Wednesday, December 6, 2017

FACEBOOK: Two Close Calls on my News Feed


Just posting the latest tragedies, or near-tragedies that surfaced on my Facebook news feed.

(Unless there is medical or clinical indication, all male infant circumcision is a tragedy.)

First up, another story where a child nearly bleeds to death. The child is put in the NICU and the doctors had to cauterize the wound to stop the bleeding.


Another child turns black and blue, and is given urine retention problems by his circumcision. Apparently, the boy's bladder had to be drained with a neonatal feeding tube as a catheter.

This happened at Dothan, Alabama.


The poster "doesn't know what they did to cause these issues" (Really? You don't think the fact that the child was needlessly circumcised had ANYTHING to do with it?), but apparently the child now has iatrogenically induced UTI at 4 days old.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again.

I say these things every time I post tragic stories on here.

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

Unless there is medical or clinical indication, circumcision is purely cosmetic, non-medical surgery.

Under any other circumstance, reaping profit from performing non-medical procedures on healthy, non-consenting minors constitutes medical fraud.

Being an elective, non-medical procedure, any risk is unconscionable.

In 2012, the AAP admitted in their circumcision policy statement that the true rate of circumcision risrks is unknown.

What I post here are only stories that have surfaced on Facebook, but doctors and hospitals are not required to report on adverse circumcision outcomes, doctors have financial incentives to misatribute deaths and complications due to circumcision to something else, and parents agree to be complicite to hide their shame.

The risks and complications of circumcision are real, and it should concern Americans that organizations like the AAP are not interested in documenting them.

List of Deaths and Complications Documented on This Blog:
FACEBOOK: Another Baby Fighting For His Life Post Circumcision

MADERA, CA: Another Circumcision Complication

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"

Related Post:
INTACTIVISTS: Why We Concern Ourselves

Thursday, November 16, 2017

"American Circumcision" Wins Best Documentary Film Award at the Lone Star Film Festival


It had been a long time coming.

When I first heard of this film, it was in the making, and I was excited to know that yet another film was being made to raise awareness of the issue that is male infant circumcision, this time focusing on secular circumcision as it is performed by doctors on male infants in America.

The first such film that I ever heard of and I followed was CUT: The Film, by Eliyahu Ungar-Sargon, which examines the subject of male circumcision from a religious, scientific and ethical perspective.


Eliyahu Ungar-Sargon wearing tefillin in protest against the latest AAP Statement


The particular thing about Eliyahu Ungar-Sargon is that grew up in an Orthodox Jewish home, and he criticizes the practice of male infant circumcision as a Jewish male.

This time, the film "American Circumcision" is a film written by a secular, non-Jewish male, who criticizes male infant circumcision as it is practiced in America; 80% of American males are circumcised from birth, and they are overwhelmingly non-Jewish males circumcised at hospitals by doctors.

When I first mentioned Brendon Marotta and his film to other intactivists, their reactions weren't very encouraging.

The reactions tended to be something along the lines of:

"Oh that guy? He's been saying he has a film in the work for years. I wish him the best, but he keeps saying he's about to release his film every year and nothing."

My heart sank.

Something inside me told me that I should still root for this film, though I should not hold my breath.

I joined the relevant groups on Facebook and even became friends with Brendon Marotta on there. Sure enough, updates that the film was "almost finished" always found their way on my news feed. I very recently joined Twitter, where I noticed there was a profile for Brendon, his film and every thing.

As on Facebook, I kept seeing updates that the film was "almost finished," and that they were just getting ready to release it. Little by little, these updates began to blend in with the background as I started to tune them out.

That is, until my eyes caught an update that not only was the film screened at the Lone Star Film Festival, "American Circumcision" won the Best Documentary Film Award!!!


Brendon Marotta holding the Lone Star Film Festival Best Documentary Film Award.

 I couldn't believe my eyes. Could it be true?

I waited for a little longer, and this news was followed by Tweet after Tweet of congratulations, and finally a personal note on his experience with the film's reception.


That's when I decided this news warranted a blog post, especially since the film is scheduled to be screened again at the Social Justice Film Festival in Seattle, Washington, this Sunday, November 19th, appropriately International Men's Day.

And so with this blog post I shout out to Brendon Marotta; congratulation on the completion of your film, and on receiving the Best Documentary Film Award. Your long hours of patient, hard work have paid off. I wish your film much success. May thousands be reached as a result of your work.

Readers interested in viewing the film at the Social Justice Film Festival can purchase admission tickets here. I include the trailer below:




External links:
Official American Circumcision Film Website

Official Social Justice Film Festival Website

#LSFF #SocialJustice #FilmFestival #InternationalMensDay #i2

Wednesday, November 8, 2017

Pulmonologists May Query Child Circumcision Status


Just as I logged onto Facebook today, I was notified that somebody tagged me in a post.

It took me to this. (Original poster's name has been blanked for privacy.)



Apparently, somebody has referenced one of my blog posts and used it to reference yet another possible risk or complication of male infant circumcision.

Here is the text from the Facebook post:

"My son's pulmonologist asked me if he was circumcised. (He's not) When I asked him how that was relevant he replied "Circumcision can cause a lung embolism" I said "He's almost NINE! Wouldn't that have happened during, or sholtly after the circumcision?" He said "Not at all. The trauma of circumcision can show up years, possibly DECADES, later. People never want to see the connection."

Of course, this is only from a post on Facebook and I need more sources to confirm that doctors are asking this, but the point is, this could be yet another adverse effect from an elective, non-medical procedure.

One can only hope the AAP is keeping an eye out.

And perhaps they are, but only to cover the backsides of their members, a great majority of whom profit from the procedure.

Related Post: 
Drs. May Ask If Baby Is Circumcised for a Hearing Test - Here's Why

Tuesday, October 31, 2017

RESEARCH: Male Infant Circumcision Named a Possible SIDS Factor


Intactivists have always known that death is one of the risks of circumcision, much to the chagrin of circumcision advocates who always try to minimize it, if not completely pretend like it's not even there.

The problem with coming up with an accurate number for the risk factor of death from circumcision is that no one is counting, and people have incentive, financial, religious, cultural or otherwise, to keep from counting.

Financial Incentive
1.3 million babies are circumcised annually, and it brings a pretty penny to doctors who perform it, and hospitals who provide male infant circumcision as a service.

Doctors can charge anywhere from $400.00 to $700.00, maybe even more per head, and, at least in Alaska, hospitals can charge up to $2,000.00 in fees.

A malpractice lawsuit for a botch or death due to circumcision would not only cost doctors and hospitals millions, it could mean that respected medical organizations like the AAP would be compelled to condemn the practice, which is such a relatively simple procedure and an easy money maker.

Doctors and hospitals are not required to release this information, and it's not like medical organizations, some with a majority of members who profit from circumcision, are demanding it either.

To cover their tracks, doctors and hospitals may attribute the death caused by a circumcision to secondary causes, such as "hemorrhage" or "septic shock."

Additionally, parents who suffer guilt and regret for signing the consent forms are easily complicit in keeping their child's death under wraps.

"It's difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it." ~Upton Sinclair

Religious Conviction
Male infant circumcision is a closely safe-guarded possession in some religious communities, where the practice of male infant circumcision as a holy sacrament has been under attack for millennia.

Particularly in ultra-orthodox Jewish communities, members have been known to react with hostility when the practice and those who perform it come under scrutiny.

Particularly in New York, male infant circumcision as performed in ultra-orthodox Jewish community has been under the microscope after it has been discovered that mohels (ritual circumcisers) are spreading herpes to babies.

In ultra-orthodox Jewish circumcision, the ritual circumciser sucks the freshly circumcised child's penis directly with his mouth in a ritual procedure known as "metzitzah b'peh".

Some babies have died with herpes as the cause, and still many others have been infected.

When investigators have gone to find details, community members have been known to work together to protect the identities of those involved.

Fear of the Anti-Semite Card
As circumcision is the sensitive issue that it is, gathering data on adverse outcomes and effects of male infant circumcision could be ipso-facto be seen as "anti-Semitic" or "an attack on Judaism," so scientists and researchers may choose to ignore it in order to stay clear of controversy.

Instead of noting deaths and adverse outcomes, doctors and researchers may choose to say that circumcision is a "parental choice," shirking their onus of professional responsibility, and placing it on parents instead.

The recent publication of a research paper on Sudden Infant Death Syndrome (SIDS) factors in a medical journal might be a sign that times are changing, however.

Where No Researcher Has Gone Before
Whereas there have been a few attempts to come up with an estimate on deaths due to male infant circumcision, given the above factors, the numbers anyone can come up with are modest estimates at best.

And while most of these attempts merely attempt to count deaths due to circumcision,  in a recently published article, the authors make the bold move of going as far as to name male infant circumcision as a factor for SIDS.

Other factors, such as preterm birth, non-urgent pediatric surgeries and skin-breaking procedures are mentioned, but entire sections are dedicated to male infant circumcision.

I don't have the time to type a long, drawn-out post as I'd like to, so I'm just going to copy/paste relevant excerpts here.

From the abstract:
 We argue that the important characteristics of SIDS, namely male predominance (60:40), the significantly different SIDS rate among USA Hispanics (80% lower) compared to whites, 50% of cases occurring between 7.6 and 17.6 weeks after birth with only 10% after 24.7 weeks, and seasonal variation with most cases occurring during winter, are all associated with common environmental stressors, such as neonatal circumcision and seasonal illnesses.
From "Background"
Neonatal Circumcision
...
In North America, ~1.2 million male infants are circumcised every year (58) often within the first 2 days of life (59). Although not requiring general anesthesia, circumcision is an intensively painful procedure requiring adequate analgesia (60). Circumcision is associated with intraoperative and postoperative risks, including bleeding, shock, sepsis, circulatory shock, and hemorrhage (6163) that can result in death (63, 64).
This part of the paper doesn't hold back and outright names the known risks and complications, complete with citations.

Infant deaths following religious neonatal circumcision have been known for at least two millennia (65). Talmud (the central text of Rabbinic Judaism) sages ruled in the first centuries A.D. that mothers with two children who have died following the surgery should receive an exemption from circumcising their infants. During the nineteenth century, developments in medical knowledge on one hand and the rise of Jewish “Enlightenment” on the other hand, brought many Jews to reject the authority of the Talmud and with that the practice of circumcision. A new wave of accusations toward Jewish circumcisers (mohels) and rabbis of infant deaths following circumcision soon appeared and prompted community leaders to appeal to the governing authorities to forbid this practice – efforts that were countered by rabbis’ threats to ban the admission of uncircumcised Jewish children from Jewish schools. The fierce arguments about the necessity of the procedure last to this day and led many Jews to opt their infants out of the procedure, including Theodor Herzl, one of the fathers of modern political Zionism (66).

Here, the authors don't shy away from talking about Judaism and death due to circumcision, even ritual circumcision as recorded in Jewish texts.

This is important, because often, Jewish advocates of circumcision like to say how much "safer" male infant circumcision is when a Jewish practitioner performs it.

Here we see that death due to circumcision is documented, and that children die, even when mohels are the ones performing it.

In the UK, Gairdner (67) estimated an annual rate of 16 per 100,000 circumcision-associated deaths for boys under 1-year old in a study that influenced the British government to exclude circumcision coverage from the National Health Service. Remarkably, the SIDS rates in the UK (0.38 per 1000) are much lower than in the USA (0.55 per 1000) (10) where most male infants are circumcised (58). Moreover, most of the deaths in the USA occur in non-Hispanic blacks (83% higher death rate compared with non-Hispanic whites). SIDS rates were 44% lower for Hispanics compared with non-Hispanic whites (68). Interestingly the circumcision rates among Hispanics are about half that of the two other groups (69).

Interesting observations!

This section goes into a lot more detail that I really don't have time to get into here (for this I encourage my readers to go read the paper itself right here), but I feel this last section warrants copy/pasting:

To date, circumcision in the USA, despite being the most common pediatric surgery, has not been subjected to the same systematic scientific scrutiny looking at immediate and delayed adverse effects, including pain [e.g., Ref. (112)], nor has circumcision status been included as part of a thorough SIDS investigation/registry or analyses [e.g., Ref. (2)] in spite of the male predominance of both neonatal circumcision and SIDS. However, based on assessment of risk of harms versus benefit, despite the latter including decreased risk of urinary tract infection (113), the Royal Australasian College of Physicians, the British Medical Association, the Canadian Paediatric Society (87), and several west European medical societies have recommended against routine neonatal circumcision (114), arguing that the benefits of circumcision to children are minimal, non-existent, or outweighed by the risks, and that circumcision is thereby unwarranted. The AAP’s recommendation in favor of this routine (115) has been widely criticized [e.g., Ref. (116)].

This reiterates what I have been saying on my blog all along; at least in the US, no one wants to look at the adverse affects of circumcision and document them. Circumcision is often ignored as a factor in many studies.

We intactivists have been saying it all along, but there is not a single respected medical organization in the West that recommends male infant circumcision based on the current body of medical literature.

The author seems to be oblivious of the fact that the AAP didn't actually recommend male infant circumcision in their 2012 statement, instead saying that "the benefits are not great enough" to recommend male infant circumcision, and shirking professional responsibility on parents instead.

Before concluding, the authors make the three following testable predictions:
  1. Neonatal Circumcision is a Risk Factor for SIDS
  2. Neonatal Circumcision Accounts for a Large Fraction of the Gender Bias in SIDS
  3. Circumcised Premature Infants are at High Risk
Conclusion
It's one thing to come up with a hypothesis and make predictions, and it's quite another to test it to see if the predictions are accurate or not.

Something tells me that there is still going to be some time before researchers actually go through testing this hypothesis, as they may yet feel inhibited by the implications of doing so.

No doubt there are going to be circumcision advocates that are already trying to attack this paper any which way possible, but I hope that the publication of this paper is only the beginning, and that more and more scientists get bold about calling out the elephant in the room that is circumcision, and about going through with testing hypotheses such as this one, and going through with publishing their collected data for all to see.


List of Deaths and Complications Documented on This Blog:
FACEBOOK: Another Baby Fighting For His Life Post Circumcision

MADERA, CA: Another Circumcision Complication

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"

Related Posts:
Politically Correct Research: When Science, Morals and Political Agendas Collide

Friday, September 1, 2017

Drs. May Ask If Baby Is Circumcised for a Hearing Test - Here's Why


Oh the things I learn from my Facebook news feed...

Today, I came across this gem:


Now, normally, I blow a gasket when I hear a baby goes in for something completely unrelated to genital problems, and the doctor has the nerve to ask whether the baby has been circumcised or not.

This seems pretty legit though.

Apparently babies can cry so hard during a circumcision that they can burst an ear drum.
One more nail in the coffin for the claim that babies "sleep right through" their circumcision.

So I guess you can now add "burst ear drum" to the list of possible risks and complications for male infant circumcision.

I hope the AAP and other respected medical organizations are taking note.

Credit to SavingOurSons.org for this.

Related Post:
INTACTIVISTS: Why We Concern Ourselves

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

Monday, August 28, 2017

Another Circumcision Death - Wound Would Not Stop Bleeding


I had been trying to avoid Facebook.

I don't like being an intactivist.

Do you know this?

I wish the forced circumcision of healthy, non-consenting minors were recognized for the barbaric mutilation and the gross violation of basic human rights that it is.

I avoid my Facebook account because I know that the minute I sign on, my news feed is going to show that somewhere in the world, a child is suffering complications from this needless procedure.

At the end of this post, you can see all the cases I've documented on this blog.

And there are others.

There are others, but I've either been too busy to bother, or I'm just not on Facebook and I miss them.

I have a life, I need to get to work, I've got kids of my own to raise, and I can't dedicate as much time as I want to this cause.

Being an intactivist is hard work.

You have to see children suffer from complications, watch as parents mourn what was supposed to be one of the most joyful times in their lives.

And then, you have to watch as people dismiss the deaths and complications of circumcision, dismiss facts and information, have people tell you "Who are you to tell parents what to do?"

This.

This right here is why I "have the nerve" to have this blog, to speak out against what is in non-consenting individuals, male genital mutilation.

I had been studiously avoiding logging on to Facebook, but my phone tells me someone has messaged me, and so there I go checking it.

Ironically enough it's some woman trying to lecture me on how "uneducated" I am on the subject.

And before I can click on my private message icon, what do I see?

This.



The caption reads:

"The unexpected has happened!!!

A baby has died. I don't know how to take this.
His circumcision wouldn't stop bleeding. They went to the Beaumont ER they gave him meds and then sent home. THAT'S IT!!! Nothing else.

No parent should experience this pain ( and a hurricane/tropical storm). And I know that no one plans for a funeral when they have a new born.
I'm going to help financially with the services the best I can. The only way I know how to help lift some of the burden off of them.

Will you please pray for the family? This is a difficult time.

If you'd like to help with the financial burden please go here."

The link is to a YouCaring page, which can be accessed here as of 8-29-2017. Who knows when they will take it down.

I've taken a screen shot of it and am posting it here:



 The caption here reads:

"Baby Zackery was born August 17th, 2017. He passed away August 28 from what is thought to be due to complications with his circumcision but we will not know more until later. Our family needs help with funeral costs to put this sweet baby boy to rest as his parents don't possess the proper funds and we would like to help take this burden from them so they don't have to worry about how to afford a funeral as they are dealing with the loss of their precious baby boy. Any and all donations will be greatly appreciated and God bless everyone for their help."

I don't want to spend too long on this post.

I'll be repeating what I've posted on every other death/complication post.

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

How is ANY risk conscionable for elective, cosmetic surgery?

Are parents being fully informed on this matter?

According to the 2012 AAP statement, the risks of male infant circumcision are unknown.

This is because hospitals are not required to release any information on adverse outcomes of circumcision. Doctors have incentive to attribute deaths due to circumcision to secondary causes of death, and parents are complicit in keeping deaths and complications under wraps.

That is until recently, where parents post their children's stories online.

With the advent of the internet, the risks and complications of male infant circumcision can no longer be ignored, and members of the AAP can no longer feign ignorance.

Members of the AAP, if the risks of male infant circumcision are unknown, WHY PRAY TELL AREN'T YOU INVESTIGATING???

How is a single death due to elective, cosmetic surgery concsionable?

In 2012, you reviewed the current body of medical literature and you could not commit to a recommendation based on it, because in your own words "the benefits of circumcision weren't great enough."

And yet, somehow, you expect parents, the great majority of who don't have a medical degree, to somehow arrive at a more reasonable conclusion.

At this point I must ask, what are you people at the AAP SMOKING???

Death is a risk of male infant circumcision.

This, and other children were needlessly killed by the elective, cosmetic, non-medical surgery.

WHY aren't doctors required to fully inform parents about this?

More importantly, without medical or clinical indication, how is it that doctors are able to get way with reaping profit from performing elective, cosmetic, non-medical surgery on a healthy, non-consenting minor, let alone pretend to be able to offer parents any kind of "choice" in this matter?

Reaping profit from performing elective, non-medical surgery on healthy, non-consenting individuals constitutes medical fraud in any other case.

Why is male infant genital mutilation the lone exception?

That doctors are able to reap profit at the expense of a child's basic human rights, even as children DIE is absolutely DESPICABLE.

WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO DO YOUR JOBS AND DEDICATE YOUR EXISTENCE TO THE HEALTH OF ALL CHILDREN???

AAP???

This child's blood, and the blood of other children before him is in YOUR hands.

List of Deaths and Complications Documented on This Blog:
FACEBOOK: Another Baby Fighting For His Life Post Circumcision

MADERA, CA: Another Circumcision Complication

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"

Related Post:
INTACTIVISTS: Why We Concern Ourselves

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.