u/Substantial_Help4678

USA tax payer dollars the the Bill and Malinda gates foundation fund circumcision in developing Africa. Need I say more?

The posts really do write themselves.

Talk about white savior complex. Talk about implying minorities in developing nations are gross, unsanitary, and that gender based systemic sexual violence is required to keep them clean. It's the same justifications for circumcision applied back home, but amplified to imply just how unsanitary cutters think minorities are.

When cutters say men back home are gross, unsanitary, disease-ridden, and need to be surgically sanitized, make no mistake, this is the exact same justification used by white people to perpetuate race based sexual violence against minorities in Africa. Supporting circumcision for sanitary reasons has racist undertones, always has.

Every justification a cutter makes is a further admission of guilt. Every justification is another racist, pedophilic, and sexist dog-whistle.

Title and water is wet.

That is appropriate response to a group of people that performs systemic gender based child sexual violence. To treat them like Nazis.

I don't compromise with Nazis. I am getting real sick of meeting Nazis half way. I am getting real sick of Intacitivism dumbing down it's strategy to appease Nazis. I don't compromise with Nazis. Quote Hasan "It is okay to punch Nazis".

I am getting real sick of playing defense. Getting justice means playing offense. I am not scared of being called antisematic for seeking circumcision justice. I am jewish. It is the cutters who to be rightfully terrified of being called Nazis. Only a Nazi would perform systemic gender based child sexual violence.

They treated me like a sex-object and turned me into the inanimate human dildo that I now am.

Can we appreciate, just for a second, how batshit insane it is that one of the most commonly cited justifications for circumcision is that "girls like it". That's nice. So they waited until I was most vulnerable and defenseless, literally right after I was born, to perform gender based systemic violence. They penetrated and permanently physically altered my genitals so that I'd be more appealing to the ladies.

Sorry ladies, but my child body wasn't yours to surgically modify to appease your sexual preferences. What a batshit insane statement that I even need to make. My recent post on the "Wife Snip" did very well, and I can't stop thinking about it. We clearly recognize that surgically modifying women's bodies to appease male sexuality is batshit insane. But for men, our child bodies get modified en masse to appease female sexual preference and no one bats an eye.

And I'm supposed to be thankful. Thankful they violated my body as a child so girls will like it more. And the even crazier thing is plenty of men are actually thankful. I've spoken to many men that are like "well as long as it helps get me laid, I am happy".

I am so incredibly tired of being treated like a sex object. And I am so incredibly tired of other men being okay with the treatment. We are not sex objects. I am not a sex object. I am not a human dildo. Dildos have no gliding action, and neither do I. Men do not deserve to be turned into dildos. Men do not deserve to be oppressed so hard that they enjoy being turned into dildos. I do not enjoy being surgically modified into a human dildo.

Anti-FGM advocacy groups, like "Equality Now", use gender based differences to justify unequal treatment, why Female Circumcision should be outlawed but MGM allowed. They say MGM is "safer" and "less harmful".

Let's ignore for a second the fact that non-profit organizations, insurance companies, and parents in the west spend Billions per year medicalizing MGM to make it safe. For the sake of argument, let's take it as a given that MGM is truly inherently "safer" (doubt).

Where have I heard this before? Where have I heard people use gender based differences to justify unequal laws and unequal treatment. Oh that's right, that's the entire history of misogyny for women! Women are "physically weaker on average", they "are more beholden to their womanly emotions", they "have hormonal swings once per month", which are the reasons that were and in parts of the world still are used to justify why women can't vote, can't join the military, can't become president, can't open a bank account, can't walk outside alone, etc.

Using gender based differences (even if partly true) to justify unequal treatment is sexism and oppression. That is the most absolute duh obvious statement I could have possibly made.

And our cutter enemies are full blatant sexist, pedophilic, evil, straight up. They support only Female Circumcision being illegal, and cite "differences between the genders" as justification. Hello, citing gender based differences to justify unequal treatment is blatant and obvious sexism. I thought we figured this out a long time ago. I guess we figured it out only for women, and using gender based differences to oppress and systemically sexually violate men is still ay-okay and is done publicly and proudly by our "non-profit" organizations.

The ongoing Intact Global case Hadachek v Oregon constitutionally challenges Oregon's anti-FGM law on the grounds of equal protections. They are making the case that laws on the books cannot discriminate by sex, gender, or any other protected characteristic.

The outcome of their court cases, if successful, would strike down the anti-FGM and legalize Female Circumcision. Nobody disputes this, this is Intact Global's stated goal with the court cases, but they wrap it up nicely. They say that after anti-FGM laws get struck down, the law might get kicked back to the legislature and politicians would have the opportunity to correct the law to make it no longer discriminate.

I won't wrap it up so nicely. I support the legalization of Female Circumcision. Someone has to address the gendered nature of the violence of Male Genital Mutilation in the west. And whether on purpose or on accident or a little bit of both, Intact Global's strategy does by necessity, however much they like to publicly frame themselves as supporting the rights of all children.

Legalizing female circumcision would be equality and equitable, as is the claim of the lawsuit. Discriminatory laws that exclude based on gender identity should be struck down, period end of story, I'm surprised I even need to say it. We are going to need to start contending with the fact that, as of recent history women and their interest groups had the power and the ear of the legislature, and they used it irresponsibly to protect only themselves. I wasn't even born yet when women's interest groups put anti-FGM laws on the books. I was completely powerless, I wasn't even born. I needed a more powerful group to protect me. Women's group had that power, and had that control over the legislature. And they failed and continue to fail me, using their power irresponsibly to write laws that discriminate against me based on gender identity, resulting in me get penetrated and violated as a child.

There needs to be justice for the irresponsible use of power, the and sexist, pedophilic, and discriminatory laws that were allowed to make it into the books. Getting rid of the discriminatory laws, doesn't appease me, that is barely the beginning, By purpose or on accident, Intact Global is addressing the gendered nature of the violence. And while their PR holds back, I won't. I support the legalization of Female Circumcision. If you think it's legalization would be the end, you've got another thing coming.

In the social justice landscape of the world today, would you rather be a woman fighting for a legitimate women's issue, or a man fighting for a legitimate men's issue? Let's say both issues are equally severe, who would you rather be?

My answer is clear. By far and away, I'd rather be a woman fighting for a legitimate woman's issue. It is so much easier in the world today to get taken seriously, respected, and empowered fighting for woman's issues than a men's issues. I get laughed at, marginalized, and spit on for talking about circumcision justice.

The "who would you rather be" test is a really asymmetry worth taking seriously. For all the "controversy" and back on women's rights, like some US states making abortion illegal, it is still leaps and bounds easier to be a woman with a legitimate grievance than a man. We are learning something important. Having a vibrant social justice movement (like women do) with an opposition that is powerful enough to sometimes stop you is leagues and bounds better than being oppressed into obscurity, like men are.

People should start getting uncomfortable. Its is way easier to have a legitimate grievance as as woman than a man. That asymmetry is a radical injustice that puts me so far away from anywhere near the bare minimum level of acceptable social treatment. The absolute bare minimum is being protected from identity based childhood sexual violence and being taken seriously when I talk about it, I have neither. For all my "privileges" that I supposedly have a man, I am missing at minimum 2 of the most important.

Having a strong social movement even with an opposition that is a real threat is a privilege. Women should count their lucky stars that they have a social movement and an opponent to keep them relevant. I get neither. I get oppressed into obscurity. I wish someone cared enough to be my opposition. The social justice side vs the opposition is a psy-op to keep the movement relevant, and a super effective one. Intactivism has no side and no backbone. I am getting so sick of the people pleasing and taking no side. I wish I had the privilege of an enemy.

"The Husband Stitch" is a feminist short story about the domestic oppression of women. In the story, after the women gives birth in the hospital her body is in shock, and she's barely conscious. As the male doctor stiches back up her vagina that got torn during birth, he mentions to the husband to not worry, and that he'll be adding one additional stitch, making the vagina more tight than it ever was before. The woman is too delirious to object. This is the "husband stitch" that gives the story it's name.

The story is all about women being seen as sex objects by their husbands, to the point men will literally physically modify their bodies without their consent to improve the male sexual experience.

This is my exact experience as a circumcision victim. I didn't have the husband stitch, but I sure did have the wife snip. What is one of the most commonly cited reasons given for circumcision? "Girls like it".

The parallels are uncanny. "The Husband Stitch" is a great short story. But it left out an important detail. It left out what was going on in the hospital in the next room over at the exact same time the women was getting the husband stitch. At that very same moment, the child that the woman gave birth to was getting penetrated and genitally mutilated by a female doctor one door down, to appease female sexual preference.

They waited until both of us were traumatized and defenseless to treat us like the sex objects that we are. The women went through the trauma of giving birth, and the child through the trauma of being born. And both had oppressive objectifying penetrative physical changes made to their body when they were most defenseless, to please the other gender, maybe even at the very same moment.

The truth is that the world has been enforcing objectifying standards on both genders for a long while. The only difference is that "The Husband Stitch" gets it's own short story and is now fully illegal, where as the "The Wife Snip" is a story that isn't even allowed to get told, and snipping males because "girls like it" is still legal and happens thousands of times per day.

Women have used their social justice capital irresponsibly. The world has been enforcing rape-y sex negative non-consensual medicalized genital modifications onto both genders for thousands of years. But the women decided it would be acceptable to leave men entirely out of the narrative, and to make you believe that only women can be victims of a "Husband Stitch". Women are not the only victims. I was a victim of the "Wife Snip". Where's my short story? As the mom got her "Husband Stitch", I was in the other room getting my "Wife Snip", and nobody even cared enough to write my story.

Social movements never come out of nowhere and have bipartisan support. They always, ALWAYS start on one side or the other.

Which side is circumcision justice? We need to pick and start leaning in, hard. If we try to be for everyone, we're for no one. We need to coalition build in the only way the regarded world knows how, partisan us vs them.

The left is way better at traditional social justice. However, the left intentionally leaves men out of the social justice zeitgeist today.

The right sucks at social justice. However, the alt right has pro male movements like the "manosphere" and the "incels". These movements are pro-male but are abysmal social justice failures, and they are almost more reactionary anti-left than they are pro-male.

I'm open to opinions. We need to pick a side to join, yesteday. The left and the right both suck. But they're both a million times more influential than Intactivism. The left and right have both successfully weaponized incompetence. It's time to join one of them.

I've created a new community r/CircumcisionDebate .

Sounds like a neutral debate sub, but make no mistake, I plan to moderate with an iron first just like I do on this sub. Anyone who says anything the least bit offensive to circ victims will be insta banned.

Never forget rule 1, its the same as on this sub:

>Circumcision Justice is a place for creating community and belonging, not for attacking marginalized, vulnerable, or under-protected groups of people (like circumcision victims)

The astroturfing and power tripping will continue.

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