Hi all. I'm intact from birth and am a wholehearted supporter of the drive to end not just RIC / MGM but also inappropriate medical MGM that is carried out without meaningful consent. 

In my view, politically, both need to go hand-in-hand anyway because tackling infant circumcision without addressing unnecessary circumcision on spurious medical grounds will just result in a dramatic rise of circumcision performed supposedly on medical grounds.

In other words, 'except on medical grounds' is a giant loophole that might even need to be closed off first.. There are a lot of people who end up circumcised inappropriately through bad medical advice as well as infant MGM, so I recommend amending the group definition to include stopping this abuse as well.

I agree, and this is not just an American problem either. I know of a few cases in Europe, from generally non-cutting countries, where patients presenting with something like moderate phimosis were rushed into needless circumcisions as a "quick fix"... and for whatever reason, European physicians seem to be trained to favor the particularly damaging "low and tight" style, removing maximum inner skin with no consideration of its purpose and value (apparently it makes for a faster recovery, but at such a cost...)

Saying only if medical reasons just means do doctors write a reason, whether it even exists is another story.  Circumcision in Australia was stopped in all public hospitals in the mis 1980s, but if parents wanted it and they had a pro-circ doctor they would still get it done, saying phimosis or one of my favourites… redundant foreskin.

Saying only if medical reasons just means do doctors write a reason, whether it even exists is another story.  Circumcision in Australia was stopped in all public hospitals in the mis 1980s, but if parents wanted it and they had a pro-circ doctor they would still get it done, saying phimosis or one of my favourites… redundant foreskin.

Pretty much, it was "medical" justification that got my mum to consent. False diagnosis had been already labled as an issue by the Canadian Paediatric Society long before OHIP delisted coverage for RIC.

Australia has long been a leader in the drive to eliminate harmful non-therapeutic circumcision of boys.

---

Australia is a nation that has rejected circumcision.

Yes the "medical grounds" is a loophole indeed and I argue that every instance of MGM should be outlawed. There is no such thing as medical necessity when removing the foreskin. I think the propaganda is that deep to the point where people, even intactivists themselves, argue against their own cause and agree that people should be able to do what they want with their bodies.

I wholeheartedly disagree with that sentiment because if you want to cut off a piece of your penis, there is something seriously wrong with your mental state and you should not be able to make decisions for your own health sake tbh.

I hope that made sense...?

There are three recognized medical indications for adult circumcision.

1. Cancer
2. Necrosis
3. Balanitis xerotica obliterans.

They are all very rare. They do not occur in children.

There are no indications for circumcision in the newborn period (except to make more money for doctors).

Yes the "medical grounds" is a loophole indeed and I argue that every instance of MGM should be outlawed. There is no such thing as medical necessity when removing the foreskin. I think the propaganda is that deep to the point where people, even intactivists themselves, argue against their own cause and agree that people should be able to do what they want with their bodies.

I wholeheartedly disagree with that sentiment because if you want to cut off a piece of your penis, there is something seriously wrong with your mental state and you should not be able to make decisions for your own health sake tbh.

I hope that made sense...?

I don't agree that there is *necessarily* something wrong with you for wanting to make modifications to your own body. We're talking about a very wide range of possibilities, and there are people who have even more extreme alterations made who seem to live happy and fulfilled lives. For example, tattoos, piercings, and even more severe removal of parts of genitals than circumcision. I'm also not suggesting that all of them are free of unresolved issues, but I think we should be cautious about being too prescriptive about what people are allowed to do to themselves when they seem to make a free and meaningfully-informed choice. For example, there's a part of the brain, the size of which appears to be very highly associated with preferred gender identity, and that strongly influences the outline of your body you feel comfortable with. It's conceivable that in-between sizes may result in people wanting body outlines that are something in-between. And I'm not suggesting that's the only possible mechanism or reason. For some, the visual appearance may be more important than some functionality, for example.

Yes the "medical grounds" is a loophole indeed and I argue that every instance of MGM should be outlawed. There is no such thing as medical necessity when removing the foreskin. I think the propaganda is that deep to the point where people, even intactivists themselves, argue against their own cause and agree that people should be able to do what they want with their bodies.

I wholeheartedly disagree with that sentiment because if you want to cut off a piece of your penis, there is something seriously wrong with your mental state and you should not be able to make decisions for your own health sake tbh.

I hope that made sense...?

I don't agree that there is *necessarily* something wrong with you for wanting to make modifications to your own body. We're talking about a very wide range of possibilities, and there are people who have even more extreme alterations made who seem to live happy and fulfilled lives. For example, tattoos, piercings, and even more severe removal of parts of genitals than circumcision. I'm also not suggesting that all of them are free of unresolved issues, but I think we should be cautious about being too prescriptive about what people are allowed to do to themselves when they seem to make a free and meaningfully-informed choice. For example, there's a part of the brain, the size of which appears to be very highly associated with preferred gender identity, and that strongly influences the outline of your body you feel comfortable with. It's conceivable that in-between sizes may result in people wanting body outlines that are something in-between. And I'm not suggesting that's the only possible mechanism or reason. For some, the visual appearance may be more important than some functionality, for example.

It is important to understand that when an adult is circumcised, he grants informed consent for the amputation/mutilation, but when a child is circumcised, a parent grants surrogate consent for the surgery that the child probably does not want.