Circumcised.com - Portal

"Attack the Identity if you cannot attack ther agenda" is getting real in the War now

Tue, 28 Jul 2026 18:04:01 +0000

I was going thru some searches, and I found out this website, ' Intactivism is a Mental Disorder ' : https://www.circumcisionchoice.com/singl...alDisorder

You might also see a Subreddit dedicated to bs, which I have talked earlier, r/DebunkingCircumcision
If you go through the Website above, you will find the innumerable cases where the Intactivists were not feeling fine in Public due to some reason or the other, and lets be real, who are supposed to feel uncomfortable when the Genital Mutilation of Males is so widespread in the society? Is it the Pro-Circs? Is it the people on Fence of this matter? NO, They are the Intactivists.
Thats because Intactivists can see the reality, Circumcision should only be done when its the last resort and there is no other option has been left to be tried out, and that too on a certain medical condition.

A Normal Intact Penis is not a deformity, problem or an issue, it is absolutely normal and okay to be Intact. People have labelled Foreskin as 'dirty', which is quite a foreign idea as an Intact Man in a non-circumcising country which have never heard this tbh, the 'dirty' way of thinking pushes MGM further.

But in reality, it was never dirty, with unbiased studies showing up in 21st Century and the vast majority of the world being Intact, we can safely say, its absolutely okay to be Intact.
So Intactivists agenda is very simple, don't overdo smth which can cause harm, Circumcision when done routinely increases Complications among people ( A 11.5% circ complication rate. https://spuonline.org/abstracts/2018/P21.cgi ) and causes real issues and regret among people ( 63% of Adult Men regret circumcising in Adulthood ) as its done against their consent or situations, Remember, the Regret doesn't remain if there were genuine Medicals reasons as you know obv.
And Pro-Circs dare not to question these things, cause they know, if they keep defending the Circumcision, these points will prove them that they are stupid, They'll downvote you but not answer some bitter questions or neither admit that doing it routinely is wrong.
So there is a new Wave which might turn larger, Prove that Intactivists are mentally-ill, although we are not, but think this way.
Women who asked for rights were first seen as Satanical, weird, mentally-ill, and what not, but Today in some parts of the world where Women don't get Rights, we call those countries mentally-ill now.
The People demanding abolishment of Slavery were also deemed mentally ill or weird by Slave Owners or the people on the Fence of it. Today we know slavery is a bad thing.
People opposing FGM and MGM earlier were also deemed to be not following the society/tribe and were deemed rebellious to the rest of the people. Today both all forms of Genital Cutting are having voices heard in society for them.
So If someone comes up and Say ' Intactivists are mentally-ill ' , they are just finding a reason to defame you and put you down, as if trying to say, ' Your Words don't matter '.
Best Prevention? Follow These:

i) Do not reveal your Identity if possible -

'Oh, you are an Intact Person, how can you judge the difference for circumcised males ? ' ,
' Oh, you are a woman, you should have No Say in these matters ' ,
' Oh you are from [ country that doesn't circumcise routinely ] , you should not enter into our country/culture's matter ' ,
These are the very same people who have never restored a Foreskin and felt what it feels like, Never saw an Infant being Circumcised ( real life or video ) , Didn't bother seeing their own children's circumcision and yet come up and claim ' My Child slept through it '. BS Claims.
You can share your identity among Intactivists, thats a good thing ngl, but, don't share personal experiences or feelings to the enemy, i.e. the Pro-Circs.
Resorting to Scientifically backed studies more also helps establish a generalized scenario as one can dismiss someone's personal experiences easily even if they are common, but not documented.
ii) Do not Deviate to 'Intactivist's mental issues' -

Your job is to prove that Circumcision on a Routine basis is harmful and shouldn't be done on children, and there is no reason that justifies doing it in 21st Century. Stick to this point, only this point.

Do not deviate to, ' You all have mental illnesses ' or anything like that, the best you can reply is ' Why are you obsessing over mutilating baby penises ? ' , then they will come back to the track and will start justifying how its not a mutilation. And thats the way out, but don't engage in any such other bs.
iii) Warn Others:

Share this post to them, and warn others, that this wave of Pro-Mutilators will come, and we have to be prepared of it. The more the narrative of ' Intactivism has mental issues ' spreads, the more our image will fall and we might fail.

The actual reality is that Pro-Mutilators have actual mental illness trying to justify Mutilating baby penises. Thats it, they are p*dophiles atm. We want people to let the penis intact, unaltered, and normal actually.

Just leave them actually instead of knife-raping them, the Knife-raping culture and people who do it is to be blamed, not those fighting against it. Something is structurally damaged in the society and we are fixing it tbh wholeheartedly.
Most of the Pro-Circs have adopted to the New, Reduced Normal form of their body and never know what they are missing, they assume everthing is fine when they are living with complications and call it normal ( being ignorant actually )
iv) Take Breaks:
You are not here to constantly blabber about Cons of Circumcision, defend Intact penis all the time, take time to breath, grow, and level up in life, You also need money to file lawsuits against Infant Circumcisions, I mean Mutilations, become the powerful also, and actively associate ourselves with Men's Rights.
We do not forget the purpose, but each and every action we take in our lives, directly or indirectly makes us powerful and that always pushes Intactivism forward. Small Steps do make large success.
Thanks For Reading, Have A Great Day Ahead.
Articles To Read (Recommended):

Circ listed in the riskiest medical procedures. https://health.alot.com/conditions/10-of...res---6429

SIDS, Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, 35% higher in states where Medicaid pays for infant circ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6412606/

Circumcision deaths. http://www.cirp.org/library/death/

A 11.5% circ complication rate. https://spuonline.org/abstracts/2018/P21.cgi

Circ increases costs. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15534340/
Circ v intact penile problems. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39084960/
No analgesic removes all pain during circ. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41443-022-00551-x
Mother infant interaction, Sleep wake states, etc. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=rel...oogle.com/
Pain hypersensitivity following neonatal nerve injury. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1186/1744-8069-8-30
Lifetime pain & complications from circ. https://www.yourwholebaby.org/images-adults

Data towards opposing Circumcision more by u/OrganicPlenty6655

Tue, 28 Jul 2026 14:18:04 +0000

The study that is done that American doctors rely so heavily on has in the data that it reduces the risk in diaper aged boys from a rate of 1 in 1000 to 1 in 3000. The African study showed that it reduces HIV transfer from around ~2.8% to ~1.6%, even though STI transfer is link more with behavior than equipment. You could kind of tell that the most infected country in the world happens to be the one with the highest percent of infant circumcision. Then with the Utah study that followed pubescent boys with circumcision linked injuries found that over 10% had 1. But you know Dr. Edgar s. (Forget how to spell his last name) Openly admitted to stacking the AAP board with his biased and still best he got was parents' choice.
So a 0.002% chance of preventing a UTI. A 1.5% chance of preventing an STI if he has straight sex with an infected partner. All with the cost of a 10% chance of messing his penis up in some way. Not to mention the potential psychological effects. Nah I'm good. No way I could ethically participate.

AAP used BJ Morris Data in 2012, Morris and Krieger's Circumcision Propaganda Moves

Tue, 28 Jul 2026 11:15:25 +0000

People seem interested in how a small group of researchers with an agenda can 'rig' a "systematic review" in medicine to make it say whatever they want, albeit dressed up in objective-sounding rhetoric. Here is a follow-up for those who want to see the details of how it is done.
The case study from my previous thread was this highly-cited review by Morris & Krieger on the potential (adverse) sexual effects of male circumcision, published in the leading journal in this area, @jsexmed (bit.ly/2EWwBUy). M&K reported "no conflict of interest," but
as I wrote, M is co-founder & chief spokesperson of a pro-circumcision lobbying organization petitioning 4 government insurance to cover medically unnecessary circumcisions, which would directly financially benefit several board members (see bit.ly/2QYZmWY), and K
had submitted a patent application months before the review came out for a new circumcision clamp (bit.ly/2An1uO1). If removing sensitive tissue from the penis (the foreskin) turned out to have negative sexual implications, this could be bad for business. Conveniently,
then, M&K discovered - after rating the available studies using SIGN criteria (bit.ly/2rZcBrC) - that the high-quality studies "uniformly" showed no negative effects of circumcision, whereas all studies that DID report negative effects were of low quality. But as pointed out in a little-noticed letter to the editor (bit.ly/2QXhZub) SIGN guidelines require that quality ratings be done by a multidisciplinary panel carefully assembled to minimize any possible bias among raters, whereas M&K did all their *own* ratings.
And as Boyle noted in an even more obscure rebuttal (bit.ly/2AkuNAy), several of the ratings M&K assigned for quality seemed to track the results of the study (that is, whether it supported their conclusion or not), rather than the actual quality. So how was this done?
In the rest of this thread, I'll walk through a couple examples, so you can see the sleight-of-hand authors may sometimes use to assign ratings to studies that support their desired conclusion. Take a study by Masters & Johnson, which M&K rated 2++ for quality, which refers to
"High-quality systematic reviews of cohort or case and control studies; cohort or case and control studies with very low risk of bias and high probability of establishing a causal relationship." Masters & Johnson reported "No clinically significant difference between the
Medical Literature & Resources
circumcised and uncircumcised glans" in exteroceptive and light tactile discrimination (bit.ly/2LGPif8). Okay, so why should we think this study deserves the highest possible quality rating for a case-control study (2++)? The answer is: we shouldn't. The "study" consists
of a single paragraph (reproduced below) in the 1966 popular book by Masters and Johnson, "Human Sexual Response," in which they refer to some "routine neurological" tests they performed on a small sample of men. No description of the tools or methods used, no
description of statistical analyses performed, no description of participant sample characteristics, no peer review, no nothing. It is literally impossible to evaluate the quality of the study by Masters & Johnson. Yet based on a single paragraph mentioning a "brief clinical
Visual Art & Design
experiment" in passing in an out-of-print 1966 book, M&K rated this evidence as being of the *highest possible quality* (2++) for a case control study! At the same time, they rated a similar experiment by Sorrells et al. published in 2007 in the widely respected, peer-reviewed
British Journal of Urology as the *lowest possible quality* for a study of this kind ( [b]Fine-touch pressure thresholds in the adult penis - PubMed[/b]The glans of the circumcised penis is less sensitive to fine touch than the glans of the uncircumcised penis. The transitional region from the external to the internal prepuce is the most sensitive r…https://bit.ly/2JIgpbv
), despite more than twice the sample size, a priori power analysis, and exhaustive description of methods and tools used. How could this be so?
One possibility is that they didn't like the main findings reported by Sorrells et al. (2007), namely, that "the glans of the circumcised penis is less sensitive to fine touch than the glans of the uncircumcised penis" and that the foreskin - which is removed by circumcision -
contains the "most sensitive parts" of the penis to light touch - a finding later confirmed by Bossio et al. (

[b]Examining Penile Sensitivity in Neonatally Circumcised and Intact Men Using Quantitative Sensory Testing - PubMed[/b]Findings suggest that minimal long-term implications for penile sensitivity exist as a result of the surgical excision of the foreskin during neonatal circumcision. Additionally, this study challenge…https://bit.ly/2LDQGzi

) (yet bizarrely reported in the media such as @voxdotcom as supporting the exact opposite conclusion, as I discuss here: bit.ly/2LEn44H).
When explaining their lowered rating, M&K cite a letter to the editor, referring to "those who criticized" the Sorrells et al. study [53] <-- if you look at the reference, this is a letter by Morris himself, along with a co-author. Other researchers have noticed that this is
consistent with a more general strategy employed by Morris (see screenshot below, from bit.ly/2QddGpw), in which he writes a letter criticizing *any* study that appears to show a negative effect of circumcision, on whatever grounds he can think of, then later cites this
in the third-person as *definitive* reason to reject the study & its conclusions, while failing to cite (much less engage) with the author responses 2 the original critique. Van Howe has recently documented this pattern in detail (see screenshot, from bit.ly/2LEZDsb).
Nevertheless, if M&K wish to downgrade a study's quality based on a letter-to-the-editor critique, they should do so consistently. For example, consider the Randomized Control Trials they rated as quality 1++ (the highest possible level of quality for any study design). The
first thing to notice is that one of these trials was conducted *by Krieger* et al., so he is rating *his own study* as of highest possible quality. The potential for bias here is obviously substantial. Now, you might think that because it is an RCT
it should automatically be rated as high-quality: RCTs are generally considered to be the 'gold standard' for establishing causation ... but *only* if they are well-designed and conducted. 'RCT' refers to a type of study design; it doesn't tell you anything about the quality of
Men's Health
materials actually USED in the RCT, including whether they were fit for purpose, capable of detecting a difference should it exist, etc. This screenshot shows *just* the limitations mentioned in the study by Krieger et al., which M&K apparently judged not to matter for quality.
But critiques by others had been raised before the M&K review, which they certainly were aware of because they came in an author reply letter responding to one of Morris's 'rebuttals' (see screenshot below, from bit.ly/2QddGpw). In short: the questionnaires used in
RCTs were badly designed & likely couldn't have shown a difference in sexual outcomes anyway (so absence of evidence is not evidence of absence). Other studies have shown *major* differences (see below, from bit.ly/2LJPyKE). But these were rated as "low quality" by M&K.
This is just a couple of the studies they rated, and you can already see how there is enormous room for subjective judgments about whether a study of a given design should be 'upgraded' or 'downgraded' in terms of quality, based on whether one favors the study results or not. So
Health Foundations & Medical Research
the more general lesson is: when you see a "systematic review" (or a meta-analysis, or an RCT, or any other scientific artifact claimed to represent the highest quality of evidence), you should not take this at face-value. Meta-analyses are often GIGO ("garbage in, garbage out"),
RTCs are often poorly designed, carried out, and/or analyzed, and then "prettied up" with an attempt by the authors to "spin" their findings in the most dramatic and conclusive direction they can manage; and systematic reviews are often partisan opinion in disguise. Yet
doctors, policymakers, and ordinary citizens, rely on such studies, analyses, and reviews to decide what to believe about any given topic of importance to health and society. Even respected, professional organizations like the @AmerAcadPeds can reach unsupported conclusions based
Legal
on biased reports and biased interpretations of those reports by whoever happens to be selected to serve on a task force or committee (as I detail at length here bit.ly/2AgagNF). In fact, like M&K, the AAP 2012 circumcision task force members failed to declare
their financial and other conflicts of interest in their 2012 policy statement, only later adding a mention in a reply to a critique by international experts (see screenshot below). AAP task force member Dr. Andrew Freedman also forgot to declare his personal conflict of interest
stating in a separate interview that he circumcised his son for "religious, not medical reasons" (

[b]New York Jewish Week - Jewish Telegraphic Agency[/b]https://bit.ly/2VcxTzz

), and acknowledging only later that the 2012 AAP committee had explicitly non-scientific and even political considerations in mind as they reviewed the
the empirical evidence on circumcision (see screenshots below, from bit.ly/2rYp2Eh). And even the anonymous working group at the @CDCgov, in echoing the stance of the AAP, has relied on none other than Brian Morris in support of its CENTRAL contention that
the benefits of circumcision outweigh the risks - despite the fact that no other researcher has ever been able to reproduce the figures quoted by Morris (using the same tactics outlined above): see screenshots below, from bit.ly/2QYZmWY. Science and medicine are complicated endeavors. There is often quite a big back-story to whatever ends up getting published, cited, and incorporated into policy. This has been just one paper in one corner of one area of the literature I happen to know well. I have no doubt others have similar stories.

Circ listed in the riskiest medical procedures; Higher Sudden Infant Death Syndrome

Tue, 28 Jul 2026 10:49:33 +0000

Circ listed in the riskiest medical procedures. https://health.alot.com/conditions/10-of...res---6429

SIDS, Sudden Infant Death Syndrome, 35% higher in states where Medicaid pays for infant circ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6412606/

Death & complications from circumcision. https://med.stanford.edu/newborns/profes...tions.html

SIDS link. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK513399/

Linked to SIDS. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27840622/

Circumcision deaths. http://www.cirp.org/library/death/

A 11.5% circ complication rate. https://spuonline.org/abstracts/2018/P21.cgi

https://iaim.net/extreme-trauma-from-mal...-of-brain/

Global Survey of Circ Harms https://youtu.be/i39V2ZIONV8

2021 https://en.intactiwiki.org/wiki/Posttrau...s_disorder

2002 https://www.researchgate.net/publication...l_Sequelae

Circ increases costs. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15534340/

https://www.researchgate.net/publication...ul_Effects

https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/ex...y-28990951

https://www.yourwholebaby.org/images-adults

http://www.circumcisionharm.org/gallery.htm

https://www.endalldisease.com/circumcisi...-foreskin/

Circ v intact penile problems. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/39084960/

No analgesic removes all pain during circ. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41443-022-00551-x

Mother infant interaction, Sleep wake states, etc. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=rel...oogle.com/

Pain hypersensitivity following neonatal nerve injury.

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1186/1744-8069-8-30

Short term trauma Long term psychosexual harm. https://file.scirp.org/Html/3-1990071_55727.html

Cost utility analysis https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15534340/

https://www.savingsons.org/2015/09/fores...t.html?m=1

Lifetime pain & complications from circ. https://www.yourwholebaby.org/images-adults

Circumcision Reduces Sensitivity and Alters Male Sexuality: With Sources

Tue, 28 Jul 2026 10:44:34 +0000

Circumcision reduces function, sensitivity, and sensations, it can also cause a lifetime of issues if something goes wrong with nerve healing like constant pain or numbness etc.
2022
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/circumcis...herv%C3%A9
2007 4skin is the most sensitive part. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/17378847/
2011 Foreskin is more sensitive than the glans. https://bjui-journals.onlinelibrary.wile...11.10364.x
16+ functions of 4skin https://beststartbirthcenter.com/male-circumcision/
Circ/MGM tied to less sexual pleasure. https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSBRE9...rcher%20Dr
The effect of Circ on male sexuality. https://bjui-journals.onlinelibrary.wile...06.06646.x
It decreases sensitivity https://bjui-journals.onlinelibrary.wile...12.11761.x
4skin a complex structure that performs a number of functions like immunological & protective it's highly innervated, touch, & stretch sensitive https://journalofethics.ama-assn.org/art...ry/2017-08
It affects both partners https://youtu.be/BgoTRMKrJo4
Effect on partners https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10349418/
82% of cut males don't experience these. https://www.academia.edu/25577623/A_prel...2_16_2022_

find yourself a partner who cares

Tue, 28 Jul 2026 02:56:16 +0000

I met my wife of 23 years in high school and she has always been supportive of me. I cant begin to explain how much of a godsend she has been in my life. She has always been my shoulder to cry on and is instrumental in ensuring my health is in good shape.

Hello to the circumcised community

Tue, 28 Jul 2026 02:39:21 +0000

I'm a circumcised male from the United States looking to connect with others about the issue. I've been sifting through the discussions on the website and enjoy reading the conversations people have been having. i'm looking forward to discussing with others 👍

Many medical organizations are against it.

Mon, 27 Jul 2026 22:15:36 +0000

Many medical organizations are against it.
Canadian Paediatric Society (CPS) (2015, reaffirmed 2024)
The CPS does not recommend the routine circumcision of every newborn male. It further states that when “medical necessity is not established, …interventions should be deferred until the individual concerned is able to make their own choices.”
Royal Dutch Medical Association (KNMG) (2010)
The KNMG states “there is no convincing evidence that circumcision is useful or necessary in terms of prevention or hygiene.” It regards the non-therapeutic circumcision of male minors as a violation of physical integrity, and argues that boys should be able to make their own decisions about circumcision.
The Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP) (2022)
“After reviewing current evidence, the Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP) believes that the frequency of diseases modifiable by circumcision, the level of protection offered by circumcision and the complication rates of circumcision do not warrant routine infant circumcision in Australia or Aotearoa New Zealand.” A critique of other aspects of the RACP’s 2022 statement, including of their ethical analysis and anatomical inaccuracies has been published by the Darbon Institute (formerly the Australasian Institute for Genital Autonomy.)
British Medical Association (BMA) (2019)
The BMA considers that the evidence concerning health benefits from non-therapeutic circumcision is insufficient for this alone to be a justification for doing it. It suggests that it is “unethical and inappropriate” to circumcise for therapeutic reasons when effective and less invasive alternatives exist. See also a recent published critique of weaknesses in the the BMA’s guidance on circumcision.[8]
Expert statement from the German Association of Pediatricians (BVKJ) (2012)
In testimony to the German legislature, the President of the BVKJ has stated, “there is no reason from a medical point of view to remove an intact foreskin from …boys unable to give their consent.” It asserts that boys have the same right to physical integrity as girls in German law, and, regarding non-therapeutic circumcision, that parents’ right to freedom of religion ends at the point where the child’s right to physical integrity is infringed upon.
Danish Medical Association (DMA) (2020)
Citing lack of consent of the child and his right to self-determination, along with a lack of health benefits which thus does not justify the risks of complications, pain, and loss of normal anatomy, the DMA concludes: “From a medical and medical ethics perspective, the Danish Medical Association believes that the current practice of circumcising boys without a medical indication should cease.”
In addition, medical organizations and children’s ombudsmen from a number of other countries, including Belgium, Finland, Norway, Slovenia,South Africa, and Sweden, have gone on record in opposition to non-therapeutic circumcision of boys.

Kindly_Essay_4333 's Opinion on Circumcision

Mon, 27 Jul 2026 21:39:37 +0000

As a person from a country that does not practice circumcision, the amount of absolute brainwashing and justifying that goes on when it comes to circumcising is absolutely bananas to me.
“Most men are circumcised in my country so it is fine”
At one point in time, not even that long ago, marital rape was common and accepted. We then figured out that it was not ok, and now this is no longer done. Tradition is not enough of a reason to continue with genital mutilation.
“My brother / husband / father is circumcised and has no lasting effects from it / didn’t have any trauma from it”. It’s great that they were mutilated without a say in the matter and did not suffer from having the agency taking away from them when it comes to their body. It’s honestly the best they can hope for. Many people do suffer from it however, just visit certain subreddits and you’ll see. You cannot know if your child will be affected or not, if they will suffer from it or not, so why are you counting on them not caring?. Someone else not suffering from it is not enough justification for genital mutilation.
“My husband wants our child to look like them”. Why is this a thing that it’s acceptable to say??? I have a vagina and I don’t care if my possible future daughter has the same labia as me??? Why are we thinking of our children’s genitals and caring about how they look??? Why are we taking their bodily autonomy away to make sure that their dicks looks like our dicks????
“Girls will not find him attractive “ oh ok. Makes sense. Let’s get some plastic surgery done on the child too then, just to make sure someone in 20 years will want to ride them! Makes perfect sense! Maybe if I have a daughter and she’s still flat at the age of 14 I’ll get her boob surgery! After all what’s important in life aside from being sexually desirable! It’s not like there’s many people around the world that would also prefer an uncircumcised dick!
“It’s more hygienic” How about we purchase a bidet and we educate our children about proper hygiene then? Why are we jumping to removing a part of their genitals? Do we not realize that in many other countries circumcision is NOT practiced and people don’t typically lose their cocks to gangrene???
“It’s a safe procedure” I don’t care if it’s 1 death in a million, if that single baby dies for something they did not chose because “culture” or “religion”, it’s one baby too much.
“It’s only a flap of skin” ok, let me cut a piece off you then without your consent because my culture / religion says so! Also, let’s ignore the fact that for many men, there is documented effects to removing that flap of skin! Who cares right? Do we realize that saying that mutilation is fine as long as the cut is a certain size or only has certain effects is insane???? What???
“It’s my religion”. We have gone too far in the idea of respecting other religions. I respect your right AS AN ADULT to think and believe anything that has an effect on YOURSELF without repercussions. THAT is what respecting belief should look like. I do NOT need to respect the ideology itself, and I certainly do not need to respect the idea that a religion needs to give me a free pass to mutilate an infant. When your religion affects others negatively, it is doing something wrong and that needs to be called out so we can evolve as a society.
If your religion is ok with mutilating infants who cannot consent, I do not respect your religion. Religions can evolve as society progresses. If yours doesn’t, and it affects the society I live in, I have the right to say that this religion is messed up. It’s important to your faith? Cool. Then, when you grow up and you can decide to circumcise yourself, go ahead. It’s not ok to cut infants. Period. Stop.
“But it’s harder to do this when you grow up!” Come on now. Women can go through childbirth, sometimes unmedicated. You can survive circumcision with anesthesia just fine, knowing you have had a choice in the matter.
“Well but it is also done for medical reasons”. Sure. I can cut off a foot if it’s medically recommended, but if I cut your foot unprompted it’s a problem. It’s almost as if consent and context matter.
How are we so keen on consent, unless is permanently changes the genitalia of our children?
I know I will be downvoted to oblivion for this or maybe banned but I do not care. I think society progresses only when we speak out about outdated and cruel practices and the distorted thinking that keeps them going.

Important Info of AAP, Circumcision and Data

Mon, 27 Jul 2026 21:30:52 +0000

The AAP says that the benefits outweigh the risks, but they also acknowledge that they never researched the risks and they also include cultural, religious, and ethnic reasons in their 2012 circumcision endorsement. They are biased.

AAP: "Evaluation of current evidence indicates that the health benefits of newborn male circumcision outweigh the risks, and the benefits of newborn male circumcision justify access to this procedure for those families who choose it."
But AAP in the same breath: "The true incidence of complications after newborn circumcision is unknown, in part due to differing definitions of “complication” and differing standards for determining the timing of when a complication has occurred (ie, early or late). Adding to the confusion is the comingling of “early” complications, such as bleeding or infection, with “late” complications such as adhesions and meatal stenosis."
"The true incidence of complications after newborn circumcision is unknown" pg e772
"It is difficult, if not impossible, to adequately assess the total impact of complications, because the data are scant and inconsistent regarding the severity of complications" pg e775
According to the AAP's Andrew Freedman: "I circumcised my son on my parents' kitchen table on the eight day of his life. But I did it for religious, not medical reasons. I did it because I had 3,000 years of ancestors looking over my shoulder" The New York Jewish Weekly, Sept 19, 2012
Also Andrew Freedman again: "In my practice, I like to sort of define it as a traditional custom, and if you belong to a tribe that does it then you really want it." American Circumcision, 2018
Also Douglas Diekema of the AAP trying to legalize a form of FGM: "The AAP policy statement on newborn male circumcision expresses respect for parental decision-making and acknowledges the legitimacy of including cultural, religious, and ethnic traditions when making the choice of whether to surgically alter a male infant's genitals... It might be more effective if federal and state laws enabled pediatricians to reach out to families by offering a ritual nick (to girls)" - Ritual Genital Cutting of Female Minors, April 26, 2010.
Also, according to the AAP it takes anywhere between 909 and 322.000 circumcisions and according to the CDC “The number needed to [circumcise] to prevent one HIV infection varied, from 1,231 in white males to 65 in black males, with an average in all males of 298. The model did not account for the cost of complications of circumcision. In addition, there is a risk that men may overestimate the protective effect of being circumcised and be less likely to adopt safe sex practices.”