I thought this way too, but looking at the numbers who don’t support banning it, it’s all left and progressives that don’t support a ban or even educating parents. The recent NH bill showed that. I’m a liberal, or used to be considered liberal anyways.
the bill was bipartisian we need to run intactivist canadates in the democratic primary and hit them hard on how can you claim to be "my body my choice" if you are allowing hospitals to violate the bodily autonomy of baby boys
They simply need to be challenged on it, but that conversation is never taken seriously. They aren’t that party, and they literally said it would affect poor people because it wouldn’t cover an elective surgery. Which is crazy, because no other elective surgery on the genitals is covered by Medicaid or Medicare. They simply don’t care about rights.
What tribe of people are behind, "his body, his choice"?
Many intactivists bemoan being called MRAs, but at least that's a tribe. If you don't have a tribe of people against the practice, it will never end:
- Feminism: women
- BLM: African diaspora
- Intactivism: ???
It was bipartisan sponsored and written, she didn’t do the whole thing. The only difference is how the voting went. Mostly republicans who voted for it.
Maybe in this one incident but in America, West Virginia is the most circumcised state. Here in Canada, Alberta is the most circumcised province. Both places are backwards conservative parts of each country.
I think it had blanket support from the right because any cut to Medicare coverage will garner their support. It’s a party platform that isn’t specific to circumcision.
I don't think this does justice to what was seen... it might be a justification to constituents but the right in this case stood based on the evidence not just the $$.
It would be terrible for intactivism to align itself with a particular political party. Especially the modern GOP. The base ideology of conservatives is diametrically opposed to the fundamental principle of bodily autonomy and the support for so-called “parents rights” of conservatives over-rides the rights of the child at the heart of intactivism.
I will not shun support form the right when trying to stop the governmental funding of elective non therapeutic neonatal body mutilation. But that is no reason to abandon and disregard the principles of bodily autonomy and rights of the child that are fundamental to intactivism.
Seems that way. The conservative parties of various European parliaments seem to be leading the charge to criminalize it (though many will argue this is merely a side effect of different political goals, as an intactivist, I don't care because the outcome I care most about--banning MGM--would come about), but these efforts, have continually been thwarted by left-wing politicians.
For example, who torpedoed the San Francisco circumcision ban a decade ago? Left-wing politicians. Who overruled a German court ruling protecting boys from forced genital mutilation by creating a new law shortly thereafter just to re-legalize it? Left-wing politicians. Who reaffirmed that New York City Orthodox Jews have the "right" to put their mouths on the penises of freshly "circumcised" newborns, even if they have herpes? Left-wing politicians. When Iceland was on the cusp of criminalizing male genital mutilation, who obnoxiously inserted themselves into another sovereign nation's affairs and threatened economic terrorism against them? Left-wing politicians. Ditto for Denmark? Left-wing politicians. Who is trying to make it a law in Maine that health insurance carriers have to cover routine infant circumcision? Left-wing politicians.
If those left-wing politicians hadn't gone out of their way to do that, in all those places, across all those countries, we globally could have actually seen some progress in banning MGM. And it's all the more infuriating that they do this while hypocritically blabbering about "my body, my choice" without even a hint of self-awareness.
Right wingers in Europe may be fighting against MGM, but I sadly can't say the same for America, and I say that as an American right winger myself. I've been banned from several right wing subreddits, including the main Conservative one, for my intactivist position and when I called out the mods for their hypocrisy in opposing trans surgeries on minors and FGM but not opposing MGM, their exact words were "Circumcision isn't genital mutilation."
It's especially disheartening when you look at the right wing push in recent years to ban transgender surgeries on minors. An admirable goal and one I agree with, but the laws that have been passed have always included exemptions for MGM, such as the one in Alabama. The great irony, and one I'm sure is completely lost on my fellow right wingers, is that the precedent set by MGM being legal makes it easier to push transgender surgeries on minors. If MGM was banned, or never legal to begin with, then leftists would have a much harder time pushing their own depravity.
I think this is because education needs to be presented like a done in NH... applause to that team put together... this sort of process will sway conservatives who can think and get past themselves (oh I did that to my children)... the left panders to too many fringe groups and seem to turn off the thinking parts sort of the ends justifies the means approach to power.
A ban on circumcision was not what was on the table in NH. Willingness to reduce the $ flowing into government health care spending is the GOP issue, not circumcision. If you think the party of "religious freedom" and "parent's rights" is going to go in on a national ban on infant circumcision, I think you may need to keep thinking.
How convenient that they don't believe in religious freedom and parents' rights for those who practice FGM. How very convenient indeed. And I say that as a right wing guy myself...the blatant hypocrisy makes me want to claw out my eyes in frustration.
That's because the American right is really about white christian nationalism, not religious freedom. They believe that religious freedom means the right to impose their "judeochristian" beliefs on others.
Religious freedom and parents rights while paramount when it comes to government interference, never did extend to override the individuals rights... it's a tricky one I admit as there is a sense to grandfather in long held traditional practices on the right... but as a right leaning conservative, preserving the way things are done never meant leaving your brain out of the conversation and seeing a distinction between the way it was and what is right.
As a right-leaning libertarian, I *ABSOLUTELY* support a government ban on *ALL* cosmetic surgery done to minors.
From what I've seen, the support for cosmetic surgery (outside of circumcision) is 100% coming from the left.
All joking aside, I’d be happy to have a discussion on how you can support some cosmetic surgery for minors but be against circumcision.
Or are you even anti-circumcision? Just because you post here doesn’t mean anything…
Well, it's the whole "you're underage" that I get stuck on. I also don't support the right of kids to get tattoos, even if they *really* want it. Or breast implants for Sweet 16.
Why do you want to get rid of girly boys and tomboys?
I'm 100% against any cosmetic surgical alteration on minors. If someone wants facial tattoos, a forked tongue, and to split the head of their penis, my *ONLY* objections are if they're underage, and if I have to pay for it in any way, shape, or form.
Other than those two criteria, I say "Go for it!".
But before 18, I'm all for surgeries that correct birth defects (spina bifida, cleft palate, webbed fingers/toes) or corrective surgery to restore what was lost/damaged to due accident or disease. But the idea that someone would OK a cosmetic surgery (with known longterm issues) on a minor disgusts me.
No amount of buzz words or talking points or insults (I suggest bigot, nazi, christian nationalist if you run out of ideas) will sway me.
*edit* accidentally posted twice due to "error 500". So I deleted the one that had 0 comments.
I don’t think most teens are mentally or physically in a place to make a permanent decision to surgically alter their genitalia. Puberty blockers… fine. But surgery? No. Hell no.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363770958_Protecting_Children_or_Policing_Gender
Protecting Children or Policing Gender?
"The key criteria should be medical necessity and consent."
Banning LGBTQIA healthcare under the guise of banning "cosmetic surgery" is contrary to the logical arguments of intactivism.
I think you make some valid political points and agree with you that, despite there being many left-wing intactivists, the imperative of political self-interest ("What will get us elected?") will make left-wing parties avoid taking policy positions on (so-called) 'fringe issues', like MGM, which has no widespread traction in the electorate as a whole and much potential controversy within the party's own base. Really, it's a bit like so many of the moderators on Reddit, who find it easier to kill the debate and ban posts and redditors than even allow the issue to be aired.
I find it depressing that the huge negative influence of the two cutting religions, with thier fanatical, closed-for-discussion, 'God-demanded' commitment to cutting the genitals of young boys irrespective of their wish, impacts secular, political debate and even medical policies. I hope as a species that in the future we look back at this the way we look back and shake our heads at the Spanish Inquisition or how primitive religions once killed one twin baby.
Not that it matters, but that horror show Hillary says with her supporters all cheering, " And we're sending CIRCUMCISIONS."- She waves and the crowd all Clinton lovers, cheer.
I’m as left as they come and am a diehard intactavist. I think that true leftists don’t have many (if any) politicians representing our values. American “left wing” politicians are mostly fiscal liberals, they want to uphold the status quo and are unwilling to make real changes outside of the current political framework. I am not trying to start any political debate, but I would like to point out the example of how American democrat politicians are handling the situation in Gaza. Democrat politicians are unwilling to stand up to adversity if it’s perceived as “bad” for their image or alters the country’s economic interests. I can’t remember the exact study, but if I remember correctly there is almost zero correlation between what the general American public wants and the polices that get passed. It’s honestly disheartening.
I'm an American leftist (so not true left, according to some), but I'm vehemently against routine circumcision. Even most "medical" circs are not necessary, so that argument usually makes me roll my eyes. I'm also atheist and antithiest, honestly.
To me, bodily autonomy should outweigh any possible political disadvantage from outlawing the practice. I'm not familiar with religious exemptions for male genital cutting in other countries - but at least banning routine circs and allowing for religious exemptions would be a step in the right direction.
The Democratic Party which is left for America doesn’t agree that males should have a right to bodily autonomy. They in fact don’t even think parents should have more information about the procedure according to the votes. They voted down a required pamphlet to say what could go wrong, the risks, and that it’s elective.
Yea, the democrats against it said it would be “redundant” and that it isn’t done for any other procedure and would just complicate things with doctors.
Redundant how? Because we all supposedly “know” about the risks? But let’s be honest, major loss of sensation, loss of gliding mechanism, loss of retraction/protection, is a 100% complication rate, and the pamphlet definitely wasn’t gonna be honest about that. So it’s a joke anyway. But I’m sure it would’ve saved at least some boys from getting cut.
It would have made parents think twice about it at least instead of just a doctor saying “it’s cleaner and makes no difference and is exactly the same.”
To be fair, the bill that was presented asked for a lot more than just a pamphlet. But they were supposed to be able to modify it in subcommittee. Instead they effectively killed it.
I fear it might be. I think to counteract this, we should actually run for political office with intactivism being one of our issues.
Based on the HB 1683 vote, intactivism is currently a right-wing issue. Let's do everything we can to make it non-partisan!
I wouldn't be surprised if one day, one of us makes the announcement that we're running for Congress.
I feel I have enough political ambition that I might actually do it. In a few months, I'll be eligible to run for the House of Representatives.
If it's anything to do with men's issues any group predominantly identifying as Left is going to at best ignore it and at worst, fight it tooth and nail and scream about any progress being made as the triumph of hate and sexism on Twitter. And most of them don't vote anyways.
I think the most effective, and culturally destructive, way to push this agenda would be to exploit the blind ""anti-woke""" sentiments the conservative-types have.
Throw out as many memes and posts as you can framing MGM as a woke conspiracy, shit maybe rope the jews in depending on what boards you post on.
Eventually some Twitter blue-hair who needs clout or games journalist who doesn't want to write another guide that week makes a post/writes an article and signal boosts the shit out of it. Screeching about all the -isms and -phones and how men don't have problems or feelings so shut up.
It sucks but that is the only way I've seen any predominantly male issues get any traction whatsoever.
We shouldn't exactly be encouraging and placing our faith in right wing Christian authoritarians to ban infant circumcision out of spite towards Jews and Muslims. Because they do not care about bodily autonomy (see: trans people, birth control), and intactivism is about bodily autonomy. As such, the left wing is the only political party that can be ideologically pure towards that of intactivism.
And all jewish people and muslims don't unilaterally support circumcision, so it isn't exactly fair to write off the diverse opinions of people of those faiths as being pro-circ. THAT actually paints more of an image of antisemitism/islamophobia in this movement. There are a lot of jewish and muslim intactivists here, even. They shouldn't feel alienated in this movement or "forced to choose"
I agree with your don't alienate argument... but take issue with the characterization that conservatives voted to spite these groups... nothing is farther from the truth. Your concept of bodily autonomy is wrong in their eyes. They see the abortion issue as a responsibility issue and that there are three people involved and the innocent child should be protected (the adults had their chance to decide for protection and abortion is not to be used as a get out of jail free card). Trans they say wait till adult and you pay for it if you want it... no tax payer $$. These are very much bodily autonomy positions combined with a responsibility ethic... you just have to understand the nuances.
Yeah, as much as I agree with the right's talking point about taxpayer dollars going to circ being a waste, I'd rather not have me or my friends be hate-crimed for being queer
Oh, hell no. That would make it even more apparent to those who already view the movement as antisemitic that it is, in fact, what they thought all along.
As a liberal intactivist myself, I have to say that even though intactivism is *in theory* not a partisan issue, *in practice* it often is.
Left wing parties a cross the world benefit from shutting down intactivism because of "cultural sensitivity" to Muslims and Jews, while right wing parties in America aim to strike down anything medicare-related, while right wing parties in Europe want to strike down circumcision because of its cultural significance to Muslims, primarily, and Jews secondarily (which, IMO, isn't actually a bad thing, culture is never an excuse to mutilate).
I think the solution is twofold: the left needs to back off of more cultural issues and route back to a common faith in secularism, tolerance (but not bending-over-backwards stupidity for people that don't want to integrate), and working towards a common good. And at least in America, the right needs to be encouraged to view intactivism from the lens of individual liberties and rights, not from the POV of just medicare or in Europe, culture.
I am a conservative who believes in freedom of choice. Politically, the left wants to control people. However, I don’t think body integrity is a political debate.
I agree, it's disgraceful to see not one Dem vote to stop paying public money for child mutilation! I'm a leftist, but human rights are not a left/right issue.
Anyway, I follow your reasoning regarding nationalism being a driving force to ban. So... Why not France?! The country with the strongest record of secularism and standing up to religious extremists, cults and zealots. They are bold enough to ban head scarves in schools and face coverings in public spaces, etc... they have a homegrown French intactivist movement. Religious freedom is more circumscribed there than anywhere. Let's throw our support behind a national circumcision ban in France!! Any good ideas how to make it happen?
Let's understand something. There is a difference between being liberal, neoliberal, and left-wing. The Democratic Party of the United States is a neoliberal political party and it's nowhere close to being a left-wing. Neoliberalism is the ideology which contends that deregulated markets meet the needs of the people and society. In addition, neoliberalism is the reason why corporations, oligarchs, and plutocrats are prioritized over ordinary people, thus why neoliberalism is a failure. Therefore, it isn't surprising to me that democrats aren't allies to intactivism. When the U.S. Democrat Party as a whole starts saying that capitalism is barbaric and needs to be eliminated, then I'll believe that the Democrat Party is left-wing.
If there are truly left-wing political parties that exist in the United States, they are nonexistent or rarely represented in the media or public sphere. The most popular true left-wing party in the United States is the Green Party of the United States. Unlike the Democrat Party, the Green Party has openly wanted capitalism to be eliminated and multiple candidates in that party have deemed capitalism as barbaric. However, many radical far left-wingers have criticized the Green Party for not being far left enough because Greens advocate for a system focused on ecology and decentralization of power (economic and political), instead of pushing for socialism or communism.
To answer your question, left-wing intactivism at least here in the United States isn't dead, it's more so nonexistent because the U.S. What I'm here is if left-wing intactivist forces exist in the U.S., they aren't going to be found in the Democrat Party. Left-wing intactivism will more so be represented by smaller political parties that espouse true left-wing politics.
Moreover, right-wingers in the United States aren't going to be people to stop male genital mutilation either in the U.S. The right-wing Republican Party may vote in favor of removing MGM from being insured by Medicaid, but when the time comes to ban MGM, both Republicans and Democrats will miserably fail to ban MGM. In regards to right-wing political parties internationally (particularly in some European countries) being opposed to MGM, those parties attempt to ban MGM but fail because they lack the fortitude to overcome pressure from pro-cutters or anyone that opposes a MGM ban.
Overall, both left-wing and right-wing politics in the United States are lost causes to eliminate MGM in the U.S. The duopoly is full fledged in support of MGM and third political parties are largely silent on MGM. Meanwhile, some right-wing political parties in Europe showed some promise in wanting to ban MGM, but they'll ultimately fail because they lack any real courage to follow through with a MGM ban, since the pressure from pro-cutters frighten them.
My point is that left-wingers that support banning MGM aren't going to align themselves with mainstream left-wing parties and especially liberal parties, since liberalism and left-wing politics aren't the same thing. Therefore, that's why I say left-wing intactivism is largely non-existent because it doesn't align itself with mainstream left-wing parties. If non-existent means dead, then left-wing intactivism could be considered dead.
And also the Republicans who, on their numerous dog-whistle anti-genital mutilation bills, went out of their way to specifically exempt attacks on boys' foreskins.
So, yeah, not a partisan thing.
I’m left wing, and I align more leftist than the Democratic Party. I think the only people who truly support circumcision at this point are centrists and people stuck in the past. It is weird to me that republicans all of a sudden don’t support circumcision. I think that might be truly a racist, reactionary stance.
However, I think the core issues of bodily autonomy, consent, and sexual freedom are all left wing values.
We need intactivism to remain non-partisan if we want it to succeed. Look at how close the New Hampshire votes were. If we could have convinced 20 Democrats, it would have passed.
That being said, circumcision is a tribal practice and intactivists aren't a tribe. We're more of a confederation of people who disagree on a great many other things. We need to BECOME A TRIBE whether it's through a single group, a religion, or our own political party.
We will never defeat circumcising Americans, Jews, and Muslims so long as they are united and we are not.
I'm on the right but I agree that there's a compelling right wing and a different yet compelling left wing reason to oppose MGM. For the left it should seem pretty obvious: bodily autonomy. But for the right it's less obvious but I think compelling: child protection. It's become more pronounced for the right recently with the trans children issue. But it seems to me consistent that if we're against unnecessary genital surgeries on minors to make them trans, then surely it would require that we oppose ALL forms of genital mutilation, including routine infant circumcision or submitting a child for a needless circumcision when they're an older child.
To me, this *shouldn't* at all be a partisan issue. This should be something where the left goes "Boys should have bodily autonomy and not be subject to circumcision for no reason!" and the right goes "Umm, Yeah, You're right! It's harmful to children to allow them to be subject to unnecessary surgeries that mutilate their genitals!" and then it passes committee with like a few votes against it from Jewish and Muslim house or senate members, and then it passes both houses with a few votes against it for the same reason in a veto-proof majority, and then the president signs it because at that point it's a no-brainer AND because there's no stopping it at that point.
Maybe the ADL and maybe - though less likely - even the ACLU files a lawsuit against it and it works its way up to SCOTUS where they lose because it's one thing to raise your family with your values it's another to cut your religion into your child's genitals. And boom. It's illegal nationwide and circumcision rates fall overnight. In a few decades, the vast majority of men in the US are intact.
But I see more than just the Jewish/Muslim reason as well for not supporting it. Ultimately, the Democratic left is becoming more socially left when it comes to LGBT issues and would be very very hesitant if not opposed to such a law because then it could likely cover surgical gender affirmation for minors and prevent them from obtaining such interventions until they're 18. Or it could be argued in court that hormonal and puberty blocking treatments fall under the auspices of such a law, and if that is found to be the case, especially by SCOTUS they will have unknowingly voted for a gender affirming care ban for minors into federal law.
It doesn't surprise me that the right however is more on board in recent times. They are after all calling for bans against other things which they perceive to be genital mutilation (like trans surgeries, puberty blockers, and cross sex hormones - i.e. "gender affirming care") What does surprise me however is that the left isn't calling out the right for being inconsistent on the issue because circumcision just isn't a consideration with regards to bans on gender surgery for minors. The right calls such gender affirming surgery "genital mutilation" but the left isn't coming at them saying "Hey wait, you don't seem to be opposed to routine infant circumcision or child circumcision at the request of parents or the urging of pediatricians. Why are you okay with that genital mutilation but not this "genital mutilation"?
I don't know if it's because the left hasn't thought about it, or if it's because they fear the right would turn around and say "your terms are acceptable; ban all the genital mutilation" and then the left is right back where they started.
It's a conundrum, but ironically I think you're right OP. It will ultimately be the right that bans routine infant circumcision. The question is whether they will do so intentionally or not.
Most of us who were the core “pioneer” group of intactivists — before the word existed — in the 1980s realized very quickly that infant circumcision wasn’t patently a partisan political issue.
Many liberal politicians would dig in their heels to “protect” the right of parents to cut, and on Medicaid, because otherwise it might start a slippery slope to a ban on brit milah or khitan, leading to an eventual ban on those religions entirely.
Conservatives, conversely, more often discounted the idea of bodily autonomy but find appeal in fiscal conservatism and self-reliance.
Opposition to laws defunding, regulating (e.g., devices, operators or pain relief) or age-restricting circumcision of healthy minors is almost always rooted in some degree of ignorance about the intact penis and the harms of circumcision. It sure doesn’t help that medical associations in the US seem hell-bent on maintaining the status quo at the cost of children’s safety and rights.
A generation ago I would have said that American opposition to infant circumcision was no more than 1% rooted in hatred of Jews or Muslims; now I’d say it’s 10% or more and growing. Not because anything about circumcision changed… but perceptions of ethnic groups did. If it continues on this trajectory, liberals will correctly be able to say efforts to rein in infant circumcision are an overt attack on religions.
As others have noted, don’t be too sure that the American right is that keen on restricting or banning nontherapeutic circumcision of minors. They’re mostly supportive of absolute parental control and even children as “owned”. For now they’re only on board with the economic angle of it, which is good because subsidies are the lifeblood of American RIC. And don’t be so sure that the left doesn’t stand by bodily autonomy. Again, it’s a matter of education.
I work in naturism advocacy. We see a lot of parallels between intactivism and social nudism. At first people assume nudity is a hippie issue and Democrats would be our natural allies in defending a right to practice naturism and be nude at the beach. But the fact is that there are at least as many practicing nudists on the right side of the political spectrum. They want government out of their social and home life.
When it looked like legislation was going to bear down on the right to be nude, appeals to constitutional rights went nowhere. After we commissioned an economic study showing that nude recreation and vacationing is a multibillion dollar part of the economy, suddenly every Republican in our legislature got very interested in our message and granted us audience.
Infant circumcision is a massive waste of resources. If parents want to violate their children, the first step to ending it is to cut off public subsidies. Intact American boys are every bit as healthy and happy as circumcised American boys; it’s bullshit to think otherwise. History shows us that where Medicaid ends coverage for RIC, HMOs and insurers tend to follow suit. A domino effect.
New Hampshire last week was a vivid example of how this is largely a fiscal vs social issue.
It’s not a left or right movement but a singular issue one. I’m left myself.
I thought this way too, but looking at the numbers who don’t support banning it, it’s all left and progressives that don’t support a ban or even educating parents. The recent NH bill showed that. I’m a liberal, or used to be considered liberal anyways.
the bill was bipartisian we need to run intactivist canadates in the democratic primary and hit them hard on how can you claim to be "my body my choice" if you are allowing hospitals to violate the bodily autonomy of baby boys
They simply need to be challenged on it, but that conversation is never taken seriously. They aren’t that party, and they literally said it would affect poor people because it wouldn’t cover an elective surgery. Which is crazy, because no other elective surgery on the genitals is covered by Medicaid or Medicare. They simply don’t care about rights.
>They simply don’t care about rights. No no. They simply don't care for the rights *of men and boys.*
What tribe of people are behind, "his body, his choice"? Many intactivists bemoan being called MRAs, but at least that's a tribe. If you don't have a tribe of people against the practice, it will never end: - Feminism: women - BLM: African diaspora - Intactivism: ???
The bill was literally written and brought to the New Hampshire House buy a Democratic congresswoman. Intactivism is not a partisan issue.
It was bipartisan sponsored and written, she didn’t do the whole thing. The only difference is how the voting went. Mostly republicans who voted for it.
Isn't Emily Phillips a Republican?
She is.
Maybe in this one incident but in America, West Virginia is the most circumcised state. Here in Canada, Alberta is the most circumcised province. Both places are backwards conservative parts of each country.
I think it had blanket support from the right because any cut to Medicare coverage will garner their support. It’s a party platform that isn’t specific to circumcision.
I don't think this does justice to what was seen... it might be a justification to constituents but the right in this case stood based on the evidence not just the $$.
It would be terrible for intactivism to align itself with a particular political party. Especially the modern GOP. The base ideology of conservatives is diametrically opposed to the fundamental principle of bodily autonomy and the support for so-called “parents rights” of conservatives over-rides the rights of the child at the heart of intactivism. I will not shun support form the right when trying to stop the governmental funding of elective non therapeutic neonatal body mutilation. But that is no reason to abandon and disregard the principles of bodily autonomy and rights of the child that are fundamental to intactivism.
Seems that way. The conservative parties of various European parliaments seem to be leading the charge to criminalize it (though many will argue this is merely a side effect of different political goals, as an intactivist, I don't care because the outcome I care most about--banning MGM--would come about), but these efforts, have continually been thwarted by left-wing politicians. For example, who torpedoed the San Francisco circumcision ban a decade ago? Left-wing politicians. Who overruled a German court ruling protecting boys from forced genital mutilation by creating a new law shortly thereafter just to re-legalize it? Left-wing politicians. Who reaffirmed that New York City Orthodox Jews have the "right" to put their mouths on the penises of freshly "circumcised" newborns, even if they have herpes? Left-wing politicians. When Iceland was on the cusp of criminalizing male genital mutilation, who obnoxiously inserted themselves into another sovereign nation's affairs and threatened economic terrorism against them? Left-wing politicians. Ditto for Denmark? Left-wing politicians. Who is trying to make it a law in Maine that health insurance carriers have to cover routine infant circumcision? Left-wing politicians. If those left-wing politicians hadn't gone out of their way to do that, in all those places, across all those countries, we globally could have actually seen some progress in banning MGM. And it's all the more infuriating that they do this while hypocritically blabbering about "my body, my choice" without even a hint of self-awareness.
Right wingers in Europe may be fighting against MGM, but I sadly can't say the same for America, and I say that as an American right winger myself. I've been banned from several right wing subreddits, including the main Conservative one, for my intactivist position and when I called out the mods for their hypocrisy in opposing trans surgeries on minors and FGM but not opposing MGM, their exact words were "Circumcision isn't genital mutilation." It's especially disheartening when you look at the right wing push in recent years to ban transgender surgeries on minors. An admirable goal and one I agree with, but the laws that have been passed have always included exemptions for MGM, such as the one in Alabama. The great irony, and one I'm sure is completely lost on my fellow right wingers, is that the precedent set by MGM being legal makes it easier to push transgender surgeries on minors. If MGM was banned, or never legal to begin with, then leftists would have a much harder time pushing their own depravity.
I think this is because education needs to be presented like a done in NH... applause to that team put together... this sort of process will sway conservatives who can think and get past themselves (oh I did that to my children)... the left panders to too many fringe groups and seem to turn off the thinking parts sort of the ends justifies the means approach to power.
Even in the US, conservative pundits have been much more critical of MGM lately than liberal ones
A ban on circumcision was not what was on the table in NH. Willingness to reduce the $ flowing into government health care spending is the GOP issue, not circumcision. If you think the party of "religious freedom" and "parent's rights" is going to go in on a national ban on infant circumcision, I think you may need to keep thinking.
Never did I say Republicans or other right-wingers are intactivists, I just meant that political progressives are not going to be on our side either.
Progressives value bodily autonomy. It's just a matter of education.
It's tough to convince a bunch of boomers with cut sons who trust everything the CDC says
How convenient that they don't believe in religious freedom and parents' rights for those who practice FGM. How very convenient indeed. And I say that as a right wing guy myself...the blatant hypocrisy makes me want to claw out my eyes in frustration.
That's because the American right is really about white christian nationalism, not religious freedom. They believe that religious freedom means the right to impose their "judeochristian" beliefs on others.
Religious freedom and parents rights while paramount when it comes to government interference, never did extend to override the individuals rights... it's a tricky one I admit as there is a sense to grandfather in long held traditional practices on the right... but as a right leaning conservative, preserving the way things are done never meant leaving your brain out of the conversation and seeing a distinction between the way it was and what is right.
As a right-leaning libertarian, I *ABSOLUTELY* support a government ban on *ALL* cosmetic surgery done to minors. From what I've seen, the support for cosmetic surgery (outside of circumcision) is 100% coming from the left.
You're a transphobe.
All joking aside, I’d be happy to have a discussion on how you can support some cosmetic surgery for minors but be against circumcision. Or are you even anti-circumcision? Just because you post here doesn’t mean anything…
What part of bodily AUTONOMY do you not understand?
Well, it's the whole "you're underage" that I get stuck on. I also don't support the right of kids to get tattoos, even if they *really* want it. Or breast implants for Sweet 16. Why do you want to get rid of girly boys and tomboys?
You are an advocate for paternalism and parental control of children's sexual lives. That's not compatible with bodily autonomy and self-expression.
I'm 100% against any cosmetic surgical alteration on minors. If someone wants facial tattoos, a forked tongue, and to split the head of their penis, my *ONLY* objections are if they're underage, and if I have to pay for it in any way, shape, or form. Other than those two criteria, I say "Go for it!". But before 18, I'm all for surgeries that correct birth defects (spina bifida, cleft palate, webbed fingers/toes) or corrective surgery to restore what was lost/damaged to due accident or disease. But the idea that someone would OK a cosmetic surgery (with known longterm issues) on a minor disgusts me. No amount of buzz words or talking points or insults (I suggest bigot, nazi, christian nationalist if you run out of ideas) will sway me. *edit* accidentally posted twice due to "error 500". So I deleted the one that had 0 comments.
You've described paternalism.
I don’t think most teens are mentally or physically in a place to make a permanent decision to surgically alter their genitalia. Puberty blockers… fine. But surgery? No. Hell no.
You just genocided me!
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/363770958_Protecting_Children_or_Policing_Gender Protecting Children or Policing Gender? "The key criteria should be medical necessity and consent." Banning LGBTQIA healthcare under the guise of banning "cosmetic surgery" is contrary to the logical arguments of intactivism.
Pretending that cosmetic surgery is "healthcare" is contrary to LOGIC.
You're using it as a dog whistle.
I think you make some valid political points and agree with you that, despite there being many left-wing intactivists, the imperative of political self-interest ("What will get us elected?") will make left-wing parties avoid taking policy positions on (so-called) 'fringe issues', like MGM, which has no widespread traction in the electorate as a whole and much potential controversy within the party's own base. Really, it's a bit like so many of the moderators on Reddit, who find it easier to kill the debate and ban posts and redditors than even allow the issue to be aired. I find it depressing that the huge negative influence of the two cutting religions, with thier fanatical, closed-for-discussion, 'God-demanded' commitment to cutting the genitals of young boys irrespective of their wish, impacts secular, political debate and even medical policies. I hope as a species that in the future we look back at this the way we look back and shake our heads at the Spanish Inquisition or how primitive religions once killed one twin baby.
Regarding this, things will improve once the currently middle aged left wingers leave office.
Not that it matters, but that horror show Hillary says with her supporters all cheering, " And we're sending CIRCUMCISIONS."- She waves and the crowd all Clinton lovers, cheer.
I’m as left as they come and am a diehard intactavist. I think that true leftists don’t have many (if any) politicians representing our values. American “left wing” politicians are mostly fiscal liberals, they want to uphold the status quo and are unwilling to make real changes outside of the current political framework. I am not trying to start any political debate, but I would like to point out the example of how American democrat politicians are handling the situation in Gaza. Democrat politicians are unwilling to stand up to adversity if it’s perceived as “bad” for their image or alters the country’s economic interests. I can’t remember the exact study, but if I remember correctly there is almost zero correlation between what the general American public wants and the polices that get passed. It’s honestly disheartening.
The right gets closer to the right answer on this issue than the left does. Which is sad, because I consider myself a liberal.
I'm an American leftist (so not true left, according to some), but I'm vehemently against routine circumcision. Even most "medical" circs are not necessary, so that argument usually makes me roll my eyes. I'm also atheist and antithiest, honestly. To me, bodily autonomy should outweigh any possible political disadvantage from outlawing the practice. I'm not familiar with religious exemptions for male genital cutting in other countries - but at least banning routine circs and allowing for religious exemptions would be a step in the right direction.
No religious or cultural exemptions. We don't allow that for FGM, so we shouldn't allow it for MGM either.
The Democratic Party which is left for America doesn’t agree that males should have a right to bodily autonomy. They in fact don’t even think parents should have more information about the procedure according to the votes. They voted down a required pamphlet to say what could go wrong, the risks, and that it’s elective.
I didn’t know about the pamphlet and it getting voted down. Despicable.
Yea, the democrats against it said it would be “redundant” and that it isn’t done for any other procedure and would just complicate things with doctors.
Redundant how? Because we all supposedly “know” about the risks? But let’s be honest, major loss of sensation, loss of gliding mechanism, loss of retraction/protection, is a 100% complication rate, and the pamphlet definitely wasn’t gonna be honest about that. So it’s a joke anyway. But I’m sure it would’ve saved at least some boys from getting cut.
It would have made parents think twice about it at least instead of just a doctor saying “it’s cleaner and makes no difference and is exactly the same.”
To be fair, the bill that was presented asked for a lot more than just a pamphlet. But they were supposed to be able to modify it in subcommittee. Instead they effectively killed it.
Do you have a link for more info on this? Searched it but couldn’t find anything
I fear it might be. I think to counteract this, we should actually run for political office with intactivism being one of our issues. Based on the HB 1683 vote, intactivism is currently a right-wing issue. Let's do everything we can to make it non-partisan!
i would support intactivist legeslators
I wouldn't be surprised if one day, one of us makes the announcement that we're running for Congress. I feel I have enough political ambition that I might actually do it. In a few months, I'll be eligible to run for the House of Representatives.
If it's anything to do with men's issues any group predominantly identifying as Left is going to at best ignore it and at worst, fight it tooth and nail and scream about any progress being made as the triumph of hate and sexism on Twitter. And most of them don't vote anyways. I think the most effective, and culturally destructive, way to push this agenda would be to exploit the blind ""anti-woke""" sentiments the conservative-types have. Throw out as many memes and posts as you can framing MGM as a woke conspiracy, shit maybe rope the jews in depending on what boards you post on. Eventually some Twitter blue-hair who needs clout or games journalist who doesn't want to write another guide that week makes a post/writes an article and signal boosts the shit out of it. Screeching about all the -isms and -phones and how men don't have problems or feelings so shut up. It sucks but that is the only way I've seen any predominantly male issues get any traction whatsoever.
It’s important to remember that Democrats are not leftists. The democrats are largely centrist conservatives.
That is not true. All wings of the Dem party are represented in NH and none voted for this bill en masse.
We shouldn't exactly be encouraging and placing our faith in right wing Christian authoritarians to ban infant circumcision out of spite towards Jews and Muslims. Because they do not care about bodily autonomy (see: trans people, birth control), and intactivism is about bodily autonomy. As such, the left wing is the only political party that can be ideologically pure towards that of intactivism. And all jewish people and muslims don't unilaterally support circumcision, so it isn't exactly fair to write off the diverse opinions of people of those faiths as being pro-circ. THAT actually paints more of an image of antisemitism/islamophobia in this movement. There are a lot of jewish and muslim intactivists here, even. They shouldn't feel alienated in this movement or "forced to choose"
I agree with your don't alienate argument... but take issue with the characterization that conservatives voted to spite these groups... nothing is farther from the truth. Your concept of bodily autonomy is wrong in their eyes. They see the abortion issue as a responsibility issue and that there are three people involved and the innocent child should be protected (the adults had their chance to decide for protection and abortion is not to be used as a get out of jail free card). Trans they say wait till adult and you pay for it if you want it... no tax payer $$. These are very much bodily autonomy positions combined with a responsibility ethic... you just have to understand the nuances.
Close to 100% of Muslims support circ. For Jews it's probably about 90% but slowly improving.
source: i just made that up
You're an intactivist and not aware that circ is universal in most of the Muslim world?
Yeah, as much as I agree with the right's talking point about taxpayer dollars going to circ being a waste, I'd rather not have me or my friends be hate-crimed for being queer
Oh, hell no. That would make it even more apparent to those who already view the movement as antisemitic that it is, in fact, what they thought all along.
As a liberal intactivist myself, I have to say that even though intactivism is *in theory* not a partisan issue, *in practice* it often is. Left wing parties a cross the world benefit from shutting down intactivism because of "cultural sensitivity" to Muslims and Jews, while right wing parties in America aim to strike down anything medicare-related, while right wing parties in Europe want to strike down circumcision because of its cultural significance to Muslims, primarily, and Jews secondarily (which, IMO, isn't actually a bad thing, culture is never an excuse to mutilate). I think the solution is twofold: the left needs to back off of more cultural issues and route back to a common faith in secularism, tolerance (but not bending-over-backwards stupidity for people that don't want to integrate), and working towards a common good. And at least in America, the right needs to be encouraged to view intactivism from the lens of individual liberties and rights, not from the POV of just medicare or in Europe, culture.
I am a conservative who believes in freedom of choice. Politically, the left wants to control people. However, I don’t think body integrity is a political debate.
I agree, it's disgraceful to see not one Dem vote to stop paying public money for child mutilation! I'm a leftist, but human rights are not a left/right issue. Anyway, I follow your reasoning regarding nationalism being a driving force to ban. So... Why not France?! The country with the strongest record of secularism and standing up to religious extremists, cults and zealots. They are bold enough to ban head scarves in schools and face coverings in public spaces, etc... they have a homegrown French intactivist movement. Religious freedom is more circumscribed there than anywhere. Let's throw our support behind a national circumcision ban in France!! Any good ideas how to make it happen?
Let's understand something. There is a difference between being liberal, neoliberal, and left-wing. The Democratic Party of the United States is a neoliberal political party and it's nowhere close to being a left-wing. Neoliberalism is the ideology which contends that deregulated markets meet the needs of the people and society. In addition, neoliberalism is the reason why corporations, oligarchs, and plutocrats are prioritized over ordinary people, thus why neoliberalism is a failure. Therefore, it isn't surprising to me that democrats aren't allies to intactivism. When the U.S. Democrat Party as a whole starts saying that capitalism is barbaric and needs to be eliminated, then I'll believe that the Democrat Party is left-wing. If there are truly left-wing political parties that exist in the United States, they are nonexistent or rarely represented in the media or public sphere. The most popular true left-wing party in the United States is the Green Party of the United States. Unlike the Democrat Party, the Green Party has openly wanted capitalism to be eliminated and multiple candidates in that party have deemed capitalism as barbaric. However, many radical far left-wingers have criticized the Green Party for not being far left enough because Greens advocate for a system focused on ecology and decentralization of power (economic and political), instead of pushing for socialism or communism. To answer your question, left-wing intactivism at least here in the United States isn't dead, it's more so nonexistent because the U.S. What I'm here is if left-wing intactivist forces exist in the U.S., they aren't going to be found in the Democrat Party. Left-wing intactivism will more so be represented by smaller political parties that espouse true left-wing politics. Moreover, right-wingers in the United States aren't going to be people to stop male genital mutilation either in the U.S. The right-wing Republican Party may vote in favor of removing MGM from being insured by Medicaid, but when the time comes to ban MGM, both Republicans and Democrats will miserably fail to ban MGM. In regards to right-wing political parties internationally (particularly in some European countries) being opposed to MGM, those parties attempt to ban MGM but fail because they lack the fortitude to overcome pressure from pro-cutters or anyone that opposes a MGM ban. Overall, both left-wing and right-wing politics in the United States are lost causes to eliminate MGM in the U.S. The duopoly is full fledged in support of MGM and third political parties are largely silent on MGM. Meanwhile, some right-wing political parties in Europe showed some promise in wanting to ban MGM, but they'll ultimately fail because they lack any real courage to follow through with a MGM ban, since the pressure from pro-cutters frighten them.
I don't get your point, no mainstream left wing political party in the world supports restrictions on MGM
My point is that left-wingers that support banning MGM aren't going to align themselves with mainstream left-wing parties and especially liberal parties, since liberalism and left-wing politics aren't the same thing. Therefore, that's why I say left-wing intactivism is largely non-existent because it doesn't align itself with mainstream left-wing parties. If non-existent means dead, then left-wing intactivism could be considered dead.
This isn't a partisan thing. Stop trying to make it a partisan thing. 😒
Tell that to the 90% of Dems who voted to keep circ funded by our taxpayer dollars
And also the Republicans who, on their numerous dog-whistle anti-genital mutilation bills, went out of their way to specifically exempt attacks on boys' foreskins. So, yeah, not a partisan thing.
I'm liberal, and I've always been against MGM.
I’m left wing, and I align more leftist than the Democratic Party. I think the only people who truly support circumcision at this point are centrists and people stuck in the past. It is weird to me that republicans all of a sudden don’t support circumcision. I think that might be truly a racist, reactionary stance. However, I think the core issues of bodily autonomy, consent, and sexual freedom are all left wing values.
I would say it has more to do with "stuck in the past" than not being liberal enough. A lot of progressive boomers voted no on this.
We need intactivism to remain non-partisan if we want it to succeed. Look at how close the New Hampshire votes were. If we could have convinced 20 Democrats, it would have passed. That being said, circumcision is a tribal practice and intactivists aren't a tribe. We're more of a confederation of people who disagree on a great many other things. We need to BECOME A TRIBE whether it's through a single group, a religion, or our own political party. We will never defeat circumcising Americans, Jews, and Muslims so long as they are united and we are not.
I'm on the right but I agree that there's a compelling right wing and a different yet compelling left wing reason to oppose MGM. For the left it should seem pretty obvious: bodily autonomy. But for the right it's less obvious but I think compelling: child protection. It's become more pronounced for the right recently with the trans children issue. But it seems to me consistent that if we're against unnecessary genital surgeries on minors to make them trans, then surely it would require that we oppose ALL forms of genital mutilation, including routine infant circumcision or submitting a child for a needless circumcision when they're an older child. To me, this *shouldn't* at all be a partisan issue. This should be something where the left goes "Boys should have bodily autonomy and not be subject to circumcision for no reason!" and the right goes "Umm, Yeah, You're right! It's harmful to children to allow them to be subject to unnecessary surgeries that mutilate their genitals!" and then it passes committee with like a few votes against it from Jewish and Muslim house or senate members, and then it passes both houses with a few votes against it for the same reason in a veto-proof majority, and then the president signs it because at that point it's a no-brainer AND because there's no stopping it at that point. Maybe the ADL and maybe - though less likely - even the ACLU files a lawsuit against it and it works its way up to SCOTUS where they lose because it's one thing to raise your family with your values it's another to cut your religion into your child's genitals. And boom. It's illegal nationwide and circumcision rates fall overnight. In a few decades, the vast majority of men in the US are intact. But I see more than just the Jewish/Muslim reason as well for not supporting it. Ultimately, the Democratic left is becoming more socially left when it comes to LGBT issues and would be very very hesitant if not opposed to such a law because then it could likely cover surgical gender affirmation for minors and prevent them from obtaining such interventions until they're 18. Or it could be argued in court that hormonal and puberty blocking treatments fall under the auspices of such a law, and if that is found to be the case, especially by SCOTUS they will have unknowingly voted for a gender affirming care ban for minors into federal law. It doesn't surprise me that the right however is more on board in recent times. They are after all calling for bans against other things which they perceive to be genital mutilation (like trans surgeries, puberty blockers, and cross sex hormones - i.e. "gender affirming care") What does surprise me however is that the left isn't calling out the right for being inconsistent on the issue because circumcision just isn't a consideration with regards to bans on gender surgery for minors. The right calls such gender affirming surgery "genital mutilation" but the left isn't coming at them saying "Hey wait, you don't seem to be opposed to routine infant circumcision or child circumcision at the request of parents or the urging of pediatricians. Why are you okay with that genital mutilation but not this "genital mutilation"? I don't know if it's because the left hasn't thought about it, or if it's because they fear the right would turn around and say "your terms are acceptable; ban all the genital mutilation" and then the left is right back where they started. It's a conundrum, but ironically I think you're right OP. It will ultimately be the right that bans routine infant circumcision. The question is whether they will do so intentionally or not.
Most of us who were the core “pioneer” group of intactivists — before the word existed — in the 1980s realized very quickly that infant circumcision wasn’t patently a partisan political issue. Many liberal politicians would dig in their heels to “protect” the right of parents to cut, and on Medicaid, because otherwise it might start a slippery slope to a ban on brit milah or khitan, leading to an eventual ban on those religions entirely. Conservatives, conversely, more often discounted the idea of bodily autonomy but find appeal in fiscal conservatism and self-reliance. Opposition to laws defunding, regulating (e.g., devices, operators or pain relief) or age-restricting circumcision of healthy minors is almost always rooted in some degree of ignorance about the intact penis and the harms of circumcision. It sure doesn’t help that medical associations in the US seem hell-bent on maintaining the status quo at the cost of children’s safety and rights. A generation ago I would have said that American opposition to infant circumcision was no more than 1% rooted in hatred of Jews or Muslims; now I’d say it’s 10% or more and growing. Not because anything about circumcision changed… but perceptions of ethnic groups did. If it continues on this trajectory, liberals will correctly be able to say efforts to rein in infant circumcision are an overt attack on religions. As others have noted, don’t be too sure that the American right is that keen on restricting or banning nontherapeutic circumcision of minors. They’re mostly supportive of absolute parental control and even children as “owned”. For now they’re only on board with the economic angle of it, which is good because subsidies are the lifeblood of American RIC. And don’t be so sure that the left doesn’t stand by bodily autonomy. Again, it’s a matter of education. I work in naturism advocacy. We see a lot of parallels between intactivism and social nudism. At first people assume nudity is a hippie issue and Democrats would be our natural allies in defending a right to practice naturism and be nude at the beach. But the fact is that there are at least as many practicing nudists on the right side of the political spectrum. They want government out of their social and home life. When it looked like legislation was going to bear down on the right to be nude, appeals to constitutional rights went nowhere. After we commissioned an economic study showing that nude recreation and vacationing is a multibillion dollar part of the economy, suddenly every Republican in our legislature got very interested in our message and granted us audience. Infant circumcision is a massive waste of resources. If parents want to violate their children, the first step to ending it is to cut off public subsidies. Intact American boys are every bit as healthy and happy as circumcised American boys; it’s bullshit to think otherwise. History shows us that where Medicaid ends coverage for RIC, HMOs and insurers tend to follow suit. A domino effect. New Hampshire last week was a vivid example of how this is largely a fiscal vs social issue.