u/Substantial_Help4678

Title and water is wet.

This should be obvious. The systemic elective invasive penetrative amputation procedure into children's genitals based on gender identity is worst-of-the worst. It's worse than any one off act of violence.

If theres two things people get worked tf up over, it's identity based violence and anything that impacts the sexual welfare of children. Circumcision hits the nail on the head for both, rape does not.

Let's get an actual interesting take. How's about circumcision is worse than the George Floyd incident. Now we're talking, that should ruffle some feathers.

George Floyd had the privilege of onlookers shunning the systemic violence. The whole world rallied to his side. For me, my entire family gathered around and celebrated my childhood identity based sexual violence. I wish I had the privilege of anyone watching and caring.

The world still celebrates my oppression. That's why circumcision is worse.

Men's spaces are missing the extreme pro-victim fervor other social justice issues like Feminism use to great success.

Men's issues tend to be reactionary, anti-feminist, and idealistically logical. They say things like "feminism is too extreme and needs to stop".

Where's the men's movement that's equally as extreme and illogical? Feminism claims they fight for "equality", but they actually fight for special rights and considerations. Where's the men's movement that claims they fight for "equality" but actually fight for special rights and considerations? Why do we play second fiddle as a step behind everyone else? I don't exist to stop feminism from asking for special rights and considerations. I can ask for my own special rights and considerations just as well for myself, thank you very much. We have a unique history of oppression, so we deserve unique special privelages and considerations just like feminism. But I almost never see anyone asking for that

Modern social justice culture is widespread and prevalent. A significant portion of the young generation are "woke", and supposed to be ultra aware and sensitive of systemic injustices and victim groups.

I'm not here to dunk on wokeness from a right wing perspective. "Those silly triggered libtards" - average right wing rebuttal.

Let's get some real critique of wokeness. How's about everyone who claims they are "woke" is actually only woke about a very narrow set of socially acceptable topics. And when it comes time to discuss other injustices, like circumcision justice, they shut down and become part of the oppressive power system immediately.

If there's two things people get worked up about, it's identity based violence and the sexual welfare of children. MGM hits the nail on the head for both. But as soon as you bring it up, the average "woke" person's mask drops instantly. They never truly cared about identity based violence, or the sexual health of children. Suddenly they're the most adamant supporters of "parents right to make even sexual decisions for their kids", and "identity based violence is okay if it's 'not that bad'". These are the same woke people losing their minds over micro aggressions, and over parents stopping their kids from getting trans treatments.

Turns out, the average woke person never really cared about justice. They were always pro parents rights to be oppressive and pro identity based violence. There's just a very narrow set of trendy cases where they are "woke" because it's the popular hip thing to do.

Modern social justice culture is widespread and prevalent. A significant portion of the young generation are "woke", and supposed to be ultra aware and sensitive of systemic injustices and victim groups.

I'm not here to dunk on wokeness from a right wing perspective. "This silly triggered libtards" - average right wing rebuttle.

Let's get some real critique of wokeness. How's about everyone who claims they are "woke" is actually only woke about a very narrow set of socially acceptable topics. And when it comes time to discuss other injustices, like circumcision justice, they shut down and become part of the oppressive power system immediately.

If there's two things people get worked up about, it's identity based violence and the sexual welfare of children. MGM hits the nail on the head for both. But as soon as you bring it up, the average "woke" person's mask drops instantly. They never truly cared about identity based violence, or the sexual health of children. Suddenly they're the most adament supporters of "parents right to make even sexual decisions for their kids", and "identity based violence is okay if it's 'not that bad'". These are the same woke people losing their minds over micro aggressions, and over parents stopping their kids from getting trans treatments.

Turns out, the average woke person never really cared about justice. They were always pro parents rights to be oppressive and pro identity based violence. There's just a very narrow set of trendy cases where they are "woke" because it's the popular hip thing to do.

Title and water is wet.

You all already know my take on this issue. In the west, genital cutting is a gendered issue. Only one gender of child can have an elective invasive penetrative amputation procedure on their child genitals. The sexual identity based nature of the violence is what makes it worse for men.

What's new it's I'd like to fully reverse the language when talking about it. People's typical lexicon is to say "male cirucmcision" and "Female Genital Mutilation (FGM)". I believe this is the inverse of equitable. Male victims are the under-protected group that need special considerations and carve out protections. Only my gender can legally in the west have their child genitals penetrated and amputated. The language we use should reflect the systemic gendered nature of the harm and it's extremity, to the exclusive of all others.

As such, there is no such thing as "male cirucmcision" and "FGM". When talking about the gendered nature of the violence, there is only "female circumcision" and "MGM". This should appropriately communicate the nature of which group is under protected and needs special considerations.

Circumcision is an elective, invasive, penetrative, procedure that involves sticking a blunt force probe to physically penetrate the area between foreskin and the glans.

This was never a "choice". Not everything you can do to a child is created equally. Some things you can do to children ... are bad. Duh. I'm surprised this requires explaining.

There is some advanced evil going on. It's not even close to "cognitive dissonance", can we please stop excusing the perpetrators due to ignorance.

Everybody always gets extraordinarily uptight, worked-up, and overly-involved when it comes to the treatment of children, especially relating to anything sexual except for circumcision. Sex education in schools, drag shows for kids, a weird man at the playground, trans kids, kid watching porn, the child's grades in school, how much the kid is able to use technology ... and everybody loses their minds. Including at how other people parent. Parents are obsessive af about their kids. People are quick to judge literally anything that can impact the wellbeing of children, except circumcision. In fact, cutters aren't dissonant, circumcision literally makes cutters who would otherwise obsessively care about the wellbeing of children suddenly start defending not caring at-all as-if they always didn't care. "Elective sexual situation for a child that I picked, that's just a choice like changing a diaper" they unironically say. "Nothing bad can be done to kids, everything is a choice"

This is not dissonance. It's coherent evil. Circumcision could turn the most hardcore pro-palestine, or anti-trans-kids or literally anyone into a nice obedient bootlicking chud who supports "parents rights to do anything including sexual things to their children" and who thinks "if big daddy government says it's okay, it must be true". These are literally their arguments, they don't even hide it when it comes to circumcision.

Circumcision should go the way of FGM and be banned always, 100% of the time. A doctor will lose their license and likely go to jail if they perform any sort of clitoral FGM even on a "consenting" adult.

There is no freely-given consent in a cutting culture. An adult man who thinks he wants a circumcision has internalized the problematic cutting propaganda "its cleaner", "girls like it". He needs to be protected from himself.

It's insulting to call FGM a "choice". We don't leave little girls intact so they can grow up and "choose" FGM themselves. That's a gross and problematic way frame the issue.

Why are my "allies" championing "autonomy" rhetoric that would insulting, horrific, and problematic if said for any other issue. I am getting so incredibly sick of people in our "movement" playing so small, and the bar being below hell. People need to wake tf up.

I'm anti-bodily-autonomy, I'm anti-science, and I'm anti-medicine. That should wake people up. The discourses on autonomy and science are beneath me. Any discussion of them needs to be shut-down instantly. Autonomy and science are insulting to even talk about, and we very much don't need nor want them in our push for justice.

Women went on a ride for justice and left men behind.

Anti-FGM laws should never have been able to be passed, and powerful justice leaders should have enforced a gender neutral ban at the time of law creation.

If men have all this power, why was it only the women and their interest groups in the room when it came time to sign the anti-FGM law? And then the women with the power decided to explicitly exclude me from the protection, writing a carve-out women-only anti-FGM law that left me out. Resulting in the systematic elective penetrative amputation to my child genitals.

The uncomfortable truth we need to contend with is that as-of recent history, women did have the power, and they used it irresponsibly to protect only themselves, before I was born, to my exclusion, resulting in me being penetrated and violated as a child.

I was the under-protected group, the very-yet-unborn man, who needed the people with power, women's interest groups to stand up for me and to say "Under no circumstance are we passing an anti-FGM law that protects only one gender, and we will do whatever it takes to protect everyone." But they didn't do that. And their failure and misuse of power has been a defining feature of my life, sexuality, identity, and experience of gender and power.

I was powerless, I wasn't even born, I needed protection from a more powerful group that had the ear of the legislature, women's groups, and they failed me and decided it was okay to pass a law to my exclusion based on gender. They decided it was okay to leave me in the dust and allow me to be sexually violated. There needs to self-awareness and accountability for that

In anti-circumcision spaces, the framing almost exclusively activism, it's literally in the name "IntACTIVISM". The exact same is true is traditional MRA spaces. It's also literally in the name, men's rights ACTIVISTS.

For some reason, men's issues tend to center exclusively around activism. And this isn't the case at all for other social justice issues, both in name and behavior. Feminism isn't an activist framework, neither is anti-racism. And activism as a framework for progress, which is enforced only for men's issues, is a failed-victim negative framework.

Activism requires the activist to self-sacrifice, to take on a burden, to martyr himself. Activism asks something FROM it's participants. Activism focuses OUTWARD, how do we "convince" the outsiders?

Social Justice gives something TO it's participants. Justice focuses INWARD, how do we support our victims? It empowers them, gives them space, validates them.  

These goals are often in-conflict, they don't work together. For example, the average activist might say something like "don't say anything too extreme, you might scare people away". This is a common sentiment in Intactivism. 

But if we look through the lens of any other issue, it's absurd. Would anti-racists says "don't say anything too extreme, you might scare the racists away". Of course not. It's absurd. It's victim negative and requires victims to dumb down their message to appease enemies. Social Justice Movements would never do this, they'd empower their victim group not silence them.  

Only in Intactivism and for men's issues do we silence victims and dumb down our message to appease our enemies. That's the failing of Activism as a framework. It stands in the way of justice. And it stands in the way of grief. Victims have been through enough, why do we ask things from them instead of give things to them?

The rape survivor woman isn't tasked with becoming an anti-rape advocate. She doesn't go post about her suffering on a rape survivor sub just to be told "go advocate for policies that reduce rape, making a difference will make you feel better". Its absurd. She would be supported, and if the feminist movement got involved with her at all, it would be to empower her. To tell her that her voice matters. To tell her its not her fault and that it was systemic oppression. The validate her distrust of the world and of men. To blame the oppressor class, at the expense of the oppressors and to her benefit. But for circumcision, we tell victims to suck it up and contribute to activism because it will "make them feel better". Something is ass-backwards about how we operate.

We live in a post truth era. Not all true things are neutral to say. We have to start contending with the fact that other justice issues see victim-blaming facts as wrong, period always, truth not withstanding. 

"True" things are often a dog whistle. Like what do we think about people who say "actually black on black crime is much more prevalent than black on white". The people saying that are technically correct. But it's an obvious racist dog whistle. Duh. People who say "circumcision was started by men" is also just a dog-whistle. Duh.

Statement of facts is not a neutral accounting of reality, but a biased lenses through which to prepetuate systemic harm. Everything you say has an impact on marginalization and oppression you are responsible for, even if true.  Even the "facts" and "scientific research" itself I am critical of the veracity of. 

I'm anti-science. In biased societies, the "science" justifies and "proves" problematic things. The "science" back in the day supported lobotomies for only women, was that real "science"? The "science" today supports circumcision of only males, is that real "science"?  We have to start contending with the fact that the "science" is biased against us, not a neutral accounting of the truth.

When I say "misandry" exists (which I don't even like to say often), that isn't blaming women.

I am talking about the men. I am talking about the adults systemically electing to intrude into the genitals of only one gender of child. Men are disproportionately the victims of genital cutting. That is what we call it when there is gender-based systemic sexual violence, it needs a name.

Women just aren't all that important to the story of circumcision justice, sorry to them. This isn't about the women, this is about the men.

I'm getting really sick of the victim blaming. I'm getting really sick of being told by cutters: "and who started circumcision, oh yeah men". This is an issue that disproportionately impacts men. I don't make the rules, I am just calling it like it is.

I'm getting sick of nobody taking accountability. How about, you go the way of white allies to anti-racism who read white fragility, but for women and circumcision justice. The white allies of anti-racism were more than happy to read white fragility. Allies are happy to center and empower the victim class, because that's what allies do. You want to know what they did not say? They did not say: "actually, black on black crime is more prevalent than white on black". That's a weird racist dog whistle. Duh.

We aren't a second class social justice issue. When cutters say "actually, men are the ones that started the cutting" its a weird pedo-cutter dog-whistle. Duh. Allies need to stfu, stop making this about them, and stop taking offence when we center men.

Intactivism has an ego problem. People love to martyr themselves, engaging in self sacrifice "for the cause".

They use it as a qualifier. "How many cirucmcisions have YOU prevented?" they say. "What actions have YOU taken? None? Your opinion is invalid. On the other hand, here is my long lost of accomplishments".

And invariably, the "accomplishments" of the average Intactivist are do-nothing "convincing those cutters" style accomplishments that help them feel productive while accomplishing nothing.

Victims have been through enough, why even in our own spaces do we systemically burden them with more responsibility? This is poison for movement building, nobody wants to join a movement with high expectations for them after they suffered systemic violence.

Intactivists feel like their making progress by "convincing" a statistically negligible number of cutters per year, meanwhile the circumcision rate on a national scale blows wherever it would have went anyway. Even if the circumcision rate dropped to zero, that's only the first step on the never ending crusade for justice.

Overall, I "do nothing" and I'm proud. We need to call out Intacticists with an ego. You actually accomplished nothing, our movement is a failure, and by insisting that everyone conforms to your failed activist strategy, you ensure more failure to come.

Intactivists, myself included, need to introspect why our movement has failed so bad. Not take on an ego about how much "progress" they made. It's embarrassing. We are a failed movement. Not a single county in the world has banned circumcision, which would be the bare minimum. We have have failed fully and truly everywhere. Intactivists claiming that they've made a difference somehow take pride in most abject failure of a movement there has ever been, so much pride that they gatekeep anyone else with a different approach from joining.

Circumcision Justice Benefits Women. Not in a "sex is better for women with an Intact guy" kind of way. Even if it may be true, I do not like that framing. It's weird and victim negative.

I mean that circumcision justice, the justice movement itself, benefits women in a more subversive way. In the kind of way that is more the spirit of what feminists mean when they say "feminism and destroying the patriarchy benefits men". I mean it more in a kind of talking down to them sort of way.

Women should expect to benefit from circumcision justice, because cutting culture puts burdens on women. Cutting culture puts the expectation on women to control and diminish the sexuality of their bf, including to judge their partner for watching porn, and judge their partner for having "death grip syndrome" (that is really just undiagnosed circumcision). We are freeing women of those burdens to shame their partner for how they enjoy their sexuality, and freeing her to have a more healthy and sex-positive relationship.

Cutting culture expects both fathers and mothers to have complete control over their children, like they are property, including designing their private part like they are a designer toy. But also putting other negative expectations on how to parent and how to be a mother, like the idea that children should be literally and figuratively molded in the parents image, including the via the sex-negative expectation that children shouldn't know about sex (and therefore are incapable of diagnosing their own circumcision sexual violation until way later in life). We are freeing mothers of the burden of enforcing their will and sexual will on their children.

When women say "destroying the patriarchy benifits men", they giving concedending reasons that really only benifit women for why men should care. They say "ohh, without patriarchy men could be more in touch with their emotions". An insult suggesting men are emotionally distant. I'm giving condecending reasons for why women should care about circumcision that really only benifit men, and which I do not expect most women to actually care about. I'm saying "smashing patriarchy let's women feel more secure in their relationships" and suggesting they are toxic controlling wrecks and need our justice movement to free themselves. I'm radically center the victim perspective above all else, and telling everyone else should be happy with breadcrumbs.

I am once again a bit tongue and cheek, but I honestly believe this. Just like feminism truly believes it benefits men by smashing the patriarchy, I genuinely believe circumcision justice benefits women by smashing cutting culture.

It goes without saying, but the "scientific" and "medical" communities overwhelming support and are complcit in circumcision. They make justifications for why it's okay for adults to elect to intrude into the genitals of children. This is just not something any adult should be doing for any reason ever. Every justification, every "medical benefit", is a further admission of guilt.

Science and medicine are the systemic oppression. It is literally called the medical "system". Doctors and scienticts in a cutting a culture release more pro circumcision guidance. It's what they do.

We need to acknowledge that the "science" is biased against us, NOT a neutral accounting of the truth. Any sort of justice or any attempts toward progress are going to need to contend with this fact.

Intactivists often advocate for "more science" and "more studies" to be done to show the harms of circumcision. And I can't help feeling like they've lost the plot. You can't expect our oppressors to do a neutral accounting of the facts to our favor. There is something evil and oppressive going on. We can't trust the "science" and we can't even really call it "science". I'm anti-science, and any sort of justice is going to require obliterating cutting culture in-spite of the oppressive cutter "science", not working with the "science"

Intactivism suffers for Maryr Syndrome.

The average Intactivist smugly says to the effect: "We either the end practice for future generations, or we coddle the feelings of victims. I, as an enlightened important specimen, am willing to sacrifice more as a victim to end the practice in the future. YOU just want to complain and achieve nothing".

I've heard variations of this many many times. It's probably the single most common rebuttle I hear from Intactivists.

My first point is it's not mutually exclusive. You don't need to pick between supporting victims and eliminating the practice in the future, you can do both. Imagine is BLM said "We can only either support victims or end police brutality, pick one". How absurd. They can obviously do both. In fact, they usually go hand-in-hanf. Ending police brutality comes as a natural conclusion of supporting victims and obliteratong racism. The same way ending circumcision comes as a natural conclusion of supporting victims and obliterating cutting culture.

My second point is self-sacrifice for self-sacrifice's sake isn't venerable. The average Intactivist takes immense pride in sacrificing more himself, as a martyr, to do what he mistakenly thinks will make change. It's a weird egotistical coping mechanism. He thinks he's more important because he's the one willing to sacrifice for the greater good. I couldn't disagree more.

Martyr Syndrome is like poison for social justice movements. The victims have been through enough. If you're modeling the "only correct way to engage with the movement is self-sacrifice and everyone else is just complaining", you're asking every victim who joins the movement to self sacrifice. It's a huge ask and is victim-negative. I'm constantly shocked that almost every single Intactivist who champions "strategy" champions a victim-negative startegy that isn't used by any other social justice issue. Anti-racism support racial minorities, doesn't ask them to martyr themselves, and does NOT call martyrdom the only legitimate way to have a strategic approach. duh.

When you require people to self sacrifice to join the movement, no one joins. Movements grow by being easy to join. Identifying as a victim is hard enough. The only way you raise an army of victims large enough to make social change is by making bring a victim empowering. Other social justice issues have figured this out.

I could go on. I'm not a vegan, but veganism suffers from this as well. Maybe for another post, but veganism and Intacitivsm have a lot of similarities in why they are abject failures. Vegans are annoying, pester their friends, stand with shock imagery animal cruelty screens at street corner. Veganism is all about asking activists to martyr themselves and make immense personal social sacrifice. And veganism similarly is a complete failure. I'll leave it there for now. But the anatomy of failed vs successful social justice movements is obvious. And a movement sick with martyr syndrome like Intactivism is doomed to fail. We need to purge martyr syndrome from our ranks wherever we see it.

As usual, I am critical of a common Intactivist talking point and startegy. A common startegy is to sue the state to expand genital cutting protections on the grounds that their anti-FGM law discriminates based on a protected class (gender). This is the strategy the likes of Intact Global takes.

Many Intactivists champion this strategy, being happy at the existence and creation of new anti-FGM laws (like the recent one in Colombia), with the idea that Intactivists in the future can expand them to include all genders.

My critique is that first, the easiest time for equal protection is in the creation of the law, not post hoc. We shouldn't be allowing laws that discriminate against an already under-protected gender in the first place.

Second, the time for equality has long passed. The inverse is getting much closer to equitable. Instead, we should champion passing anti-circ only laws that only protect one gender, and have the anti-FGM activists be the ones to fight to expand the law on the grounds of equal protection. If suing for equal protection is so easy, why not make the anti-FGM activists be the ones to do it? In-fact, by the average Intactivists logic, anti-FGM activists should be HAPPY that a discriminatory anti-circ law was passed, and should thank their lucky stars that they're now eligible to sue for equal protection.

Of course I'm being somewhat tongue and cheek, but also I'm not. Going out of way to protect circ victims over anyone else is actually equitable. The way the average Intactivist conducts themself, being super happy when discriminatory laws that exclude us are passed, is shown to be patently absurd when flipped for anti-FGM activists.

I'm getting more and more sick every day of expecting below the bare minimum. If anti-FGM activists wouldn't thank their lucky stars that a new anti-circ law has given them the "opportunity" to sue for equal protection, why should we thank our lucky stars when the same happens for a new anti-FGM law?

My recent post https://www.reddit.com/r/CircumcisionJustice/comments/1ugcx6k/every_antifgm_law_is_a_step_backward_not_forward/

was brigaded here https://www.reddit.com/r/IncelTears/comments/1ugwh5k/removed_by_moderator/

You can read the posts on that sub to get a sense of the kinds of people and the kinds of things they were saying here on the Circ Justice sub. Needless to say their comments on this sub are all removed and they are all banned.

Notice exactly what's happening here. First, our enemies squirm incredibly and make it a gender war issue where there wasn't one. I don't mention "men" or "women" once in my original post. All I do is call out that anti-FGM laws only protect one gender, and that gender is the one that is already over protected. There are many anti-FGM laws and no anti-circ laws. Yet our cutter enemies somehow take that to mean I'm somehow anti-feminist and and an incel (?). I didn't mention feminism at all. I said anti-FGM flaws are gender based and exclude based on identity group.

I don't care to belabor the point any more, there are much more interesting things going on here. One, feminists at least the ones in that post WANT to make it a gendered issue. They took a post that wasn't really about the gender war at all, and made it about how men blame women for stuff. Well I wasn't before, but now I am. All the women that brigaded are minimizing the harms of circ and saying how you can't compare it to FGM. That is the oppression. Them minimizing and marginazing me and my systemic oppression IS the harm. How's about we get some self awareness and accountability, by minimizing the harms of circ YOU are and agent of the oppressive cutting culture, full stop. Check your privelage and understand your fragility.

It's also cool to see the aspects of power at play here with having out own space. Since this sub is a space for the victims, we set the rules. We can ban them all and remove their posts in a heartbeat. And I was able to report and get the original post removed from IncelTears for brigading, which is against platform TOS. For the first time, maybe ever, circ victims have their own space to demand justice, and are actually in a position of power, if even on just an online forum, to achieve some level of it.