Pro-Circumcision Jewish LGBTs - The Height of Hypocrisy?

I think it's bad enough that there are gays and lesbians who advocate for child circumcision.

Gay friends that I have in the intactivist movement tell me that in America, a good majority of US gay guys say they absolutely prefer the circumcised penis and are in favor of infant circumcision. Some will go as far as to refuse a partner if he is not circumcised.

This boggles the mind.

It's almost as if they've forgotten that up until relatively recently, homosexuality was listed as a mental illness that parents could seek to "cure" in their children. It's almost as if they've forgotten that they've been fighting for "tolerance," "acceptance" and the freedom to be who they are, as they are.

The gay motto seems to be "I'm not going to fit myself into a little box just for you."

They've recently lauded the collapse of the infamous "don't ask, don't tell" policy.

Oh but that foreskin? Ew gross! Put it away or cut it off!

But Jewish gays and lesbians defending circumcision as a "religious freedom" have GOT to be at the height of hypocrisy.

It's almost as if they've forgotten that, according to the Torah, homosexuality is an abomination to god. It's almost as if they've forgotten that, according to their own religion, homosexuals are cut off from their own people.

Thou shalt not lie with mankind, as with womankind: it is abomination... For whosoever shall commit any of these abominations, even the souls that commit them shall be cut off from among their people.
Leviticus 18

In response to Governor Brown's signing of AB768, the law that sanctions male infant genital mutilation in the so-called name of "religious freedom" by mandating its medical validity, openly gay politicians who identify as being Jewish have taken the opportunity to come out and try and impress potential religious voters.

As always, it seems obligatory to draw attention away from religious conviction by feigning an interest in medicine. According to State Senator Mark Leno, Brown's signature ended "any confusion or ambiguity [concerning] state control over medical procedures conducted by licensed health care professionals." District 8 Supervisor Scott Wiener added that the governor's signature placed "California firmly on record as supporting religious minorities and supporting the right of the doctors to perform medical procedures without interference by government."  One must wonder, how surgery in healthy, non-consenting individuals is "medical."

But openly gay San Francisco mayoral candidate Bevan Dufty's comment was the boldest:

"As a Jew, I believe that our religious traditions should be removed from the balloting process."

Yes, it's a good thing we've elected politicians who make religious traditions, such as gay-bashing, illegal.

I've got to ask, if these Jewish LGBTs are so much in favor of "religious freedom" and "parental rights," do they support a parent's right to send their gay son to get electro-shock therapy?

Do they support a parent's right to send their lesbian daughter to straight camp? And if they fail to "straighten up," do they support a parent's right to put their gay son out on the street?

But most of all, do they support parents teaching their children that gays and lesbians are going to burn in hell, as they do in the Westboro Baptist Church?

Shame on Jewish LGBTs for supporting the genital mutilation of healthy, non-consenting children.

 

Do they forget? The circumcision of girls is a "religious custom" as well. The federal ban against all genital cutting infringes on "religious freedom" and parental choice as well. Are they concerned about that?

I just don't understand.

You would think that two of the most oppressed minorities in the world would instantly "get it."

EDIT(Added approx 10 mins. later): I just thought of this; "researchers" have been trying for the longest time to pathologize normal intact male genitals as the source of all disease. They're currently in Africa trying to stigmatize the act of being a whole male. But remember when HIV was the "gay disease?" I'm telling you, something is wrong with this so-called "research..."

SAN FRANCISCO: Democracy Hits A Brick Wall

I wasn't holding my breath. I knew that some way or another, the effort to ban circumcision in San Francisco would not succeed... but I wasn't expecting it to end like this...

It appears a judge has expressed intention to strike down the measure to ban circumcision that activists worked so hard to get on the ballot.

Quoth Superior Court Judge Loretta Giorgi: "It serves no legitimate purpose to allow a measure whose invalidity can be determined as a matter of law to remain on the ballot."

According to Giorgi, California law makes regulating medical procedures a function of the state, not cities. However, her ruling is based on a dubious premise; that both ritual and routine circumcision are medical procedures. She also demonstrates a real or feigned ignorance; the proposed law makes an exemption for necessary medical procedures.

What's not being mentioned is the fact that the law Giorgi cites was enstated to allow vets to declaw cats. Animal rights activists were making headway passing laws that would keep vets from reaping profit from this, another medically unnecessary procedure.

Aren't kids special? They're about as important as your pet.

I'm not fooling myself. I know that this law didn't have a chance. As a matter of fact, in an earlier post, I expressed that I didn't think the ban would, nor SHOULD pass, because America is not ready for a ban on circumcision. Still, it would have been nice to see the measure given due democratic process, and put before the people for them to vote on. The people would have voted and the ban would have not passed by a majority vote. That's usually the way democracy is supposed to work, right?

Remember Proposition 8? Proposition 8 was deemed unconstitutional. It was deemed unconstitutional. And yet when this is challenged, when human rights activists ask judges to repeal the law, religious right-wing groups get technical and talk about "the voice of the people." Judges should not repeal, they said, what the people have voted on. Well, where are advocates for "the voice of the people" now? What would have been the reaction if gay rights activists had struck down the measure before it even got to the ballot? I could only imagine the outcry. The outrage. "BLASPHEMY!" They would cry. "THE VOICE OF THE PEOPLE!!!"

Circumcision advocates are mistaken though, if they think that it ends here. Oh no. This is far from over. Consider this; religious groups blocking the democratic process didn't stop New York from legalizing gay marriage. It's a matter of time, and the conservative right-wingers are going to fight tooth and nail to protect their right to mutilate boys (but not girls?) in the so-called name of "religion" and "parental rights." But as cases such as the one in New York demonstrate, legally blocking democracy proves nothing. Today, African Americans are free, women can vote, and, at least in a few states, gays can marry.

As intactivists, we have made strides, and we've come a long way; things are much, much different than when we first began in the 70s. As we persevere, we move closer to our goal. The forced genital mutilation of boys has its advocates, and they will fight tooth and nail for their cause. But past injustices also their advocates who fought with much effort for their cause. In the end, justice prevailed and their efforts did not prosper. Perhaps not today, perhaps not in San Francisco, but one of these days, justice WILL prevail, and boys WILL get the same constitutional protection as girls.

I conclude with my usual bottom line:
The foreskin is not a birth defect. Neither is it a congenital deformity or genital anomaly akin to a 6th finger or a cleft. Neither is it a medical condition like a ruptured appendix or diseased gall bladder. Neither is it a dead part of the body, like the umbilical cord, hair, or fingernails. The foreskin is normal, natural, healthy tissue with which all boys are born.

Unless there is a medical or clinical indication, the circumcision of healthy, non-consenting individuals is a deliberate wound; it is the destruction of normal, healthy tissue, the permanent disfigurement of normal, healthy organs, and by very definition, infant genital mutilation, and a violation of the most basic of human rights.

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

May one day boys in this country enjoy the same protection under the law as girls.

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

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

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

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

Well, they're not laughing anymore.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jewish LGBT Leaders Against SF Circ Ban - Ignorance or Hypocrisy?

I'm not sure what to make of this. It looks like Jewish LGBT (gay, lesbian, bi-sexual, transgendered) leaders have joined the chorus of Jewish, Muslim and other religious organizations that are banding together against the San Francisco circumcision ban that will be on the November ballot.

http://www.ebar.com/news/article.php?sec=news&article=5777&fb_comment_id=fbc_10150214196842299_16790393_10150214204492299#f3b4459c5afa9ec

And, as if that weren't enough, they simply just couldn't resist bringing out the Foreskin Man comic straw man to give it a good beating. I've already addressed the futility in a previous post:
http://joseph4gi.blogspot.com/2011/06/anti-semite-card-no-longer-washes.html

Pro-circumcision groups are pulling out all the stops, from "religious freedom" (well, at least the freedom of their religion), "parental rights" (at least the rights of parents of boys), and, get this, "public health." (Yes, if scientists discovered better alternatives to circumcision, I can just see Jewish groups abandoning circumcision...)

Apparently, the Jewish LGBT leaders are pushing circumcision as a preventative measure for HIV, despite the fact that the studies say circumcision is of no use to gays.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14894-circumcision-fails-to-protect-gay-men.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/25/AR2009082503271.html
http://www.themoneytimes.com/featured/20090827/male-circumcision-doesnt-reduce-gays-aids-risk-id-1081586.html

And, despite the fact that circumcision doesn't prevent HIV in the real world. (Six African Countries, Malaysia, The Philippines, our own country, etc.)
http://joseph4gi.blogspot.com/2011/05/where-circumcision-doesnt-prevent-hiv.html

It just boggles the mind how religious groups can't seem to make up their minds. Is this a "religious rights," issue, or is this a "public health" issue? Are babies born at risk for HIV transmission? Are they climbing out of their cribs, traveling to sub-Saharan Africa where HIV rates are 20 to 40 times higher than in the U.S. and engaging in risky sexual behavior? Does not being circumcised somehow disable a man from using a condom, which he would still need to use whether is circumcised or not?

For whatever reason, the authors of the above article felt it important to know Schofield's orientation and circumcision status, and they seem disdainful that they couldn't get these out of him, as if this were any relevant to the issue at hand. Do people ask your sexual orientation/circumcision status if you're against female genital cutting? Does being a non-circumcised straight woman somehow disqualify you if you're against FGM?

Says Jewish LGBT leader Slepian: "I think that all LGBT people, but especially gay Jews, should be wary when people attempt to use police power to criminalize behavior that in our communities are viewed as normal and natural and have been part of our tradition for thousands of years..."

Except when it's slavery, the oppression of women, and the oppression of homosexuals. Right Mr. Slepian?

Says Rawlings-Fein, who conducted the Brit Milah circumcision ceremony on his own son: "We wanted to make sure that we made a conscious decision and that's the case with a lot of people, especially in our synagogue... That parental decision is a big part of it. I think that you have to acknowledge that parents are taking care of their children in the way that they see fit religiously and medically."

Except if the child happens to be a girl. The "parental decision" to circumcise a girl as "parents see fit" would land them in jail.

And here it is again, the pretense that medicine has anything and everything to do with the "decision" to conduct an irrevocable religious ceremony on a healthy, non-consenting child. Let's ask Rawlings-Fein to reveal to us the medical ailment that necessitated his son's religious circumcision ceremony.

Says openly gay District 8 Supervisor Scott Weiner, who is Jewish: "This proposal is rallying the Jewish community, including very progressive LGBT Jewish people who are really offended by this false message that circumcision is somehow barbaric or similar to female genital mutilation."

This statement is rather ignorant and self-serving; the claim that male circumcision is barbaric is dismissed as "opinion," but the claim that female circumcision is barbaric is assumed to be immediately self-evident. The message that circumcision is "barbaric" and/or similar to female genital mutilation is "false" only to those who refuse to see the genital cutting of boys as "barbaric mutilation." Communities and ethnic groups that practice female genital cutting as a cultural tradition or religious rite certainly don't see their practice as "barbaric mutilation," yet nobody seems to think this insinuation is offensive to them.

The above statement is ignorant to the fact that some female genital cutting is equivalent, if not less severe than male circumcision; the federal ban on FGM forbids them ALL. For better or for worse, a ban on all FGM without exempt for religious ceremonies violates "religious freedom" and "parental rights," but Jewish LGTB leaders do not seem to care to express concern here.

Says State Senator Mark Leno: "My read of it, and that of every legal scholar that has assessed it, quickly determined that it is a First Amendment right... As a Jewish man this is a great concern and as a strong defender of a women's reproductive choices I'm well aware that any legislation that ... interferes with the decision-making process between a physician and a family should be discouraged."

And here again, there seems to be an intent to remain wilfully ignorant. The First Amendment would also guarantee parents from Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore the right to perform "sunat" on their baby girls.

More on "sunat" here:
http://joseph4gi.blogspot.com/2011/05/so-wheres-sunat-party.html

And, as a defender of a woman's "reproductive choices," it seems to escape Leno that the circumcision of infants violates a child's right to choice.

Leno's assertion that "legislation that interferes with the decision-making process between a physician and a family should be discouraged" is also based on a dubious premise; that there is actually a decision for any parent to make. The bottom line question is always this; without medical or clinical indication, can a doctor be performing surgery on a healthy, non-consenting child, much less be stoking his parent's sense of entitlement to any kind of "choice?"

Leno also seems to be ignorant of the fact that there is already legislation that "interferes with the decision-making process between a phsician and a family." In many states, it is already illegal for a parent to deny needed medical care to a child, even for "religious reasons." And the federal ban on FGM most definitely "interferes." Last year, the AAP tried to endorse a "ritual nick" for girls. Luckily (or, if Jewish LGBT really mean what they say, unfortunately), they were forced to back-pedal.

Slepian continues: "I always view San Francisco as a good place to be a Jew... The question is, is San Francisco going to be a welcoming place for Jews to live? That's a question on the ballot here."

Then, it must also be asked, is San Francisco a good place to be a Muslim from Malaysia, Indonesia or Singapore? Because the federal ban on FGM without religious exemption forbids them from practicing "sunat" on their daughters.

Says openly gay San Francisco supervisor who is also Jewish: "From a standpoint of parental choice and public health, banning circumcision is the wrong thing for San Francisco."

It never ceases to amaze me how Jewish groups and individuals never fail to fall back on "public health" as an alibi for support what is historically a contentuous religious rite for them. It's almost as if they know that "religious freedom" is no longer a good enough reason to justify the practice of circumcising healthy, non-consenting newborns.

Which raises the question, how far do Jewish groups actually care about "public health?" If scientists found an alternative to circumcision that would provide the purported "medical benefits" and more, WOULD Jewish groups abandon the practice?

And how far does the Jewish LGBT community support a "parent's right" and "religious freedom? Would they support a parent's "right" to submit their son to electro-shock therapy to make him "straight?" After all, it says so in the Torah that gays are an abomination to "g-d," and that they should be stoned to death.

To me, that any LGBT group is getting behind legislation against this ban has got to be the epitome of absolute hypocrisy.

San Francisco Circumcision Ban

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kurdish girl being circumcised

Muslim boy being circumcised

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

No, said the courts.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Unless there is a medical or clinical indication, the circumcision of healthy, non-consenting individuals is a deliberate wound; it is the destruction of normal, healthy tissue, the permanent disfigurement of normal, healthy organs, and by very definition, infant genital mutilation.

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