WASHINGTON POST: Ritual Circumcision After Blizzard Painted as "Triumph"

A recent Washington Post article tries very hard to put airs on what would be nothing more than a Jewish child circumcision rite.

The only factor that would mark this one ritual different than any other one that happens is the fact that it happened after a major snow storm.

The storm would have made life difficult for thousands of other people, but somehow this story stood above the rest, making the ordeal worthy of an article on the Washington Post.

The author attempts to frame the whole situation, flights being cancelled, snow being an obstacle for the arrival of the ritual circumciser etc. as some sort of "powerful story" of "struggle" and "the triumph of the human spirit."

To some, this may be the case, but to those of us not conditioned to accept forced male infant genital mutilation as "normal," it's quite the opposite.

Perhaps it is a "triumph" in the eyes of those with a need to fulfill what they see as divine commandment to mutilate the genitals of an otherwise healthy, non-consenting child, but from the point of view of the child, who is weak, innocent and vulnerable, it can be nothing more than abandonment and loss.

The author appears to want to elicit a standing ovation and applause, and many will comply without thinking twice.

But how would readers react if, instead of male infant circumcision, the tale were bout female infant circumcision?

What if this story were, instead, about a couple, who, after a long trial of "strength and endurance," a sandstorm that posed as an obstacle for instance, were "finally" able to have their daughter circumcised?

Would it matter to readers that their family saw circumcising a baby daughter as this "long-standing tradition?"

Would it matter that they saw this as a matter of religious sacrament?

Would it matter that it was a "struggle" for relatives and the ritual circumciser to arrive "in the nick of time?"

Surely arguments that male infant circumcision dwarfs in comparison would quell disgust.

A freshly severed child's foreskin.

An infant's clitoris, barely visible, on a pair of scissors.

Surely it would be of comfort that the procedure was performed by a trained professional using sterile utensils under pristine conditions.

Surely adult women saying they are circumcised and they are "just fine" ought to justify it.

Somehow, I doubt that arguments of "tradition," "religion" and "parental prerogative" would be enough to silence the ensuing shitstorm.

The snowstorm in the Washington Post story is a diversion; merely the tip of the iceberg.

The child endured unnecessary pain, and a needless risk for herpes, infection, partial or full ablation, hemorrhage and even death.

Forget all these other challenges the child was put through, everyone let's pay attention to that nasty snowstorm.

The efforts the author goes through to beautify what is happening, the fact that there has to be an article trying to paint this story as a "success" after "a long struggle" speaks to how the author really feels about the situation.

This could have been a story about someone finally getting a much needed heart.

A doctor making it in time to perform an emergency c-section that saved both mother and child.

You know?

An actual emergency in which there were real stakes.

But this?

Where a child's life was put at stake?

Part of the most intimate part of his body permanently destroyed?

His sexual experience changed forever?

Sorry, but it's a terrible attempt at beautifying a sick, disgusting tradition.

The author in the Washington Post article strives to make this a beautiful story about parents who "struggle" but "finally made it," but strip away the "tradition," "endurance" and religious mumbo-jumbo, take away the blizzard and you're left with nothing more than ritual child abuse and genital mutilation.

It is nothing but sick, disgusting, self-serving opportunism on the part of this Washington Post author, and it's deplorable.

Some may yet defend ritual genital mutilation as "tradition," and I find this ironic.

For one, the fact that "religious tradition" cannot justify female infant circumcision demonstrates that it fails as an argument.

And secondly, the fact that the child's mother is a rabbi, and she doesn't have to undergo some sort of genital cutting ritual, not to mention the fact that the ritual mutilation was performed by a female mohel, exposes the hypocrisy in invoking "tradition" as an alibi; this goes to show you that traditions can and do change.

Ritual male infant circumcision is one of those traditions whose time has come.

The time has come to condemn this tradition in male children, as in female children, for what it is; ritualized child abuse and forced genital mutilation.

Relevant Websites:
Beyond the Bris: News and Views on Jewish Circumcision

Related Posts:

Intactivism: It's Not Just for Gentiles Anymore

Related Articles:

Female Circumcision Is Becoming More Popular in Malaysia

A Cutting Tradition - The New York Times

Circumcised women can have healthy sex lives: expert - SBS

Stories That Didn't End So Triumphantly:

TEL AVIV: Botched baby dies - circumcision exonerated again

NEW YORK: Metzitzah: Two mohelim stopped after babies get herpes

ISRAEL: Baby's Penis Reattached after Mohel Botches Circumcision

PITTSBURGH: Penis cut off, reattached, rabbi sued

ISRAEL: Baby loses 1/3 of penis in worse-than-usual circumcision

NEW YORK: Hypospadias - rabbi botches circumcision

Johannesburg: Jewish circumciser slapped with life ban after botched bris

WASHINGTON POST: The "Great Controversy" Strikes Again

In an earlier post, I talked about how American media uses the "Great Controversy" trope to sell the American public the false perception that the issue of circumcision is one that is fought between "expert researchers and physicians" with an interest in public health, who make sound and compelling arguments in favor of the routine circumcision of healthy, non-consenting minors, and "angry laymen" who offer nothing more than charged emotion.

In a recent set of articles, journalist Janice D'Arcy set out to reaffirm this false perception of reality. This resolve to enshrine pediatricians who advocate and perform circumcisions can be seen in the title of an article in the Washington Post, which reads "Circumcision, and why pediatricians are offering more support."

Self-appointed chair of the so-called "AAP circumcision task force" Douglass Diekema is given the spotlight, and he wastes no time chide his opposition by saying:

"For individuals who have decided that circumcision is wrong, no amount or quality of data will put these questions to rest. It is always possible to find potential weaknesses in any study. What the AAP report does is provide a critical assessment of all of the studies that have been done to date. There are clearly many studies of good quality that demonstrate that circumcision has potential medical benefits.”

In other words, it's all about the "data," and no other group could give a better assessment, than the so-called "circumcision task force" at the AAP, headed by none other than himself.

Diekema further says:

"Pediatricians want to do what is best for their patients. The AAP policy and technical report on circumcision is intended to provide physicians with an assessment of the scientific knowledge we have about circumcision so that they can best counsel parents. That is more important than what certain groups might think about the report."

This is the self-serving picture that circumcision advocates want the American audience to see, and American media is an accomplice. Only "experts" such as Diekema, and only trade unions like the AAP are capable of assessment of data, and not "certain groups."

In what I can only see as a scripted question and answer handed to Janice D'Arcy by one other than Diekema himself, we see the following Q&A:

Q: Is there a concern among pediatricians that this report will alienate the anti-circumcision folks and isolate them from the medical community (as has happened with some anti-vaccine folks?)

A: Pediatricians want to do what is best for their patients. The AAP policy and technical report on circumcision is intended to provide physicians with an assessment of the scientific knowledge we have about circumcision so that they can best counsel parents. That is more important than what certain groups might think about the report.

This could have better read "Characterizing intactivists as anti-vaccine folks, alienating them and making them as incredible and far-fetched as possible, while making *us* appear to be the knowledgeable 'experts' is precisely what we want."

The sleight of hand that has happened here is that Diekema and his trade organization, along Janice D'Arcy of the Washington Post, is trying to equate the amputation of normal, healthy flesh with immunization vaccines. The assumption that circumcision acts as a vaccine has been planted in the reader's psyche without even knowing it.

Anyone against circumcision is as irrational as people who oppose vaccines, and so they shouldn't be lent any credibility. Neat huh?

Attacking another person based on an argument he never made is known as "attacking a straw man."

It must be made clear: Circumcision does not, cannot function anything like a vaccine. A vaccine can be demonstrably proven to strengthen the immune system against pathogens that cause disease. When a virus enters the body, it makes no difference whether a male is circumcised or not. Comparing circumcision to a vaccine is an insult to science and modern medicine.

Calling intactivists anti-vaxers is a straw-man argument, and here we see the Washinton Post and Douglass Diekema using it to dismiss intactivists.

Some people who oppose circumcision may also happen to be against vaccinations, but that is not true of all intactivists.

D'Arcy Fires Back

Scathed by the remarks left on her AAP plug piece, Janice D'Arcy set out to publish yet ANOTHER piece to praise the "experts" at the AAP, and dismiss intactivists as "angry laymen," this time titled "‘Intactivists’ furious at new AAP circumcision policy."

She seems intent on separating what intactivists have to say from "expert advice," and this can be seen in the following remark:

"So angry are opponents to the procedure, sometimes called “intactivists,” that their response may be remembered as much as the pediatricians’ advice."

And we hope people might actually analyze and look beyond this "advice" from people who wish to profit at the expense of their children.

D'Arcy continues: 

"The attempt to respect both sides fell more than flat among critics, including many readers of previous posts here this week on the statement."

It never ceases to amaze me how people try to talk about this issue as if it could be "fair and balanced." Since when do we consider and respect "both sides" of female circumcision?

She continues: 

"Few addressed the issue of religious freedom or that faith is central to many parents who chose to circumcise."

That's funny, "religious freedom" doesn't seem to be an issue when condemning female circumcision, not that faith is central to the parents who have "chosen" to circumcise. While "religious freedom" and "parental choice" can be used to legitimize male circumcision, when talking about female circumcision, these arguments go out the window.

But more to the point, what does the fact that some people see circumcision as a religious requirement have to do with standard of care doctors use for treating children who don't even come from a religious background?

Since when does the AAP concern itself with appeasing a parent's faith over the health and well-being of children?

In my opinion, not much further than that members of the AAP can capitalize. Let us not forget that not too long ago, the AAP tried endorsing a "ritual nick" for girls.

For this second piece, D'Arcy reiterate's Diekema:

“For individuals who have decided that circumcision is wrong, no amount or quality of data will put these questions to rest…”

Diekema and D'Arcy want to pretend like it’s all about “research” and “benefits.”

Readers, ponder this for a moment; at least ostensibly, the ethics of cutting off normal, healthy tissue from a healthy, non-consenting minor was decided on a “cost-benefit” analysis that, supposedly, erred in favor it.

The unspoken and disconcerting implication seems to be that the forced genital cutting of female minors could one day be legitimized, if enough “research” and “quality data” said that it was “harmless,” even “beneficial, when performed by a trained professional member of the AAP/ACOG.”

This is a textbook case of sexist special pleading; there will never be enough “quality data” that would ever justify the smallest “ritual nick,” as the AAP found out not too long ago.

And yet, Diekema has the nerve to dismiss advocates of male genital integrity using a sound bite that may as well apply to himself, and D'Arcy has the nerve to reiterate it.

Projection much?

D'Arcy is intent on reaffirming the false reality of which she want to convince her readers:

"It remains to be seen if rates will continue to decline and which will have more sway among new parents: the pediatricians group or the fierce reaction to their new advice."

Pitting "expert professionals" against "the angry mob" is a disingenuous misrepresentation of reality. Absent from these smear pieces is the fact that the AAP is stepping out of line of Western medicine.

The fact of the matter is, the trend of opinion on routine male circumcision is overwhelmingly negative in industrialized nations. The most respected medical board in the world all have access to the same data as the AAP, and yet there is not a single one that recommends circumcision for infants, not even in the name of HIV prevention. They must all point to the risks, and they must all state that there is no convincing evidence that the benefits outweigh these risks. To do otherwise would be to take an unfounded position against the best medical authorities of the West, as the AAP has done in their latest "statement."

It would be more honest of D'Arcy to paint the whole picture, not just the angle that favors the AAP, and quite possibly her own bias.

These articles follow the AAP press script closely, giving canned answers to scripted questions. Either D'Arcy is in the pockets of the AAP and she rehearsed her lines well, or she really is that out of touch with reality.

Leave it to American reporters to investigate an issue to the fullest.

Read what this expert is saying; he is an ethicist and does a much better job than Diekema. The AAP ought to consider him for their "task force." (Something tells me they're not letting people who can actually debate the issue in...)

CIRCUMCISION: The Washington Post Folds to the PrePex Ad Campaign

On my last post, I talked about how the BBC basically ran a paid ad for the PrePex circumcision device using claims based on dubious studies, as well as unfounded myth, and the conflict of interest of the CEO of the company who markets PrePex. Upon further inspection, one can see that the video was not only a paid ad by PrePex, it is a clip of the show "The Health Show," which is sponsored by none other than Bill Gates. (One can see this in the caption under the video.)

The plot thickens.

On my last post, other readers have commented that they are unable to see the video hosted by the BBC. According to my comments, Brits get a message that the video is not visible in their area, this despite the fact that they are IN the UK, and they all pay a license fee. It sounds like PrePex and Bill Gates had a target audience in mind, and they're using technicalities to keep Brits from seeing the content. Could it be that they know Brits, who are for the most part intact, would call bullshit and protest?

Now, it seems, PrePex and Circumcision Inc. are trying to expand their business, and are having news outlets run paid ads that masquerade as "news" for them. A few days ago, the Washington Post ran an article that's basically another paid ad for circumcision and the PrePex device. This time, instead of being pushed by the PrePex CEO, the ad came in the form of an article by Agnes Binagwaho, the Minister of Health of the Republic of Rwanda, who appeared on the BBC video promoting circumcision. Apparently she's a recipient of an honorary PhD in sciences from Dartmouth University" for her "lifetime achievement in treating and preventing AIDS." (Which means she isn't even a real PhD.)

Agnes Binagwaho ought to be ashamed of herself. On the "The Health Show" clip hosted by the BBC, she spouts off how "circumcision reduces the risk of HIV transmission by 60%" as if it were matter of fact. How does she know this? Who exactly is she to be making this value judgment? An "honorary PhD?" Is Dartmouth University CRAZY? Did she get this because she's so interested in preventing AIDS? Or did she get this because she agreed to push circumcision?

Here she is on Washington Post, and earlier on the BBC seeking acquiescence to the dubious claim that circumcision "reduces the risk of HIV by 60%," by peddling a device that is supposed to make circumcision "easier and faster." You'd think this were a paid informercial.

Actually, I think this is precisely what this is.

On the BBC, Binagwaho is accompanied by Tzameret Fuerst, CEO of the company that sells the PrePex device (who also happens to be the wife of the inventor of the device). Conflict of interest much? It doesn't help much that video on the BBC is a clip from "The Health Show," who also just happens to be funded by Bill Gates, circumcision promoter extraordinaire.

There is not a doubt in my mind that if we look behind who's behind this paid ad we'll find the same people. I'd bet that if we were to check out this woman's paychecks, they'd all be signed by Med CircTech, Bill Gates, PEPFAR etc.

I don't trust this woman further than I can throw her. She is a paid puppet and she has absolutely no idea what she's talking about. Is this woman not aware that, according to a demographic health survey taken in 2005,  the ratio of circumcised vs. intact men who contracted HIV was 3.8 vs 2.1. in her own country? According to a 2010 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine, rates of HIV among adults in Washington, D.C. exceed 1 in 30; rates higher than those reported in Rwanda. (In America, 80% of the male population is circumcised from birth.) It is disconcerting that the Health Minister is either not aware of the facts, or she is deliberately ignoring them.

If circumcision is so effective at preventing HIV, why isn't this effect evident in other countries that circumcise? According to USAID, HIV transmission was higher among circumcised men in 10 out of 18 countries. Why are HIV transmission rates higher in America, where 80% of the men are circumcised from birth, than in Europe, where circumcision is rare?

This is nothing but a paid advertisement for Med CircTech, who is trying to ride the circumcision/HIV gravy train. This woman is no real authority on epidemiology, surgery, urology or even pediatrics. The Washington Post should be ashamed for agreeing to publish this disgusting rubbish infomercial that isn't even fit for television. SHAME on you Agnes Binagwaho, you are a sellout to your own country. SHAME on you, Washington Post, you are a sellout to decent journalism.