Showing posts with label male circumcision. Show all posts
Showing posts with label male circumcision. Show all posts

Saturday, May 5, 2018

Latest Pro-Circumcision Dismission Tactic: Accusations of "Mansplaining"

"I'm big and you're small, I'm right and you're wrong,
and there's nothing you can do about it!" ~Agatha Trunchbull

"Mansplaining" is a neologism coined to describe the phenomenon of men talking over and down to women, particularly in the case of a man pretending to explain to a woman what she already knows, in a manner that's condescending or patronizing, even if it's her field of expertise.

Like when a man tries to lecture a woman on how her own reproductive system works, or about the challenges she faces as a woman in the workplace, etc.

It's understandable.

The phenomenon is real, it's a legit issue, and there needs to be a word to address it.

The problem, however, is that the term has become so overused in almost any situation to the point that it has lost its usefulness, as now it seems it has come to mean just any time a man tries to explain something and a woman is inconvenienced.

A cheap shut-down and attempt at dismissal.

If a person is explaining or stating something and a woman doesn't want to hear it, because she is actually wrong, and that person happens to be male, all a woman has to do is accuse the person of "mansplaining."

Conversation over.

She wins by virtue of having a vagina.

The term can also be used by a male trying to assert his feminism, in order to dismiss any man daring to challenge a woman. (There may be ulterior motives for a man trying to come off as "feminist." Hugo Schwyzer comes to mind.)

Recently on twitter, one Dr. Jennifer Gunther roused the ire of intactivists by making idiotic statements about male circumcision.

I can't quote her on here now because I've been blocked myself.

Apparently she is in favor of it, citing all the usual tripe. (Prevents this and that, children don't remember it, men aren't adversely affected by it, blah blah blah...)

But when intactivists start challenging her on it, she starts blocking them.

Apparently she can't finish what she starts.

It's funny, because she recently wrote an Op-Ed in the New York Times titled: "My Vagina is Terrific: Your Opinion of It Is Not" with the saucy subtitle: "I dared to discuss my anatomy. Men couldn't handle it."

While she feels men don't get to talk about her vagina, she certainly feels entitled to talk about men's penises.

And while men "couldn't handle" her discussing her anatomy, it sounds like she can't handle men talking about theirs.

Adorable.

I wasn't one to let an idiot doctor get away with spewing unmitigated bullshit, so I chimed in with this:


Not to let the woman with the terrific vagina be outdone by the male intactivist (and possibly to score feminist brownie points), another male Twitter user attempts to dismiss me with the following:


There are a few things wrong with this attempt at a dismissal.

First and foremost, the irony of having a woman explain male anatomy and circumcision to males seems to escape him.

Second, male anatomy is outside of the expertise of OB/GYNs, whose field of expertise is the female reproductive system.

And third, yes, doctors have a professional responsibility dispense factually correct information, preferably within the purview of their field of expertise.

If men pontificating on the female reproductive system, female genitals, and/or what a woman's experience is can be called "mansplaining," what is it called when a woman attempts to dictate to men about the male reproductive system, their penises, and what their experience will be?

What is it called when a woman who neither has a penis, nor is circumcised, attempts to dictate what the experience of either circumcised sex will be?

And what is it called when a doctor tries to sound informed on a topic outside the purview of  her field of expertise?

An OB/GYN's field of expertise is the female reproductive system and has no business touching the genitals of male babies.

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

Why?

It must be asked, how is it they're performing circumcisions on healthy, non-consenting male infants and legally getting away with it?

It was cute.

Real cute of Mr. Michael Busch to try and play the mansplaining card to try and silence and dismiss intactivists.

Not today.

If Dr. Jen can talk about her vagina, then I can talk about my dick.

If men are the least people to be commenting on women's bodies, then Dr. Jen and other women need to shut up about men's dicks.

Circumcision concerns male genitals, something Dr. Gunter does not have and whose field of expertise does not concern.

I have a penis.

Of all people I am entitled to talk.

It's ironic to be accused of mansplaining for calling out an OB/GYN for womansplaining to males about their genitals.

Not a man, not even a medical expert on male genitalia.

Dr. Gunter should stick to vulvas and vaginas and leave children’s penises alone

I'm going to affix some definitions to the term "womansplaining":

When a woman lectures intact men about their uncircumcised penises, how "dirty" they are, how much more difficult it is for them to stay clean, prevent diseases etc., etc.

When a woman who isn’t circumcised and comes from a country where girls and women are legally protected from forced genital cutting lectures men about male organs and circumcision, and has the nerve to give men patronizing advice on how they should be grateful they’re circumcised because it’s "cleaner," "healthier," etc.

Here are other terms I think should make the English lexicon:

clitsplaining:
 When a woman who isn't circumcised tries to lecture others about the horrors of female circumcision, as well as the "benefits" of male circumcision, even though she has a clitoris, doesn't know what it's like not to have one, much less what it feels like to be a circumcised male

Perhaps we also need the term "vulva appropriation" to describe a western woman who is not circumcised and claims to speak for all circumcised women, even though most circumcised women are quite happy with their status?


 A circumcised African woman speaking for herself

 Circumcised Malaysian woman speaking her mind

female privilege:

Having laws that protect only your sex from forced genital cutting, religious or not

Being able to say “My body, my choice” and “My child, my choice” regarding male infant circumcision in the same breath.

Decrying FGM, even while there is a federal law against it, while telling angry circumcised men that male circumcision is "harmless," that you prefer circumcised penises, that they should “get over it” and say they’re “mansplaining” when they don’t shut up.

Having entire organizations raising awareness of FGM, and then having the nerve to ask “Why is male circumcision becoming mainstream? Why does this have to be about penises?”

Being able to say female genital cutting is deserving of attention, but male genital cutting should be ignored.


circumsplaining:

When circumcised men, or women who think they speak for circumcised men, to lecture intact men about their uncircumcised penises, how "dirty" they are, how much more difficult it is for them to stay clean, prevent diseases etc., etc.

Male readers, whenever anyone, man or woman, accuses you of mansplaining for educating an ignorant woman about your own genitals, don't let it slide.

Instead, point out the shameless womansplaining and female privilege going on.

Calling you a "mansplainer" is an attempt to make you silent.

Don't be.

Instead, fire back:
 "My Penis is Terrific: Your Opinion of It Is Not"

#mansplaning #womansplaining #malecircumcision #femaleprivilege #clitsplaining #vulvaappropriation #OBGYN #circumcision #i2


Related Post:
The Circumcision Blame Game

Saturday, August 26, 2017

Self-Serving FGM Myths That Persist


It's been a while, and I was thinking a post on my blog is long overdue. Believe it or not, your blogger does have a life outside of intactivism; a family to raise, bills to pay, a job to be at. I really wish I had more time to dedicate to this, as I believe it to be a worthy cause.

At any rate, this post was touched off by a recent private message war on Facebook.

It seems that people that both defend the forced circumcision of males, but oppose the forced circumcision of females have an arsenal of canned responses that they're ready to fire off at any given moment. Furthermore, it seems that they haven't given these responses much thought, for upon further investigation, one can see the logical fallacies in their arguments.

It never ceases to amaze me how the same person can present an argument in favor of male infant circumcision, but for whatever reason, the same argument fails when used in favor of female circumcision, and vice versa, an argument used against female circumcision that would also work against male circumcision, but for whatever reason, doesn't apply.



One can witness male circumcision apologists trying their hardest to have it both ways, going through mental gymnastics to make their arguments work.

I shall talk about the points raised in my latest exchange on Facebook Messenger without naming any names to save the person embarrassment.
"Americans do not practice barbaric, pointless practices that leave females in pain for the rest of their lives like genital mutilation also commonly called "female circumcision"."

Here are the myths this statement is imbued with:
  • Male infant circumcision isn't barbaric
  • Male infant circumcision isn't pointless
  • Female circumcision always results in pain for the rest of their lives
  • Only forced female genital cutting can be euphemised with the word "circumcision"

This statement is rather flawed, because it relies on a straw-man argument. FGM is "barbaric and pointless mutilation" because it "it leaves females in pain for the rest of their lives."

While FGM does have disastrous results in some cases, this simply isn't true for most women. Even the WHO acknowledges that there are varying degrees of severity for FGM, and that the worst form of FGM, also known as "infibulation," or "pharaonic circumcision," is actually the rarest. A New York Times article says it is as low as 15%. Actually, most women in Africa who have been circumcised don't complain, according to Catania and Johnsdotter. The majority of women in countries like Malaysia and Indonesia are circumcised, and, like American parents regarding male circumcision, they don't see what the big deal is.


A circumcised African woman sounding off

A circumcised Malaysian woman speaking her mind

This is important to point out, because some of the biggest arguments that advocates use to justify the forced genital mutilation of boys in America are that:
  • Boys don't remember what happened to them as infants
  • Adult men don't complain
  • Adult men enjoy sex (the converse argument being that circumcised women don't)

Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. The same argument that would justify male infant circumcision would justify female infant circumcision, but it somehow just doesn't, or people would rather continue to belief myths that simply aren't reality, because what is true for adult circumcised in America, is true for adult circumcised women in say, Malaysia, Indonesia and countries in Africa.

So it must be asked.

Is pain and/or whether or not it can be remembered in adulthood what makes the forced genital cutting of minors "barbaric, pointless mutilation?"

Is pain and whether or not it can be remembered the issue here?
The fact is that most men weren't circumcised as infants. That's an American or Jewish phenomenon. Most men who are circumcised in the world are circumcised at later ages, when they can remember what is happening to them. I don't hear anyone decrying the fact that scores of men die yearly in initiation rituals in Africa.

A girl is circumcised in Bandung, Indonesia
"BARBARIC AND POINTLESS MUTILATION!"

A boy is circumcised in the same city.
"Nothing to see here... He can still have sex. It's OK."


On with the next part of my exchange:
"If male circumcision was anything like this female "circumcision" practiced in parts of the world, they would have their entire penis removed and not just a flap of skin that can get constricted later in life."

Here are the myths this statement is imbued with:
  • Female circumcision is all one and the same
  • All female circumcision completely removes the equivalent of the entire penis
  • The foreskin in males is merely a flap of skin that can and usually always does, get constricted later in life
  • The potential for problems is enough to justify the removal of a body part

Even the WHO recognizes that there are varying degrees of severity of female circumcision, and that not all remove the clitoris, which the person wants to equate here, with the entire shaft of the penis. As I have already said above, the worst kind of FGM is actually the rarest form.

The question then becomes, would FGM variations that are as severe, or even less severe than male circumcision as it is justified in the United States, be justified?

Is FGM justified so long as it is as severe, or less severe than male infant circumcision as we know it?

I invited the person arguing with me to look at this paper published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, where authors propose just that. Not too long ago, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) itself tried to justify what they called a "ritual nick."

The fact of the matter is that, even in the most severe cases of FGM, it is simply impossible for the clitoris to be removed in its entirety from the female vulva. As Catania argues, only the tip of the clitoris can ever be removed, leaving plenty of clitoris behind in a woman for sexual stimulation. Even women who have undergone infibulation are still able to enjoy sex and experience orgasm. The claim that female genital cutting renders a woman a sexual cripple for the rest of her life is simply categorically false.

Diagram of internal female anatomy taken from Wikipedia
    Other facts that I invited this person to observe are that worldwide, 70% of males are intact, and that there simply isn't an epidemic of men experiencing the "problems" she presents. I invited this person to consider that other body parts are susceptible to disease, but that they aren't removed at birth. 1 in 8 American women will be diagnosed with breast cancer. 1 in 6 American men will be diagnosed with prostate cancer. The rate of men developing problems that may require surgical correction is approximately 1%.

    The external labia are also "flaps of skin," which could be affected by disease and infection. It is one of the areas affected by cancer. So should these be removed as well?

    I'd like to point out to my readers how the argument that "it could cause problems later on" only works when addressing the male foreskin.

    Continuing with my exchange:
     "Males with constricted foreskins have to have the foreskin removed or face serious infections."

     Myths repeated here:
    • The foreskin is prone to problems
    • The problem is usually a constricted foreskin
    • All men with constricted foreskins develop problems including serious infections

    I keep asking people to look at reality. Because what is that reality? That 70% of all men in the world are intact, and that there simply isn't an epidemic of constricted foreskins and "serious infections."

    The fact of the matter is that true phimosis is actually quite rare, occurring at a rate of about 1%. Some men may have non-retractile foreskins that have nothing to do with phimosis, but the majority of these men live their lives with no problems. Infections, when they occur, can usually be taken care of with conventional medicine, just as they are taken care of in women, when they develop infections.
    Some men do need surgery, but these cases are rare. What is the reason for the exaggeration? The person is trying to justify male circumcision. Of course, inner and outer labia have their own problems and diseases they are prone to, and some women must have them removed, but let's not talk about why early removal of them in girls is justified.
    The exchange continues:
     "Having the foreskin removed is what male circumcision involves while in female circumcision, they basically cut deep into an area full of nerves and blood vessels, a very horrible, completely barbaric practice that serves no rational purpose. It is only cruel in every way imaginable."
    Myth purported:
    • The foreskin is not an area full of nerves and blood vessels
    Really?

    I want readers to notice how hyperbole is quite justified when speaking out against female circumcision, as is minimization when speaking in favor of male infant circumcision. The opposite is true; any attempt at minimizing FGM is met with hostility, and speaking about any detriment to male infant circumcision is "hyperbole."

    Female circumcision is horrible, completely barbaric, serves no rational purpose, and only cruel in every way imaginable. Really? That's not what people who do it think. I hope it's obvious now that the grounds on which female circumcision is attacked, and on which male circumcision is defended is all self-serving special pleading. The conflicting rationale that only works for or against the circumcision of one sex are a necessary result of cognitive dissonance; the mental acrobatics necessary to holding two conflicting thoughts in the mind.

    Research shows that the most sensitive area on a man's penis is in the transitional region from the external to the internal part of the foreskin, also known as the mucocutaneous junction, and that this is removed by circumcision. 

    Diagram from Sorrells et al. study on penile sensitivity

    Of course, the foreskin is also an area full of nerves and blood vessels, 20,000 nerves to be exact, however, in the mind of the person I'm having this exchange with, it isn't a problem to cut these off in boys.

    The person persists and responds, recycling the same rationale, and repeating what this person already said before in even louder tones:
    Saying that you can still have an orgasm if your clitoris is cut off is like saying that you can still use your arm if it is cut off.  Yes, you can still have vaginal orgasms as one still has a vagina.  However, a female can't have a clitoral orgasm if they have no clitoris and truth is that most females have clitoral orgasms far easier & more frequently than vaginal orgasms.

    Why does anyone try to make excuses and make up lies to defend female genital mutilation where the truth is that there is no excuses for clitoris removal regardless!  It is equivalent to removing a male's penis head where most of a male's nerves in his sexual pleasure zones are located.
    Even after I presented evidence the contrary the following myths persist:
    • Orgasm and/or sexual enjoyment is simply impossible without a clitoris
    • The clitoris is always and completely removed during FGM
    • Intactivists are trying to defend FGM
    • Clitoral removal is equivalent to removing the glans penis in the male
    • The glans is where most of a male's nerves in his sexual pleasure zones are located
    They say you can take a man to knowledge, but you can't make him think.

    Science and research are proving all these myths to be false, yet they persist.

    It is actually possible to orgasm after losing the glans. There are videos of men ejaculating post penectomy. (Go to X-Tube and search "penectomy.") It is also interesting to note that transsexuals who undergo surgery are still able to enjoy sex without their penises.

    Not that this justifies cutting off children's penises in any way; I'm just trying to dispel the "can't enjoy sex" myth and why it fails as any arguing point.

    Let's explore this idea that removing part of the body doesn't affect its function.

    You can still see with one eye. You can still taste if I cut off the tip of your tongue. Who sees better though? Who tastes better? Likewise, who feels more? Who has better sensations?

    The bottom line
     Is it truly a matter "severity?"

    Because even the WHO recognizes that not all FGM removes the clitoris. The WHO and AAP acknowledge that some forms of FGM are as severe, if not less severe than male infant circumcision.

    Is it a matter of "pain?"

    Because women circumcised as infants don't remember it either. And girls can be anesthetized as males can be.

    Is it a matter of sexual enjoyment?

    Because the great majority of circumcised women will tell you they enjoy sex and can orgasm just fine, just as the great majority of circumcised men will tell you.

    The bottom line is this:
    Unless there is clear medical or clinical indication, the forced genital cutting of ANYONE is a gross violation of basic human rights.
    Arguments that only work in favor or against forced circumcision of one sex, but not the other, are self-serving, ad-hoc, special pleading.

    Even if female circumcision could be made "painless," and "less severe" than male circumcision, it would still be wrong.

    Even if it could be proven that female circumcision would prevent scary diseases like HIV and cancer, forcibly doing it to non-consenting girls or women would still be wrong.

    When an action is a basic human rights violation, how much sex a person can still enjoy afterward is secondary, if not irrelevant.

    Friday, July 7, 2017

    FACEBOOK: Circumcision Regret Mom Shares Son's Story

     

    I ran across the rant of a circumcision regret mom on my Facebook news feed and thought it would be worth a post on my blog.

    Advocates of circumcision are always trying to minimize the risks and complications of male infant circumcision. "The risks are minimal," they say, without really getting into any detail.

    But what are those risks?

    The risks of male infant circumcision include infection, partial or full ablation, hemorrhage and even death.

    It is difficult to come up with concrete numbers for many reasons, namely that doctors and hospitals are not required to report the number of adverse outcomes in circumcision, the complications are often attributed to something else, and parents are complicit with doctors in keeping complications under wraps. At 1.3 million circumcisions a year, male infant circumcision is a money-maker, and thus doctors and hospitals have financial incentive to minimize adverse male infant circumcision outcomes.

    But there's a risk that is not often talked about, even though, according to research, it is fairly common, particularly in circumcised males; meatal stenosis, a narrowing of the urethra which makes it difficult to urinate.

    I'm not going to say much on this post; I will merely copy/paste the rant, and cite research on the topic immediately following that.

    All I will say is that ANY risk is unconscionable, given that male infant circumcision is elective, non-medical surgery on a healthy, non-consenting individual.

    The mother's rant was as follows:

    Meatal Stenosis. What?
    Does your son have it? Do you know what it is?
    I didn't, 6 years ago. I'd never heard of it until I started learning about infant circumcision harm, far too late, I might add, to protect my son.
    Meatal Stenosis, 100% caused by circumcision.
    It's a good thing that I do now. It could have saved my eldest son's life.

    Studies Have shown approx. up to 26% of circumcised males develop it- at least 81% in some communities(Israel), experts believe.
    I learned about it because of the volunteer work that I do, although he didn't present with typical symptoms. The pediatric urologist told my husband that he was lucky I caught it. I wasn't sure, it was only my instinct and knowledge that saved him. He has it severely, btw. (Edited to add, the pediatric Urologist of nearly 20 years, does about 10+ of these a week, and has NEVER done one on an intact child).
    Would you have caught it in your son? Do you know what the symptoms are?

    Tomorrow my son has to have a surgery.
    A surgery he should never have to have, CAUSED because of the vicious amputation he should NEVER have had to suffer within a day or two of his life. Circumcision.

    I will ALWAYS speak out to protect those that can be spared the agony he had to, and has to, endure because a Father wanted the same for his son. He was a victim too. The same old story.....

    I will ALWAYS speak out to help STOP this scourge in America.
    I will ALWAYS speak out to protect Babies that can't speak or scream 'NO!'.
    'Unfriend' me if you are tired of seeing my posts. I, however, am tired of seeing babies suffer, endure years of agony and even death. I'm so tired of it. Tired of seeing MY baby suffer. It makes me nauseous. I have regretted not fighting harder for the last 6 years, and to make it up to him, I will fight till my last breath.
    Informed consent? They didn't mention one of the many complications, including Meatal stenosis, to us when we had to sign. That is NOT informed consent. That's deceit.
    Were you told?

    Fu*k you circumcison. See you in the grave clamps.

    That said, here are links to the research, as well as relevant quotes:

    "The condition is called meatal stenosis and the risk of developing it is 16-26 times higher in circumcised than intact boys under the age of ten.

    Meatal stenosis can occur several years after circumcision, and may lead to infection if left untreated. The only solution is a minor operation under general anaesthesia."
    "Meatal stenosis is markedly more common in circumcised than genitally intact males, affecting 5–20 per cent of circumcised boys."
    "Meatal stenosis as a complication is often missed by the clinician because children do not usually have late follow-up after circumcision. The symptoms of pain are often mistaken for symptoms of a lower urinary tract infection and symptoms of distal urethral impairment of urinary flow are usually ignored for many months until parents witness the child's voiding habit."
    "Meatal stenosis is a relatively common acquired condition with a symptomatic presentation that occurs in 9-10% of males who are circumcised; the frequency may be ashigh as 20% after circumcision if the condition is defined as a meatal diameter of less than 5 French."
    "Circumcision is one of the most common surgical operations throughout the world, and meatal stenosis is one its late complications."

    Related Posts:
    GUEST AUTHOR: Meatal Stenosis

    JOHNS HOPKINS: Meatal Stenosis Article Scrubbed from Website

    Sunday, June 18, 2017

    AFRICA: PEPFAR Taking Advantage of Father's Day to Push Circumcision


    It seems circumcision advocates will take any and every opportunity to graft circumcision into any and every conversation.

    It's surprising the claim that bing circumcised "reduces the risk" of Ebola hasn't been made yet.

    I was scrolling through my Facebook newsfeed when I run into this shit.





    They took Father's Day and used it as an opportunity to promote circumcision.

    The way male circumcision, perhaps even HIV, is mashed up with Father's Day seems rather forced and contrived, one thing not having to do with each other.

    At its simplest reduction, the message is, Happy Father's Day, reduce HIV, get circumcised.

    It's like oil and water.

    It sounds like the people in charge of PEPFAR PR have run out of ways to bang the circumcision pot.

    What does Father's Day have to do with HIV prevention?

    And what does circumcision have to do with anything?

    The message is as convoluted as you can get.

    Good Fathers Get Tested and Circumcised Before Cheating
    Fathers, who are assumed to be living with their families, have to "do their part" to prevent HIV transmission, by getting tested and getting circumcised.

    Stay with me here.

    Why would fathers need to do this, other than the assumption that fathers are expected to be promiscuous and unfaithful?

    Possibly having sex with their children? (How else would fathers spread a sexually transmitted disease to their children?)

    Happy Father's Day, you dirty slut.

    Yay.

    That ought to make fathers feel warm and fuzzy inside.

    Accepting It's OK To Assume Fathers Will Be Promiscuous...
    OK, now taking as a given that it's perfectly fine to assume fathers are going to sleep around and engage in risky sexual practices with their children, why circumcision?

    Why the need to graft the far-removed subject male circumcision into the conversation?

    I can only imagine what is going through the PEPFAR worker's mind.

    Father's Day is as good time as any to talk about HIV prevention. (Because, again, what says "diligent father" than a man who goes out on his family and children to engage in risky sexual practices?)

    And nothing prevents HIV transmission better than HIV (except maybe condoms and refraining from risky sexual practices, e.g., going out on your wife).

    Ergo, Father's Day is ipso-facto a good day to promote male circumcision.

    It makes perfect sense!

    How Much Longer?
    How long is this farce of pretending to be interested in HIV prevention and men's health when the real reason is to defend the forced genital cutting that goes on back in our own country going to go on?

    When are other medical authorities around the world going to denounce the promotion of "mass circumcision campaigns" as the scientific profanity and crime against humanity that it is?

    Male Circumcision Does Not, Cannot Prevent HIV Transmission
    Even if the "research" held any water (it's replete with flaws), circumcision would only "reduce" the risk of HIV transmission from female to male by 60%.

    What is the risk of a female getting HIV from an HIV positive man who has sex with her without a condom?

    What power does she have to demand her man wear a condom, if her man believes he is "protected" by circumcision?

    Circumcision as HIV prevention FAILS.

    This is why circumcised men and their partners must be compelled to continue to use condoms.

    A good father remains FAITHFUL to his wife, thereby preventing HIV transmission to her and/or any future children.

    What kind of message does "going for circumcision" send?

    That he intends to sleep around and possibly contract the disease?

    And what further that it say?

    That a father may infect his daughter somehow?

    Circumcision does NOT BELONG in a message congratulating fathers on this day

     It tarnishes the message of PEPFAR, it tarnishes Father's Day.

    How absolutely disgusting that circumcision advocates are taking this opportunity to promote a dubious, failed HIV prevention method.

    In America, 80% of men are all circumcised. Yet, according to the CIA World Factbook, we have a higher HIV prevalence than 53 countries where circumcision is rare or not practiced.

    If circumcision "reduces HIV transmission," this is not evident in America.

    It's not evident in 10 out of 18 African countries, where HIV is more prevalent among the circumcised.

    Why is PEPFAR pushing this?

    What does promoting HIV prevention have to do with Father's Day?

    What message does it send?

    SHAME on PEPFAR.

    Lately, president Trump has been canceling programs that don't put "America First."

    I hope President Trump defunds this next.

    Using millions if not billions of our tax dollars to push dubious forms of HIV prevention that have never worked, to push insulting and dangerous propaganda is a complete waste of money.

    Related Posts:
    10 Years Later, UNAIDS Still Hell Bent on Circumcising Africa

     Related Posts:

    Where Circumcision Doesn't Prevent HIV II

    UNITED STATES: Infant Circumcision Fails as STI Prophylaxis
    CIRCUMCISION "RESEARCH": Rehashed Findings and Misleading Headlines

    MASS CIRCUMCISION CAMPAIGNS: The Emasculation and Harassment of Africa

    Posts on how circumcision may actually be worsening the HIV problem:


    Posts on underhanded circumcision "upscale strategies" BOTSWANA: Men Shunning Circumcision a "Mistery"


    AFRICA: Creating Circumcision "Volunteers"
     
    AFRICA: NGO's Taking Children from School to Circumcise Them Without Parents' Knowledge
    MALAWI: USAID-Funded Program Kidnapping Children for Circumcision - Boy Loses Penis

    Tuesday, June 13, 2017

    FACEBOOK: Another Baby Fighting For His Life Post Circumcision


    This was in my Facebook news feed today:

    TRAGEDY IN AMERICA, A BABY BORN May 23rd, 2017, FIGHTING FOR HIS LIFE: "A beautiful boy, with a head full of gorgeous hair: Two weeks after his birth, during circumcision, strep passed the blood barrier and he became septic. He now has sepsis, pneumonia, and bacterial meningitis, with seizures. Neurology has put him on antiseizure meds. A feeding tube into his belly and breathing assistance from a ventilator." ~Mom's statements, current as of today, Tuesday, June 13, 2017
    These keep happening. (See the list of other posts to similar stories down below.)

    What else can I say?

    The risks of circumcision include infection, partial or full ablation, hemorrhage and even death.

    The risks are real, American medical organizations keep this information from parents.

    Doctors and hospitals are not legally obligated to report adverse circumcision outcome, and guilty parents are complicit in keeping the death of their child who died from needless surgery under wraps.

    American medical organizations often minimize the risks and complications of male infant circumcision, but who is actually counting?

    Can we actually trust the numbers they give us, given that a great majority of their members profit from male infant circumcision, and their duty is to the well-being of their MEMBERS?

    Given that doctors and hospitals are not required to report this information?

    And even if the risks were as low as they say, how is anything above ZERO conscionable for elective, non-medical cosmetic surgery on a healthy, non-consenting child?

    The risks are real, and here is the proof.

    We don't hear about this because they hardly make the news, and they barely surface on social media like Facebook.

    For the same reasons; people want to hide these.

    Slide them under the carpet.

    WHEN IS THIS GOING TO STOP???

    ARE YOU LISTENING AAP?

    ARE YOU LISTENING DOUGLAS DIEKEMA?


    This child's blood is on YOUR HANDS.

    When reports like these surface on Facebook etc. make them go VIRAL.

    ENOUGH OF THIS.

    Related Posts:
     
    Complications that made the news and have surfaced on facebook
     

    CIRCUMCISION BOTCHES: Colombia and Malaysia

    CIRCUMCISION DEATH: This Time in Russia

    FACEBOOK: KENTUCKY - Botched Circumcision Gives Newborn Severe UTI

    FACEBOOK: Circumcision Sends Another Child to NICU - This Time in LA

    GEORGIA: Circumcision Sends a Baby to the NICU

    CIRCUMCISION DEATH: This Time in Italy

    FACEBOOK NEWS FEED: A Complication and a Death

    INTACTIVISTS: Why We Concern Ourselves

    MALE INFANT CIRCUMCISION: Another Baby Boy Dies

    CIRCUMCISION: Another Baby Dies

    CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Yet Another One (I Hate Writing These)

    Another Circumcision Death Comes to Light

    CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Yes, Another One - This Time in Israel

    FACEBOOK: Two Botches and a Death

    CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Child Dies After Doctor Convinces Ontario Couple to Circumcise

    ONTARIO CIRCUMCISION DEATH: The Plot Thickens

    Joseph4GI: The Circumcision Blame Game

    Phony Phimosis: How American Doctors Get Away With Medical Fraud

    FACEBOOK: Two More Babies Nearly Succumb to Post Circumcision Hemorrhage

    FACEBOOK: Another Circumcision Mishap - Baby Hemorrhaging After Circumcision

    What Your Dr. Doesn't Know Could Hurt Your Child

    FACEBOOK: Child in NICU After Lung Collapses During Circumcision

    EMIRATES: Circumcision Claims Another Life

    BabyCenter Keeping US Parents In the Dark About Circumcision

    DOMINICAN REPUBLIC: Circumcision Claims Another Life

    TEXAS: 'Nother Circumcision Botch


    New York Herpes Circumcision Problem:
    NYC: More Herpes Circumcision Cases Since de Blasio Lifted Metzitzah B'Peh Regulations

    BUSTED: Agudath Israel of America's Antics Revealed

    NEW STUDY: Ultra-Orthodox Mohels Don't Give Babies Herpes

    NEW YORK: Two More Herpes Babies, One With HIV

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

    NEW YORK: Yet Another Herpes Baby

    Rabbis Delay NYC's Metzitzah B'Peh Regulations - Meanwhile, in Israel...

    While PACE Holds a Hearing on Circumcision, Another Baby Contracts Herpes in NYC

    Israel Ahead of New York in Recommending Against Metzitzah B'Peh

    New York: Oral Mohel Tests Positive for Herpes

    Herpes Circumcision Babies: Another One? Geez!

    Mohels Spreading Herpes: New York Looks the Other Way

    Circumcision Indicted in Yet Another Death: Rabbis and Mohels are "Upset"

    Friday, May 19, 2017

    MADERA, CA: Another Circumcision Complication


    Saw this on my Facebook news feed.

    This time the circumcision botch happened at Valley Children's Hospital in Madera, CA.

    I keep making these posts. (See links below.)

    What else can I say?

    Male infant circumcision is cosmetic, elective, non-medical surgery.

    The risks of male infant circumcision include infection, partial or full ablation, hemorrhage, and even death.

    It is unconscionable that healthy, non-consenting baby boys are being put at risk for complications for an elective, non-medical, radically altering genital surgery.

    How many of these have to happen?

    Valley Children's Hospital's website is down, but their Facebook page can be accessed here.

    I close with my blog's Mission Statement:

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

    The foreskin is not "extra skin." The foreskin is normal, natural, healthy, functioning tissue, present in all males at birth; it is as intrinsic to male genitalia as labia are to female genitalia.

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

    Without medical or clinical indication, doctors have absolutely no business performing surgery in healthy, non-consenting individuals, much less be eliciting any kind of "decision" from parents, and much less expect to be reimbursed.

    Genital integrity, autonomy and self-determination are inalienable human rights. I am against the forced circumcision of healthy, non-consenting minors because it violates these rights.

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

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

    Relevant Links:


    Complications that made the news and have surfaced on facebook
    CIRCUMCISION BOTCH: Another Post-Circumcision Hemorrhage Case Surfaces on Facebook

    LAW SUIT: Child Loses "Significant Portion" of Penis During Circumcision

    CIRCUMCISION BOTCHES: Colombia and Malaysia

    CIRCUMCISION DEATH: This Time in Russia

    FACEBOOK: KENTUCKY - Botched Circumcision Gives Newborn Severe UTI

    FACEBOOK: Circumcision Sends Another Child to NICU - This Time in LA

    GEORGIA: Circumcision Sends a Baby to the NICU

    CIRCUMCISION DEATH: This Time in Italy

    FACEBOOK NEWS FEED: A Complication and a Death

    INTACTIVISTS: Why We Concern Ourselves

    MALE INFANT CIRCUMCISION: Another Baby Boy Dies

    CIRCUMCISION: Another Baby Dies

    CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Yet Another One (I Hate Writing These)

    Another Circumcision Death Comes to Light

    CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Yes, Another One - This Time in Israel

    FACEBOOK: Two Botches and a Death

    CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Child Dies After Doctor Convinces Ontario Couple to Circumcise

    ONTARIO CIRCUMCISION DEATH: The Plot Thickens

    Joseph4GI: The Circumcision Blame Game

    Phony Phimosis: How American Doctors Get Away With Medical Fraud

    FACEBOOK: Two More Babies Nearly Succumb to Post Circumcision Hemorrhage

    FACEBOOK: Another Circumcision Mishap - Baby Hemorrhaging After Circumcision

    What Your Dr. Doesn't Know Could Hurt Your Child

    FACEBOOK: Child in NICU After Lung Collapses During Circumcision

    EMIRATES: Circumcision Claims Another Life

    BabyCenter Keeping US Parents In the Dark About Circumcision

    DOMINICAN REPUBLIC: Circumcision Claims Another Life

    TEXAS: 'Nother Circumcision Botch


    New York Herpes Circumcision Problem:
    NYC: More Herpes Circumcision Cases Since de Blasio Lifted Metzitzah B'Peh Regulations

    BUSTED: Agudath Israel of America's Antics Revealed

    NEW STUDY: Ultra-Orthodox Mohels Don't Give Babies Herpes

    NEW YORK: Two More Herpes Babies, One With HIV

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

    NEW YORK: Yet Another Herpes Baby

    Rabbis Delay NYC's Metzitzah B'Peh Regulations - Meanwhile, in Israel...

    While PACE Holds a Hearing on Circumcision, Another Baby Contracts Herpes in NYC

    Israel Ahead of New York in Recommending Against Metzitzah B'Peh

    New York: Oral Mohel Tests Positive for Herpes

    Herpes Circumcision Babies: Another One? Geez!

    Mohels Spreading Herpes: New York Looks the Other Way

    Circumcision Indicted in Yet Another Death: Rabbis and Mohels are "Upset"

    Thursday, March 16, 2017

    FGM: Ethiopian Man Deported For Cutting Daughter's Genitals


    According to New York Daily News, an Ethiopian man was deported after serving a 10-year prison sentence for cutting his 2-year-old's daughters genitals with scissors, highlighting American hypocrisy when it comes to genital cutting.

    While this man has been deported for cutting his daughter's genitals, 1.3 million baby boys have their foreskins forcibly cut off at birth.

    While it is taboo to question the practice of male genital cutting, people do not hesitate to openly condemn the practice of female genital cutting.

    There seems to be two different yardsticks when measuring the forcible genital cutting of each sex.

    While forced genital cutting in boys is defended on the grounds of "culture," "religion" and "parental choice," the same alibis fly out the window when it comes to the forced genital cutting of girls.

    While the risks, complications and side-effects of forced male genital cutting are glossed over, if not ignored completely, those who oppose forced female genital cutting highlight and exaggerate them.

    In either case, both of these practices are painted with broad strokes; while forced male circumcision is depicted harmless, benign, and there are ever adverse effects, female circumcision is always depicted as harmful, and its effects are always adverse, with every female, every time.

    It is not my intention to justify female circumcision, because this blogger opposes the forced genital cutting of either sex.

    Rather, my intention is to show simply this:

    Whatever can be said about the forcible cutting of one sex, applies directly to the forcible cutting of the other.

    For this post, I'd like to take excerpts of this report and analyze them.

    "...female genital mutilation [is] a ritualistic practice common in certain parts of the world, but widely condemned in western countries."

    Male genital mutilation, euphemised as "circumcision," is also a ritualistic practice. It is worthy to note that it is common in precisely those same parts of the world where female circumcision, condemned as "mutilation," is practiced.

    It must also be noted that while "holy ritual" seems to be a perfectly good justification for male circumcision, the same does not apply for female circumcision.

    "A young girl's life has been forever scarred by this horrible crime... [t]he elimination of female genital mutilation/cutting has broad implications for the health and human rights of women and girls, as well as societies at large."

    ...says Sean Gallahgher, a director with the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency.

    Of course, when two-year-old male children are circumcised as this girl is, their lives are also scarred forever by this terrible... act. I have to call it an "act" here, because people don't want to condemn it as "crime" as they readily do female circumcision.

    Let's not talk about the fact that boys are circumcised in the same countries girls are, at about the same ages.

    "Ritualistic cutting is common in parts of the Middle East, Africa and Asia and some 200 million women and girls have been subjected to the practice, according to estimates from the World Health Organization."

    Ritualistic cutting for boys is common in those same parts of the world. It's only a problem when it happens to girls.

    "While genital cutting is seen as central to certain communities, WHO notes that the practice often leads to long-term health consequences, such as increased risk of newborn deaths, psychological distress, severe infections and problems urinating. Girls are typically cut before they turn 15."

    This same statement can also be said of male circumcision.

    And here I have to highlight how FGM is being painted with broad strokes.

    The statement says "The WHO notes that the practice *often leads* to long-term health consequences..."

    But doubtlessly, people are going to read this as "always leads" to "long-term health consequences."

    This statement must be clarified, because even the WHO admits that there are various levels of severity when it comes to FGM.

    When it comes to the most absolute brutal form of FGM, which is infibulation, a practice where the protruding part of the clitoris is cut off and the outer labia are cut off and sewn together to leave only a small hole for menstruation, yes, this can result in dire-consequences for the women involved.

    The fact is, however, that infibulation only accounts for about 15% of all FGM cases globally.

    In other parts of the world, such as countries in South East Asia, namely Indonesia, Malaysia, Brunei, Singapore as well as others, the female genital cutting that goes on there is not as severe. The girls and women there typically don't suffer ANY of the consequences noted here.

    In fact, not too long ago, the AAP tried to approve a form of FGM that wouldn't have removed anything. A "ritual nick," as they called it.

    In another recent paper published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, authors called for the legalization of some forms of FGM.

    I'd like to contrast this with how forced male circumcision is treated in the West.

    When "experts" talk about male circumcision, they say it's "mostly harmless" and "seldom results" in adverse effects.

    Of course, most people take this to mean it's "always" harmless, and read that "seldom" part as "never."

    The risks of male infant circumcision are infection, partial or full ablation, hemorrhage, and even death.

    But these risks are always minimized, if ever even talked about.

    While the fact that girls and women often suffer complications because they are circumcised by amateurs using crude utensils like rusty blades and glass shards in the bush is highlighted, we hardly hear of the same complications in males circumcised in the same conditions.

    Every year, scores of men die as a result of their circumcision, and still, scores of others lose their penises to gangrene.

    The boys, men and their families will be "scarred for life," but let's not talk about them.

    After all, who are we to judge ageless tradition?

    Instead, we hear highlighted all the "potential medical benefits" that "might result" from a boy being circumcised.

    We read of all the "rigorous research" that has gone into male circumcision, "showing" that it "could reduce the risk of transmission" of every disease you can name.

    "Research" that involved "thousands of men."

    I have to ask, is there a "right" amount of research that would ever justify the forced genital cutting of girls and women?

    What would we think of "research" where thousands of women had their labia removed, just to see how much STDs they *didn't* get?

    What if the "results" showed that it could "reduce the transmission of HIV" in women by "60%?" Would we allow ourselves to change our minds?

    What if that number were a more persuading "70%?" "80%?" "90%?"

    Yes?

    No?

    Why is it we think differently when it comes to the forced genital cutting of boys?

    The man in this case is being made an example of.

    But while this is happening, why do we turn a blind eye when it comes to male infant circumcision?

    Especially when it comes to complications?

    I'm keeping a growing list of circumcision complications that surface on Facebook and in the news (scroll to the bottom of this post).

    Why don't people care?

    "Thoughts and prayers" for the parents of these poor boys who will be, in the words of Director Sean Gallagher, "scarred for life."

    Deportation for this father, whose daughter is probably alive and well.

    Not too long ago, a mother was forced to sign consent papers for the forced genital cutting of her son.


     Contrast this picture with the one above

    A father is deported for cutting his daughter.

    A mother is jailed, separated from her son and forced to sign his circumcision consent papers.

    While one parent is guilty of mutilating his daughter, another is "guilty" of trying to protect her son.

    Yes, let's not talk about how the boy will be "scarred for life."

    This is the country we live in today.

    "Thousands more have been sent abroad for so-called "vacation cutting" — a human rights violating practice that involves sending American-born females overseas to be cut. More than 380 people have been arrested in the U.S. for facilitating such crimes since 2003, according to ICE."

    Yes, let's pat our selves on the back.

    While we ignore the fact that 1.3 million male baby boys are circumcised in this country a year.

    American medical boards such as the AAP minimize the number of complications regarding male infant circumcision.

    The number presented is a conservative one, at about 2.0%.

    This number is rather questionable, because hospitals are not required to release this data, and because parents are often accomplices with doctors who have reputations to protect to keep this information under wraps, but let's just go with it for the sake of argument.

    Even at 2.0%, with 1.3 million babies circumcised a year, that is still 26,000 baby boys who will have suffered adverse effects.

    How is this conscionable for an elective, non-medical procedure?

    Whose "benefits" are already affordable by less invasive, more effective means?

    Conclusion
    Don't get me wrong; this father is getting what he deserves.


    I am dead against the forcible genital cutting of all sexes.

    However, I will not let this case go by without highlighting American, if not Western hypocrisy on this matter.

    The following questions must be asked:

    How far are actions justified by "culture?"

    Are we picking which "cultures" or "religions" are more important now?

    Is a doctor's duty to practice "medicine," or "culture?"

    Since when are doctors obligated to participate in brokering "culture" or "religion?"

    What other "religious cuttings" are doctors obliged to participate in?

    Shouldn't doctors be sticking to medicine only?

    What about "parental choice?"

    How far are actions justified by "parental choice?"

    How are we deciding what is "abusive" and what is "parenting?"

    How far are doctors supposed to honor the wishes of a parent to have something cut off?

    In the name of "culture?"

    In the name of "religion?"

    Why do we condemn one father for cutting is daughter, while we award another father for wanting to take his son to have his foreskin cut off?

    Shouldn't we be condemning the forced genital cutting of children of BOTH sexes equally?

    Relevant Links:
    Complications that made the news and have surfaced on facebook
    CIRCUMCISION BOTCH: Another Post-Circumcision Hemorrhage Case Surfaces on Facebook

    LAW SUIT: Child Loses "Significant Portion" of Penis During Circumcision

    CIRCUMCISION BOTCHES: Colombia and Malaysia

    CIRCUMCISION DEATH: This Time in Russia

    FACEBOOK: KENTUCKY - Botched Circumcision Gives Newborn Severe UTI

    FACEBOOK: Circumcision Sends Another Child to NICU - This Time in LA

    GEORGIA: Circumcision Sends a Baby to the NICU

    CIRCUMCISION DEATH: This Time in Italy

    FACEBOOK NEWS FEED: A Complication and a Death

    INTACTIVISTS: Why We Concern Ourselves

    MALE INFANT CIRCUMCISION: Another Baby Boy Dies

    CIRCUMCISION: Another Baby Dies

    CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Yet Another One (I Hate Writing These)

    Another Circumcision Death Comes to Light

    CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Yes, Another One - This Time in Israel

    FACEBOOK: Two Botches and a Death

    CIRCUMCISION DEATH: Child Dies After Doctor Convinces Ontario Couple to Circumcise

    ONTARIO CIRCUMCISION DEATH: The Plot Thickens

    Joseph4GI: The Circumcision Blame Game

    Phony Phimosis: How American Doctors Get Away With Medical Fraud

    FACEBOOK: Two More Babies Nearly Succumb to Post Circumcision Hemorrhage

    FACEBOOK: Another Circumcision Mishap - Baby Hemorrhaging After Circumcision

    What Your Dr. Doesn't Know Could Hurt Your Child

    FACEBOOK: Child in NICU After Lung Collapses During Circumcision

    EMIRATES: Circumcision Claims Another Life

    BabyCenter Keeping US Parents In the Dark About Circumcision

    DOMINICAN REPUBLIC: Circumcision Claims Another Life

    TEXAS: 'Nother Circumcision Botch


    New York Herpes Circumcision Problem:
    NYC: More Herpes Circumcision Cases Since de Blasio Lifted Metzitzah B'Peh Regulations

    BUSTED: Agudath Israel of America's Antics Revealed

    NEW STUDY: Ultra-Orthodox Mohels Don't Give Babies Herpes

    NEW YORK: Two More Herpes Babies, One With HIV

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

    NEW YORK: Yet Another Herpes Baby

    Rabbis Delay NYC's Metzitzah B'Peh Regulations - Meanwhile, in Israel...

    While PACE Holds a Hearing on Circumcision, Another Baby Contracts Herpes in NYC

    Israel Ahead of New York in Recommending Against Metzitzah B'Peh

    New York: Oral Mohel Tests Positive for Herpes

    Herpes Circumcision Babies: Another One? Geez!

    Mohels Spreading Herpes: New York Looks the Other Way

    Circumcision Indicted in Yet Another Death: Rabbis and Mohels are "Upset"