Commedians Openly Criticising Circumcision

You know what's encouraging?

When I hear a North American comedian openly criticize male infant circumcision.

On American TV, it's just a constant barrage of "Ew! Foreskin. Men need to be circumcised. It's cleaner. Uncircumcised men are gross. Blah blah blah blah." Whether it's on the news or sitcoms. Some comedians even cringe at intactness and sing the praises of circumcision.

So when I see a comedian openly question male infant circumcision, openly criticize it, it gives me a feeling that maybe things are starting to change.

I was scrolling down my Facebook newsfeed and I noticed someone had posted a video of a comedian talking about how he got criticism for not having had his child circumcised despite the fact that he was circumcised.

I can't post a video of it here because at least for now, it's exclusively on Facebook. However I did transcribe it and I'm going to post it right here.

When you have a son, you have to decide if you want to circumcise him or not, I didn't want to do it. I'm circumised but I thought it was unnecessary.

People got really mad at me though. People are still really pro-circumcision.

Main argument, people are like "It's cleaner! It's cleaner!" And I'm like, "How about we try some soap and water first? Before we just start chopping things off people's bodies."

Like "Eew! The butt's gross! Get it outta there!"

Next argument, pople are like "Oh, he's not gon' remember, he's not gon' to remember."

It's like, yeah he's a BABY. He's not gon' remember ANYTHING. This doesn't mean I should DO it. I could stab him in the LEG and he's not gon' remember it.

Like "First two years! Do whatever you want! No memories!"

Then the weirdest argument I kept getting from multiple people, where like, who knew I was circumcised, they were like, "Well don't you want your penis and your son's penis to MATCH?"

What kind of fucked up father/son pageant do you think we're entering into?

Like "Hello my baby, hello my darling, hello my ragtime gal..."

"Look at those penises! They're so similar! Same barber..."

I'll link to the video on Facebook here, but I think it's only accessible to those who have Facebook accounts.

I was like "Alright!!!"

So refreshing!!!

"THANK you, THANK you!" I thought.

So I decided to check out the origin of the video and I see the guy's Facebook page. (Visitors with Facebook accounts can see it right here.)

And I notice the name is Ahmed Bharoocha.

Now, mind you, I had never even heard of this comedian.

And I think "Wow. Ahmed. That's a Muslim name isn't it?"

To me this is a big deal, because I know that having your child circumcised is seen as a religious requirement not only for Jews, but also for Muslims.

I've gotta say, I admire this comedian for his bravery in openly admitting he left his own child intact and criticizing circumcision through his act.

So not only is this a North American man openly criticizing circumcision and leaving his own child intact, but a North American of Muslim background.

Good for this guy.

Even though he himself is circumcised, he decided this isn't something he wants to do to his son. Seeing this video and finding out about this man and his son made my day.

 

 Ahmed Bharoocha and Son

But you know, Ahmed isn't the first North American comedian I've heard openly talking about intactness and circumcision. Not too long ago, I saw another video clip by a guy named Andrew Schulz.

I don't know too much about this guy either, but that name "Schulz" sounds rather Jewish.

I can't be sure, though, so don't quote me on this.

Why would this be a big deal?

I imagine that if criticizing circumcision is difficult for anyone, it has got to be for a Jewish man, as male infant circumcision is seen as divine commandment for Jewish people.

But who knows, maybe he's not even Jewish.

It's still a big deal, because male infant circumcision is ingrained in American culture.

I'm going to post a transcription of the above clip here, because I think it's just awesome.

"I heard this girl say 'I would never hook up with a guy with an uncircumcised penis.'

I was like 'You *do* know what a pussy looks like, right?'

A pussy looks like a bucket of foreskin, that's what a pussy looks like.

How DARE she say 'Ah, uh, it's this little extra skin at the top.'

'You got a JELLYFISH floppin' between YOUR legs... Never complained about THAT...'

We LOVE your vaginas. Both types.

That's the sound of a room full of women sayin' 'There's two types of vaginas? What type of vagina do I have?'

I'll let you decide; there's two.

One are the 'innies,' right?

Those are the ones that are, they're all tucked in, they look like a, like a... like a pork bun. All tucked in and neat...

Like if they could talk, they'd be like, real bashful.

They'd be like 'What are we doing? I don't even know you! Okay!'

And then there are the 'outies,' right?

And those are the ones that look like someone took a picture if it on a roller coaster...

'Ah!!!!!' Burble burble burble...

That shit's floppin' around for no reason... Is this a vagina or a balled up fruit roll-up? WTF is going on? I love fruit roll-ups, though, so it's not a problem for me."

 

Yes, yes, YES!

Finally someone's saying it!

Yes, it looks like the culture is finally changing...

This reminds me of that whole Taylor Swift/ Harry Styles breakup.

Women are always balking at intact penises, it's about time people start talking about intact vaginas.

Related Posts:

Harry Styles Says "No" To Taylor Swift

Nurse Shames a Mom for Not Having Son Circumcised

So I'm scrolling through my Facebook news feed and I run across this story; apparently, nurses can shame moms who didn't have their sons circumcised.

The story was published on Distractify and can be accessed here.

According to the story, a nurse was telling a mother she needed to register a circumcision form at the hospital. When the mother told the nurse she didn't need one as she was not having her son circumcised, the nurse gave her the following remark:

"Honestly, I don't know why we have a form for it. They should just automatically do it to everyone. I can't imagine why some people don't circumcise their sons. It's just so disgusting. I have three boys and of course they've all been circumcised."

Obviously the nurse was brazenly inserting herself into this conversation trying to justify *her*self by giving accounts of her life nobody asked for.

Personally, I don't think there's a problem when two people are having a conversation about circumcision. This happens all the time. I think it's generally a good thing that people are talking about it, as it does give mothers who didn't have their sons circumcised to talk about their decision.

Especially on social media, I think it's totally appropriate for mothers to talk about their own experiences and their own opinions.

This situation, however, is different.

Unlike a conversation happening between peers in person or on social media, we have an uneven power dynamic here, where a nurse, who is supposed to be a professional, is shaming a patient and inserting herself into the conversation.

What would happen if the scenario where reversed?

How would it play out if a nurse had told the parent "I can't see why people circumcised their sons. It's so disgusting. I have three boys and of course none of them were circumcised."?

That nurse would probably not have a job anymore, no doubt.

I have actually heard of a case where an intactivist nurse very politely tried to talk to parents about the possibility of leaving their baby boys intact, not even with the snarky attitude as the nurse in this story. Nothing like "this is disgusting," but rather trying to give parents information. You know? So that parents could make an "informed decision."

Needless to say, the parents complained to the nurse's higher-ups that they felt "harassed" and "uncomfortable" that the nurse was "prying into her business."


According to this story, the mom asked other moms in the "Parenting" subreddit and apparently this is not that uncommon.

"After I had my son every nurse that came in the room asked if I scheduled the circumcision. I had to keep telling them I wasn’t doing it. It got awkward after the third time," one mom wrote.

"When I had both of my boys they pushed it," another mom wrote. "Everyone that came into the room asked if it was going to get done. I’m surprised it didn’t get 'done by accident.'"

"Healthcare worker here!" another person wrote. "I’ve heard of this happening before, and it’s pretty common. Honestly, I would report her to your doctor."

I sincerely hope this parent did.

I don't think it's a problem if nurses are trying to genuinely inform parents so that they make an informed decision, but inserting your own opinions that anatomically correct genitals are "disgusting" crosses that line.

It's definitely a double-standard that nurses can outright shame parents for not having circumcised their children, but a nurse can't provide accurate information regarding anatomically correct genitals.

External Link:

Mom-to-Be Got 'Circumcision-Shamed' By a Nurse During a Doctor's Appointment

The Coronavirus and the Complexity of the Intactivist Movement

It's always interesting to hear male infant circumcision advocates try to write off intactivists as being this way or that way, of belonging to this party or the other, of espousing these views or those.

It's a defense mechanism to try and associate a group of people with whom one disagrees, with another group of people that are basically a pariah of society.

Attempting to tarnish the reputation of a person making an argument, without having to refute what they are trying to say is the signature move of a person with weak arguments.

If you can't attack the argument, attack the person, AKA "ad hominem."

There are many variations of smearing tactics; guilt by association, poisoning the well, "no true Scotsman," division and construction just to name a few. I've studiously analyzed every dismissal tactic thrown at intactivists for years.

Quite possibly the most commonly used attack against intactivists is that they are all somehow "antisemites." The Godwin's Law (anyone who disagrees with me is a Nazi) attack can't always work because some of the most vocal opponents to male infant genital mutilation happen to be Jewish. So when that happens, you're a "self-hating Jew." (No true Scotsman)

When religious, right-wing leaning types try to dismiss intactivists, a favorite tactic to attempt a "gotcha" moment is by bringing up abortion (tu quoque), except it actually shoots those arguing for "the rights of the child" in the foot. (tu quoque back)

Pro-abortionists can't win the "It's my baby, my choice" argument either because they trip over their own "Whose body? Whose choice?" rhetoric.

"Those who oppose male infant circumcision must obviously be White Supremacist members of the KKK," some might say (guilt by association). Except male infant genital mutilation has become so ingrained in American culture, White Supremacists have actually taken it up as a sign as being "All-American."

The rule is, associate intactivists with the most hated group of people to invalidate their argument.

But associating the person making an argument with a hated group or person is logically fallacious, as it doesn't necessarily invalidate an argument; an argument stands or falls on its own merit.



Why Now?
Why am I bringing this up now?

Why am I talking about the complexity of the demographics of the intactivist movement?

Because at this point in time, there is a number of intactivists who ally themselves with the anti-vax movement, who are associating with Donald Drumpf supporters (this reference should tell any of my readers how I feel about the current president), who are openly espousing the idea that the current pandemic is a "hoax" to try and make vaccines mandatory, who are calling for the immediate calling off of the corona virus lock-downs in the name of "freedom."

And there is no doubt that circumcision advocates are going to seize this opportunity to say "See? Intactivists are all racist Donald Drumpf supporters who probably watch Alex Jones, oppose vaccinations and believe the world is flat."

It needs to be made clear that intactivism, the idea that a person is born with human rights, and that the most precious of human rights is that of the right to one's own body, and that baring medical necessity, doctors have no business mutilating the genitals of a healthy, non-consenting individual, let alone be giving his parents any kind of "choice" in the matter, is not exclusive to any one group.

Intactivism is an idea espoused by people of all walks of life, and no doubt some of them are going to be right-wing drumpf supporters who buy into the idea that the current coronavirus is a "hoax" and that people shouldn't be obliged to wear masks, etc.

The fact that a valid argument is being made by a person who has questionable beliefs does not invalidate the argument; the argument has to be refuted. Attacking the person, and not the argument itself is committing the logical fallacy of "ad hominem."

An argument isn't made invalid merely by pointing out that the person making it belongs to the Republican Party, supports Donald Drumpf, listens to Alex Jones, or is otherwise a member of a group you know people may not like.

It is not helpful that some intactivists are vociferously opposing vaccinations, supporting the current president and  buying into conspiracy theories that the government is trying to vaccinate everyone to make them "docile sheep," that this is "a social experiment to see who follows," but this can't be helped.

(I think it's funny to hear people engaging in mass psychosis accuse others of being "sheep.")

It is a mistake to try and "zero in" on "what kind of people" intactivists are, because intactivism isn't a movement of this or that party, of this or that group of people.

There are intactivists on the left, intactivists on the right, intactivists who support Donald Drumpf, intactivists who support Joe Biden, and even intactivists who vote third party. Some intactivists are pro-abortion, some are pro-life. Some intactivists are pro-vaccines, others are anti-vaxx. Some are pro gun control, others, and I know a few personally, oppose it.

All of them agree on this one point, however; cutting the genitals of a healthy, non-consenting individual is a violation of the most basic of human rights.

Intactivism isn't endemic to any one group of people. It's rather asinine to insinuate otherwise.

This Intactivist
I can't speak for all intactivists, but I for one am an intactivist that makes a distinction between vaccines and medically necessary surgery, versus elective, cosmetic, medically unnecessary surgery. Vaccination is based on sound science, and the proof is in the eradication of diseases like small pox and polio.

Vaccines have been proven to strengthen the immune system against pathogens that cause disease. They do not remove any flesh from the body, and they are recommended by every respected medical organization, unlike male infant circumcision.

I am of the opinion that, intactivists need to be careful not to conflate vaccines, which have been proven to prevent disease, with elective surgery, and even non-surgical intervention like wearing masks, social distancing and washing one's hands, in order to all vaccines and all surgery.

As for this blogger, I am a father to three beautiful children, and I would be devastated should any harm befall them. Coronavirus has infected people within my family and within my own circle of friends, some of whom have died. Having my own children die is frightening, so we all wear masks when we go outside and wash our hands with disinfectant whenever we come home. If a vaccine that has been proven to prevent coronavirus comes out, I will definitely consider it for me and my children, because it will prevent a highly contagious disease with a high probability of death.

This is a related, but bigger topic that warrants its own post, but intactivists also need to be careful that we do not eat our own. If there's anything certain that can be said about intactivists, it's that we are a diverse group of people with often conflicting opinions. It's a sad thing, but time and time again, I've witnessed intactivists falling out with each other, swearing not to talk to each other again because they disagreed on one topic or another.

I myself have been blocked on social media by intactivists who are pro-gun control, and recently, I've witnessed intactivists blocking each other because they disagree on the current lockdown and whether or not the coronavirus pandemic is a "hoax perpetuated by the government to see who is a sheep or not." Can we please stop mixing issues and focus on our common goal? Intactivists eat each other, we keep being split up into different factions and this is why we can't ever get anything DONE. In order to move forward, we're going to have to put our differences aside and work toward our common goal of condemning male infant circumcision for the pseudocience and medical fraud it is.

ANYWAY, I Close with My 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.

In any other case, reaping profit from non-medical procedures on non-consenting individuals constitutes medical fraud.

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.

DISCLAIMER:
The views I express in this blog are my own individual opinion, and they do not necessarily reflect the views of all intactivists. I am but an individual with one opinion, and I do not pretend to speak for the intactivist movement as a whole, thank you.

~Joseph4GI

Related Posts:

RED HERRING: The Abortion Debate

Intactivism: It's Not Just for Gentiles Anymore

RETURNING GUEST AUTHOR: COVID-19 Opportunity - A Call to Action

A month ago, in March, I posted about how one possibly good thing to be happening during this whole coronavirus pandemic is the fact that elective surgeries in the United States are being postponed if not canceled in order to preserve equipment such as masks, avoid patient infection, and ensure adequate medical personnel for responding to COVID-19 patients. I posted about how some new parents have been surprised to find that their providers currently aren’t performing circumcisions.

Well, just today, a fellow intactivist, Jason F., posted on his Facebook wall the window of opportunity that this pandemic presents to intactivists; the pandemic has resulted in massive budget shortfalls, and now states are looking to cut expenses.

I've posted content by this fellow intactivist before, regarding meatal stenosis. (That blog post can be accessed here.) I don't have time to sit down and write long, detailed blog posts anymore, so I'll merely copy and paste what he wrote here:

The following was copied and pasted from a status on the Facebook wall of Jason F. with his permission.

Forget the brief period when states said elective procedures should be put on hold.

The BIG news is the massive budget shortfalls facing almost every state due to CoViD-19 and related closures. Tax revenues are dramatically down and states are frantically looking in every corner of their budgets for where they can slash expenses.

Circumcision should be the first to go (from Medicaid) in the 35 states that still pay for it automatically at birth. It is outrageous that states would prioritize genital mutilation over other critical services; it’s outrageous we were ever paying for this with our tax dollars in the first place. Even in the 15 states that have dropped routine infant circumcision from Medicaid, doctors and nurses and administrators often find ways to do the surgery, code it fraudulently and get paid. Think about it: infant circumcision is such an essential business in the USA that medical professionals are willing to risk their careers, risk massive fines and possibly jail to ensure that every parent who asks for circumcision is served. Circumcision as identity.

If ever there was a year to strike, it’s 2020. Contact your state representatives and senators (especially those on the budget committee), contact your state Medicaid office or Department of Health, and make the case that penis chopping should be on the chopping block. New York, Illinois, Texas, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Ohio stand to save millions of dollars from doing like the rest of the civilized world + 15 American states in eliminating circumcision of healthy boys from public healthcare programs.

* * * * *

From NBC News today:

COVID-19 has led to dramatic decreases in revenue for state governments across the country — regardless of which party has its hand on the wheel. Many states are still crunching their numbers ahead of the next fiscal year, which begins in the summer for most. [Hint hint: budgeting season starts NOW.]

The lastest came on Tuesday afternoon when Ohio Gov. Mike DeWine, a Republican, announced that the past two months have led his state to miss its budget estimates by $776.9 million and that he is cutting $775 million in spending as a response. Those cuts, which include $210 million to Medicaid and $465 million in education spending, must be made within the next two months, he said. (Ohio is already $777 million short — if they keep paying for circumcision in the face of this, the should burn in hell. Mike DeWine should put a stop to it tomorrow.)

With the COVID-19 outbreak shutting down large swathes of the economy, all sorts of revenue sources for the states have dwindled significantly, including sales, income and other taxes.

In Maryland, state budget officials outlined a nearly $3 billion shortfall they're projecting in the final quarter of this fiscal year. Some other states in serious trouble: Oklahoma, Alaska, Arkansas, Wyoming and West Virginia.
(Original article can be accessed here.)

* * * * *

West Virginia and Ohio (along with Michigan, Kentucky and Indiana) have the highest infant circumcision rates in the country. Why are they still paying for it in the face of the biggest budget crises in a lifetime???

You heard the man. Get right to it!

Related Post:

GUEST AUTHOR: Meatal Stenosis

CORONAVIRUS: Elective Surgery Including Infant Circumcision Being Delayed

External Link:

NBC NEWS: Trump says only blue states have budget woes. He couldn't be more wrong.