of engaging them in their little game, challenge their notion that "medical benefits justify the ethics."<br /><br />Show them Johnsdotter and the research I mention in this blog post.<br /><br />Challenge them on their own premises; would they approve of female circumcision if it were scientifically proven to be "harmless?" Or that it "protects from disease?"<br /><br />And stick to the argument.Josephhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14190648498809795551noreply@blogger.com