Archives for February 2022

Intactivism is currently based in human rights. Specifically, it is based in the idea that human beings have the right to their own body, and to cut off a part of someone’s body without their consent is a violation of their human rights.

This argument was at one point an appeal to the shared values of Western liberalism. Now, human rights are no longer dominant shared values.

Even adults do not have the right to make their own choices about their body. The medical overstate believes that if your choices about your own body put others at risk – like choosing not to take a vaccine – that they have the right to make decisions about your body for you.

Do you see the looming threat?

If Western governments drop human rights and hold that “medical benefits” trump individual choice, the primary Intactivist argument becomes a dissident one, rather than an appeal to dominant values.

In this new medical overstate, “risks” and “benefits” are entirely socially constructed by the medical system. It doesn’t matter if an intervention does not actually prevent the disease it is vaccinating against, only that it can “reduce risk,” with “reduce” and “risk” both defined entirely by those in power.

Circumcision proponents have already argued that circumcision is a “surgical vaccine.” If the medical overstate can trump human rights in one area, then they might use the same discourse to expand their power in others. Even if you believe that one medical intervention, like vaccines, “works” while circumcision harms, it doesn’t matter – the medical overstate is the one who will define what “works” and does not work.

At the same time, a new set of values has emerged that trumps even the medical overstate: critical social justice or social justice based in critical theory. During the height of medical overstate lockdowns, mass social justice protests were allowed and endorsed by the dominant hegemony, including the medical system, even in violation of previous advice to “socially distance” and stay home.

As the threat of the medical overstate trumping human rights looms, an opportunity emerges in the form of critical social justice trumping the medical system. Every major institution has accepted social justice values. Social justice now holds so much power that it constitutes a new hegemony or dominant power.

If we want to appeal to dominant values, human rights are not the dominant values. Critical social justice is. However, critical social justice is an entirely different way of seeing the world that is explicitly skeptical of individual human rights. You would have to completely reimagine the underlying ideology and arguments of the movement against circumcision in order to use critical social justice.

Fortunately, I already have. I read all I could on critical social justice and created Children’s Justice, which views the treatment of children as a social justice issue. It uses the methods and values of critical social justice to do more than the human rights framework ever could. I believe if used, Children’s Justice solves this looming threat and ensures that the movement for children will be dominant rather than eclipsed by new powers.

Regret parents is a term used to describe parents whose children were circumcised and now regret that they were not kept intact.

Parents often come to regret the circumcision of their children due to learning new information about the harm of circumcision. Parents are given so little information by the medical system that it is a common experience for parents to not find out the truth about circumcision until after their children have been harmed.

So many parents have come to regret their child’s circumcision that these parents have formed their own online communities. Many of these parents feel grief or guilt over the role they played in allowing their children to be harmed. Since circumcision is viewed by the dominant culture as a “parental choice,” many see themselves as having made the wrong choice, which they now regret.

Yet was circumcision actually their “parental choice” or were they coerced? These parents were not acting as independent decision-makers. They were within a system.

One of the core ideas of critical social justice theory is that we are not merely individuals but interact with social systems. These systems include culture, socialization, language, etc. These parents were not just influenced by larger cultural assumptions, but in a system that literally has the word system in its name: the medical system.

The parents did not train medical students to perform circumcisions, manufacture circumcision devices, create billing codes for health insurance, place a sales funnel for circumcision in hospital birth, use high-pressure sales tactics, and frame those selling circumcision as experts that parents should trust. The parents’ only role in the circumcision of their child was to sign a consent form at the end of a large multi-million dollar cultural process that had already taken place.

If we include the medical system as a character, it is clearly the primary actor in the circumcision of children. “Parental choice” is a fiction that the medical system uses to hide their role in circumcision. The medical system is often invisible because it doesn’t act through a single person, whereas parents see themselves as the most important characters in the story of their child’s birth. And they are — just not the most powerful.

Is consent possible with this great power imbalance and this little information given? In my book Children’s Justice, I use this analogy:

Imagine if this situation was between a man and a woman instead of an institution and family. If a man in a position of authority was to repeatedly pressure a woman for sex while she was under the influence of drugs, continue asking after she said no, claimed she was required to have sex with him, shame her when she wouldn’t, prevent her from leaving, and hold someone she cared about hostage during the whole process, could we really call it “consent” if she eventually broke down and said yes? The woman might regret giving a “yes,” but we would not frame the sex that followed as consensual. We would say it was coerced. Parents are at an even greater imbalance of power in the medical system… A better name for these parents would be coerced parents.

Given the power imbalance between the medical system and parents and the way the medical system wields that power over parents, consent is impossible. These parents are not “regret” parents. They were coerced parents.

The dominant cultural narrative about circumcision is that it is a “parental choice,” when the power imbalances between parents and doctors reveal that it is a medical coercion. The medical system frames parents as the culprits for its own actions to hide their role in perpetuating harm. In doing so, they cause cultural trauma to coerced parents, who struggle with feelings based on false beliefs about who is responsible for the actions of the system. While parents are responsible for the role they play, that role is much smaller than they might imagine.

Once parents see the larger system that acted upon them, they might be able to let go of some of the regret, guilt, or shame they might feel and work towards getting justice for their children.

To learn more, read my book Children’s Justice.

Children’s Justice is not about merely changing individual parents, but changing the larger systems and institutions those parents interact with.

Many parents report becoming tense and vigilant during hospital birth to make sure the hospital does not engage in unnecessary procedures they do not want, such as caesarian section or circumcision. While this might protect their child, Children’s Justice asks: why do these parents feel they have to be vigilant in the first place?

Other parents are concerned with what their children are being taught in government schools. They attend school board meetings and engage in activism to remove material from school curriculums that they feel teaches harmful ideas. While these efforts sometimes change school curriculum, Children’s Justice asks: why is the government making their children learn certain ideas?

Some parents do not even get to stay home with their young children. Both parents have to work and it is more economical for the parents to spend their time at jobs while the job of raising their children is outsourced to daycare. While it is possible for parents to achieve an economic situation that allows them to stay at home with their children, Children’s Justice asks: why does our current economic system separate children from their parents?

Yes, it is possible for individual parents to resist all of these systems. The real question is how did they get into a bad system in the first place? Is it possible to change the system as a whole rather than placing the burden of resistance on each individual parent, who is already handling so much?

These systems often consciously try to trick parents trying to opt-out of them. For example, food companies will label processed food as having “natural flavors” when there is nothing natural about them. Parents wanting to feed their children a healthy diet not only have to be aware of what constitutes a good diet but be aware of the various ways the system will attempt to trick and trap them.

An individual framework for resistance asks a lot of parents. In order to avoid harmful systems, parents are basically required to become amateur experts in a range of fields from food science to educational theory. This is an unreasonable demand for most parents. At some point, it is actually easier to change the entire system, even for the parents with the resources to opt-out or resist.

Even alternative parenting advice, such as peaceful parenting, natural birth, homeschooling, etc. often frames change as the responsibility of individual parents. When parents hear of these options, some become defensive because they lack the time or resources to make these changes even if they might find them desirable.

Children’s Justice recognizes the pressures that these larger systems place on parents, and holds each person who is complicit in the system accountable for their role in that system. While individual change can be beneficial and empowering, Children’s Justice is not about parents alone, but change for all systems that impact children.

To learn more, read Children’s Justice.

When the trauma of circumcision is acknowledged, it is usually framed in terms of the initial pain the child experiences. Circumcision causes trauma. Studies have shown that this trauma alters brain development creates a lasting change in behavior. Entire books have been written about this trauma, and I cover it in my own documentary on the issue of circumcision, American Circumcision.

This trauma is serious. Yet there is another less understood form of trauma that survivors experience once they have become aware of the harm of circumcision. This trauma is the cultural trauma that survivors experience from living in a genital cutting culture.

Cultural trauma is understood and acknowledged on other social issues. For example, racial justice activists use the term racial trauma or race-based traumatic stress to describe the trauma they experience from racism or interacting with a systemically racist culture. To illustrate this concept, imagine a black man walking alone at night when a police car pulls up slowly alongside him. The moment he sees that police car, the man might become tense or afraid. This fear is due to the cultural knowledge of black men’s experiences with police. Even if in this particular the police officer would be nice or doesn’t even see him, the man might still experience stress due to the culture itself. Racial justice activists suggest that these repeated experiences can add up to a form of complex post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) which they call race-based traumatic stress (RBTS).

Most men I know who are aware of the harm of circumcision also have repeated stressful experiences around the issue. They are used to having their feelings invalidated when they speak about being sexually assaulted as children. They might have lost friends or family for speaking up. They have endured fragile outbursts from perpetrators when they bring awareness to the harm of circumcision. They have endured repeated body-shaming both for what they have and the body part they lost due to circumcision. They are regularly exposed to cultural propaganda telling them that the abuse inflicted on them as children is normal and that they are somehow better for it. These repeated experiences can also add up to a form of complex PTSD due to the trauma of living in a genital cutting culture.

What are some examples of this cultural trauma?

Stress around potential victims. Many survivors report becoming tense when they see pregnant women. Whereas most people experience happiness for the new life coming into the world, survivors of genital cutting perceive a potential threat to that child’s safety if they are male in a culture that normalizes male genital cutting.

Stress around family. Many survivors report becoming estranged from their family after speaking out about circumcision or questioning their parents about it. This is very similar to the familial homophobia many gay activists have written about, yet there is no word for this among survivors of genital cutting and the added component that the people they would most want support and comfort from are also perpetrators.

Stress around medical perpetrators. Many survivors avoid doctor’s visits because they do not want to be around or give money to people engaged in abusing children the way they were abused. This means when survivors do need medical care, they must choose between their psychological and emotional safety and their health.

Stress around their child’s medical needs. Some survivors also avoid bringing their children to the doctor due to the fact doctors often sexually assault intact children by forcibly retracting their foreskin. (One survey showed that 43% of intact boys have been forcibly retracted, often by a doctor.) Survivors often have to risk their child being sexually assaulted to get him medical care.

Stress around birth. Hospitals solicit for circumcision an average of eight times per mother. Hospitals have also circumcised children without parental consent. Many parents aware of circumcision report being tense and hypervigilant in hospital birth settings and watching their new baby like a hawk to ensure no harm comes to him. Even if home birthing, the possibility of any need for medical help carries with it the possibility of perpetrators entering the sacred space of the birth of their child.

Stress around sexuality. Every time a circumcised man sees his body, there is a visible scar that can remind him of his own abuse. He might feel pain during sex or erections. There might be ongoing harm due to circumcision complications. There can also be stress in relationships, especially if the survivor’s partner(s) do not understand his feelings.

Stress around media. Media often reinforces dominant narratives about genital cutting being somehow “better” or “beneficial.” Seeing media that portrays their feelings of survivors as invalid can be triggering. Even seeing the male body in media can remind survivors either of what they do not have or what is normalized in genital cutting cultures.

Stress around Jewish perpetrators. Evening mentioning this source of trauma can provoke fragility and abuse from Jewish perpetrators. Jewish perpetrators often frame survivors’ trauma and resulting feelings as “antisemitism” and use that discourse as a justification to harm and target survivors for speaking about sexual assault they endured as children. Some survivors feel rightfully tense around Jewish people because they have experienced or know they might experience harassment and abuse from Jewish people if they share their testimony. Others feel tension for the same reason any survivor might feel tension around a perpetrator.

Stress around Jewish victims. Other survivors feel tense around Jewish people for the same reason they feel tense around new mothers. They know that children born into Jewish homes risk enduring the same abuse they endured as children. Seeing potential victims or other people they know are survivors reminds them of their own trauma, even if those other survivors are in false consciousness about their own abuse.

Stress around sharing feelings. There can be cultural stress if the survivor shares his feelings and they are not seen, heard, or acknowledged by those around him. Many survivors have to be careful about who they share their feelings with due to the ridicule and verbal abuse normalized against men who share their feelings on this issue. This abuse serves the cultural function of protecting the dominant narrative around circumcision so that perpetrators can continue to say “I’ve never heard anyone complain,” since those who do complain are often abused into silence.

Stress around bystanders. In order for a child to be abused, multiple aspects of society must fail to protect him. Survivors often feel stress around any element of society they feel should have protected them from child abuse that did not, especially if that aspect of society engages in or contributes to the abuse. This can include elements of government, religion, or the family.

These are just some examples. Once survivors become more aware of the concept of cultural trauma, I’m certain they will identify more. It is important to name and talk about these traumas because acknowledging them is the first step to changing and healing them.

To learn more, read my book Children’s Justice.

Pedophile fragility describes the triggered reaction and defensive maneuvers perpetrators of systemic pedophilia engage in when their role in harming children is brought to their awareness.

Originally coined by Robin DiAngelo and popularized in her bestseller White Fragility: Why It’s So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism to describe white people’s defensive and triggered reaction to discussions of race and racism, the term fragility can also be used to describe any person or groups triggered reaction to having their own role in a harmful system brought to their awareness (ex: brown fragility).

The term pedophile fragility applies the concept of fragility to those who participate in systemic pedophilia, the systems, institutions, and cultural beliefs that harm children. Pedophile fragility is often triggered by discussions of spanking, circumcision, compulsory schooling, or any cultural practice that harms children.

Fragile pedophile-apologists will often engage in defensive triggered reactions to new information that could bring the harm they are engaged in to their awareness. Those with pedophile fragility often frame new information exposing the harm of common cultural practices as a personal referendum on the “goodness” of them as an audience. Common displays of pedophile fragility include framing simply sharing new information as “harassment” or “bashing” other parents.

This is often a form of psychological projection since those same accusers will often engage in harassment themselves. For example, in response to new information on circumcision, many who have participated in this form of systemic pedophilia will engage in body shaming by describing the intact body as gross or unclean or attempt to incite violence against those sharing the information by calling them “nazis” for simply opposing circumcision.

Pedophile fragility can even occur within families. When children approach their parents about what those parents did to them as children, parents often engage in defensive triggered maneuvers to avoid acknowledging the child’s feelings or any wrongdoing they might have done. These can range from excuses (“we did the best we could”) to denial of the child’s experience and feelings (“there is nothing wrong with you”) and even the outright defense of the harm perpetrated (“it was for your own good”).

Pedophile fragility harms survivors of systemic pedophilia. In order for survivors to heal from childhood trauma, they need to recognize and acknowledge their feelings and experiences. It also prevents society from doing the necessary work to protect children. Ensuring the next generation is free from trauma requires dismantling the systems engaged in harming children.

To learn more about this issue, read Children’s Justice.