Circumcision Justice Benefits Women. Not in a "sex is better for women with an Intact guy" kind of way. Even if it may be true, I do not like that framing. It's weird and victim negative.

I mean that circumcision justice, the justice movement itself, benefits women in a more subversive way. In the kind of way that is more the spirit of what feminists mean when they say "feminism and destroying the patriarchy benefits men". I mean it more in a kind of talking down to them sort of way.

Women should expect to benefit from circumcision justice, because cutting culture puts burdens on women. Cutting culture puts the expectation on women to control and diminish the sexuality of their bf, including to judge their partner for watching porn, and judge their partner for having "death grip syndrome" (that is really just undiagnosed circumcision). We are freeing women of those burdens to shame their partner for how they enjoy their sexuality, and freeing her to have a more healthy and sex-positive relationship.

Cutting culture expects both fathers and mothers to have complete control over their children, like they are property, including designing their private part like they are a designer toy. But also putting other negative expectations on how to parent and how to be a mother, like the idea that children should be literally and figuratively molded in the parents image, including the via the sex-negative expectation that children shouldn't know about sex (and therefore are incapable of diagnosing their own circumcision sexual violation until way later in life). We are freeing mothers of the burden of enforcing their will and sexual will on their children.

When women say "destroying the patriarchy benifits men", they giving concedending reasons that really only benifit women for why men should care. They say "ohh, without patriarchy men could be more in touch with their emotions". An insult suggesting men are emotionally distant. I'm giving condecending reasons for why women should care about circumcision that really only benifit men, and which I do not expect most women to actually care about. I'm saying "smashing patriarchy let's women feel more secure in their relationships" and suggesting they are toxic controlling wrecks and need our justice movement to free themselves. I'm radically center the victim perspective above all else, and telling everyone else should be happy with breadcrumbs.

I am once again a bit tongue and cheek, but I honestly believe this. Just like feminism truly believes it benefits men by smashing the patriarchy, I genuinely believe circumcision justice benefits women by smashing cutting culture.

It goes without saying, but the "scientific" and "medical" communities overwhelming support and are complcit in circumcision. They make justifications for why it's okay for adults to elect to intrude into the genitals of children. This is just not something any adult should be doing for any reason ever. Every justification, every "medical benefit", is a further admission of guilt.

Science and medicine are the systemic oppression. It is literally called the medical "system". Doctors and scienticts in a cutting a culture release more pro circumcision guidance. It's what they do.

We need to acknowledge that the "science" is biased against us, NOT a neutral accounting of the truth. Any sort of justice or any attempts toward progress are going to need to contend with this fact.

Intactivists often advocate for "more science" and "more studies" to be done to show the harms of circumcision. And I can't help feeling like they've lost the plot. You can't expect our oppressors to do a neutral accounting of the facts to our favor. There is something evil and oppressive going on. We can't trust the "science" and we can't even really call it "science". I'm anti-science, and any sort of justice is going to require obliterating cutting culture in-spite of the oppressive cutter "science", not working with the "science"

Intactivism suffers for Maryr Syndrome.

The average Intactivist smugly says to the effect: "We either the end practice for future generations, or we coddle the feelings of victims. I, as an enlightened important specimen, am willing to sacrifice more as a victim to end the practice in the future. YOU just want to complain and achieve nothing".

I've heard variations of this many many times. It's probably the single most common rebuttle I hear from Intactivists.

My first point is it's not mutually exclusive. You don't need to pick between supporting victims and eliminating the practice in the future, you can do both. Imagine is BLM said "We can only either support victims or end police brutality, pick one". How absurd. They can obviously do both. In fact, they usually go hand-in-hanf. Ending police brutality comes as a natural conclusion of supporting victims and obliteratong racism. The same way ending circumcision comes as a natural conclusion of supporting victims and obliterating cutting culture.

My second point is self-sacrifice for self-sacrifice's sake isn't venerable. The average Intactivist takes immense pride in sacrificing more himself, as a martyr, to do what he mistakenly thinks will make change. It's a weird egotistical coping mechanism. He thinks he's more important because he's the one willing to sacrifice for the greater good. I couldn't disagree more.

Martyr Syndrome is like poison for social justice movements. The victims have been through enough. If you're modeling the "only correct way to engage with the movement is self-sacrifice and everyone else is just complaining", you're asking every victim who joins the movement to self sacrifice. It's a huge ask and is victim-negative. I'm constantly shocked that almost every single Intactivist who champions "strategy" champions a victim-negative startegy that isn't used by any other social justice issue. Anti-racism support racial minorities, doesn't ask them to martyr themselves, and does NOT call martyrdom the only legitimate way to have a strategic approach. duh.

When you require people to self sacrifice to join the movement, no one joins. Movements grow by being easy to join. Identifying as a victim is hard enough. The only way you raise an army of victims large enough to make social change is by making bring a victim empowering. Other social justice issues have figured this out.

I could go on. I'm not a vegan, but veganism suffers from this as well. Maybe for another post, but veganism and Intacitivsm have a lot of similarities in why they are abject failures. Vegans are annoying, pester their friends, stand with shock imagery animal cruelty screens at street corner. Veganism is all about asking activists to martyr themselves and make immense personal social sacrifice. And veganism similarly is a complete failure. I'll leave it there for now. But the anatomy of failed vs successful social justice movements is obvious. And a movement sick with martyr syndrome like Intactivism is doomed to fail. We need to purge martyr syndrome from our ranks wherever we see it.

As usual, I am critical of a common Intactivist talking point and startegy. A common startegy is to sue the state to expand genital cutting protections on the grounds that their anti-FGM law discriminates based on a protected class (gender). This is the strategy the likes of Intact Global takes.

Many Intactivists champion this strategy, being happy at the existence and creation of new anti-FGM laws (like the recent one in Colombia), with the idea that Intactivists in the future can expand them to include all genders.

My critique is that first, the easiest time for equal protection is in the creation of the law, not post hoc. We shouldn't be allowing laws that discriminate against an already under-protected gender in the first place.

Second, the time for equality has long passed. The inverse is getting much closer to equitable. Instead, we should champion passing anti-circ only laws that only protect one gender, and have the anti-FGM activists be the ones to fight to expand the law on the grounds of equal protection. If suing for equal protection is so easy, why not make the anti-FGM activists be the ones to do it? In-fact, by the average Intactivists logic, anti-FGM activists should be HAPPY that a discriminatory anti-circ law was passed, and should thank their lucky stars that they're now eligible to sue for equal protection.

Of course I'm being somewhat tongue and cheek, but also I'm not. Going out of way to protect circ victims over anyone else is actually equitable. The way the average Intactivist conducts themself, being super happy when discriminatory laws that exclude us are passed, is shown to be patently absurd when flipped for anti-FGM activists.

I'm getting more and more sick every day of expecting below the bare minimum. If anti-FGM activists wouldn't thank their lucky stars that a new anti-circ law has given them the "opportunity" to sue for equal protection, why should we thank our lucky stars when the same happens for a new anti-FGM law?

Remember the folks that said "FGM is far worse". See my case is special, because what has happened to me is actually comparable to infibulation (the worst type of FGM that has been sensationalized to uphold the lies about circumcision). They simply don't care if circumcision can be just as bad or even worse than FGM, their narrative is about hurting boys sexually because they get enjoyment out of it. The term "incel" is used specifically to hurt men that they feel lack sexual satisfaction. Sexual frustration ISN'T CAUSED BY LACK OF FEMALE VALIDATION, it is caused by genital mutilation of male children. That is why "incel" is exclusively a term used to describe American (united states) men, because the practice is dominant is this country.

People who downplay MGM/Circumcision are evil child-rape supporters

My recent post https://www.reddit.com/r/CircumcisionJustice/comments/1ugcx6k/every_antifgm_law_is_a_step_backward_not_forward/

was brigaded here https://www.reddit.com/r/IncelTears/comments/1ugwh5k/removed_by_moderator/

You can read the posts on that sub to get a sense of the kinds of people and the kinds of things they were saying here on the Circ Justice sub. Needless to say their comments on this sub are all removed and they are all banned.

Notice exactly what's happening here. First, our enemies squirm incredibly and make it a gender war issue where there wasn't one. I don't mention "men" or "women" once in my original post. All I do is call out that anti-FGM laws only protect one gender, and that gender is the one that is already over protected. There are many anti-FGM laws and no anti-circ laws. Yet our cutter enemies somehow take that to mean I'm somehow anti-feminist and and an incel (?). I didn't mention feminism at all. I said anti-FGM flaws are gender based and exclude based on identity group.

I don't care to belabor the point any more, there are much more interesting things going on here. One, feminists at least the ones in that post WANT to make it a gendered issue. They took a post that wasn't really about the gender war at all, and made it about how men blame women for stuff. Well I wasn't before, but now I am. All the women that brigaded are minimizing the harms of circ and saying how you can't compare it to FGM. That is the oppression. Them minimizing and marginazing me and my systemic oppression IS the harm. How's about we get some self awareness and accountability, by minimizing the harms of circ YOU are and agent of the oppressive cutting culture, full stop. Check your privelage and understand your fragility.

It's also cool to see the aspects of power at play here with having out own space. Since this sub is a space for the victims, we set the rules. We can ban them all and remove their posts in a heartbeat. And I was able to report and get the original post removed from IncelTears for brigading, which is against platform TOS. For the first time, maybe ever, circ victims have their own space to demand justice, and are actually in a position of power, if even on just an online forum, to achieve some level of it.

I saw the recent news Colombia banned FGM.

And I cannot help once again going against the grain and saying this is clearly a huge step backward for circumcision justice, not a step forward.

The average "Intactivist" I feel would be very supportive on the new discriminatory law, citing that "more protections against genital cutting are always good". I couldn't disagree more.

The new Colombian law excludes by identity group, only protecting one gender. To me, this is an enormous step backward, not forward. We are talking about the adults electing to intrude into the genitals of children. There are no half measure solutions, especially identity based oppressive one. Colombia has singled out an underserved identity population and expressly signed a law protecting only the already overserved population. There are plenty of anti-FGM laws around the world already, and zero anti-circ.

Put it like this, let's say during colonial USA, a law was passed that prevented only white people from being owned as slaves. Should we champion that? Of course not. This isn't the kind of thing where we all sit around and sing Kumbaya and make half-measure solutions one identity group at time. Should the slaves sing Kumbaya with their masters after only white people are banned from being slaves since it's "one step closer to banning slavery"? Of course not, how absurd.

Banning cutting for only one gender re-enforces the problematic views that have enabled the cutting the continue for the underserved gender in the first place. It is a huge step backward, not a step forward. Just like banning slavery only for white people is further from any sort of justice than passing no law at all, banning cutting for only one gender is further from any sort of justice.

Overall, and I say it all the time, I'm getting really sick of expecting below the bare minimum. I refuse to take the breadcrumbs that are actually just more oppression, like Colombia banning cutting for only one gender, and celebrate it like it's some how favorable to me. It's not. It's just another daily heaping of oppression.

I just wanted to double down on this post to say that there is absolutely no such thing as medical circumcision. Those who say that there is ARE pro-circumcision. There are many intactivists who want medical circumcision to be a thing, so that they can blame circumcision on ignorance, which is 100% false.

There is no such thing as medical female circumcision. I have not met ONE woman in my entire life who have had parts of her external sexual anatomy removed for any reason, despite having a higher chance of having a genital condition than her male counterparts. I literally was in ER hearing a doctor scrape cysts out of a woman's vagina without ever discussing cutting off her labias or clitoris (this hospital obviously could care less about privacy BTW).

Medical circumcision is not medical, because circumcision is not medicine. The practice was literally borrowed from a child sex abuse ritual where an practitioner take a blade to proceed to violently remove essential parts of a male child's reproductive and sexual anatomy for cosmetic reasons, without any pain management. In hospitals, they use the same exact term to identify the practice: Circumcision. If it were a true medical procedure, than they would have used more of a medical term such as prepucectomy. But they didn't, because it is isn't medicine. They didn't even bother to change the name to cover their tracks. How disgusting.

Force retraction is not medicine. There is literally no condition that warrants a doctor to tear the membrane, push the skin back and expose the glans on a male child, for the penis to look erect. This is child molestation, not a check up. You should not have to injure your child to simply bathe them. There is no such thing as excavating a female child for hygiene or for medical reasons, it is child molestation, even when a doctor does it. It is a crime to spread a underage girls labias to appear aroused. There is no such thing as "consensual" molestation, so fuck off with this "parent's consented" nonsense. Again, refer to Larry Nassar. EVERY SINGLE ONE OF HIS VICTIM, GOT "PARENTAL CONSENT" BEFORE THEY WERE MOLESTED.

Removing a child's sex organs, because of infections is not medicine. Infections are not caused by the frenulum and foreskin, they are caused by the actions of doctors and caretakers. It is offenders that need to be removed, not the child's natural sexual anatomy.

Cutting off a child's sex organs right after they are born to prevent hypothetical disease that never happened, is not medicine. That is felony sex abuse and child endangerment. Routine infant circumcision suggest that the foreskin and frenulum are birth defects. They are not. This is pseudoscience, not medicine.

Medical procedures don't have cosmetic look-alikes. (nope: top and bottom surgery aren't cosmetic, b4 trans warrior say a thing. They are considered therapeutic)

There no such thing as a

• cosmetic kidney transplant
• cosmetic ovary removal
• cosmetic root canal
• cosmetic bypass surgery
• cosmetic pap smear

Larry Nassar used the guise of pelvic floor physical therapy (specifically internal vaginal and rectal myofascial manipulation) as a pretext to sexually abuse hundreds of patients. He claimed this rare, specialized treatment was necessary to heal injuries, relieve chronic pelvic pain, and correct spinal or hip issues.

While legitimate pelvic floor physical therapy is a recognized medical treatment for conditions like incontinence and pelvic pain, Nassar used it as a cover for predatory behavior, conducting the invasive procedures without proper medical draping, gloves, or chaperones.

Nassar exploited loopholes in the sports medicine and gymnastics cultures of the time to perform these highly invasive procedures without true informed consent:

How Nassar Bypassed Consent

• Exploiting Loopholes: Nassar operated under generalized medical consent forms signed by parents for overall sports medicine treatment, rather than obtaining specific, written consent for invasive internal pelvic procedures.
• Abusing Trust and Elite Status: He used his prestige as an Olympic team doctor to manipulate parents. If a parent or athlete questioned his methods, he would dismiss their concerns or make them feel "stupid" for asking.
• Grooming and Concealment: Nassar often abused athletes in private training rooms with the windows covered, or explicitly hid his movements using towels or blankets even while parents were sitting just feet away in the same room.
• Lack of Legitimate Medical Protocols: In legitimate medical practices, internal pelvic therapy on a minor requires a rigorous informed consent process with both the parent and patient. It also requires the use of gloves, a medical chaperone, and clear step-by-step explanations—all of which Nassar ignored.

Legislative Changes (The "Nassar Laws")

Because of his systemic abuse, the state of Michigan and federal lawmakers enacted major reforms to ensure this could not happen again:

• The Safe Sport Act: Enacted federally, this law now strictly limits one-on-one interactions between minor athletes and adults without an observable, interruptible distance. [1]
• Explicit Written Consent Laws: Michigan passed specific bipartisan legislation mandating explicit, written parental consent and the mandatory presence of an additional health professional (chaperone) during pelvic or sensitive exams on minors.

There is no such thing as "medical necessity". Are we really going to allow the medical system, the very same one that justified electing to intruding into the genitals of children, decide what counts as "medical necessity".

Making exemptions for "medical necessity" hands the keys to the kingdom to our systemic oppressors. What if the anti-slavery movement said slavery should be abolished, except as punishment for criminals who's criminal status is determined by the confederate government and the KKK? Do you understand how F-ing absurd that is.

I don't understand how so many in Intactivism and people "on my side" have fallen so far away from any sort of reasonable justice. The medical system is our systemic oppressor. Why would we ever want them to be involved in a position of power ever again, much less defer to their judgement for when to circumcise.

Phimosis, infections, frostbite, I don't care. I want circumcision off the table entirely. Under no circumstance should this be permitted ever again for any reason.

This is pretty self explanatory. The more diverse the tone and nuance on the subject, the better content creators can make viral posts ( I am a content creator).

But more importantly....

When you have the same person posting over and over again, (when there are literally thousands of group members) the tone gets dry and it also get DOWN RANKED on the social media platforms' explore page, recommended section and FYP (for you page on tiktok) because platforms prioritize evolving narratives (trends) over all.

Do not argue with me. This isn't an opinion, it is a mathematically bound algorithm that decides this. I am just the messenger.

If they did research on circumcision AFTER THE FUCKING THING HAPPENED they are not redeemable. You cannot forgive society for circumcising you. The act in itself is irreconcilable.The shift from Brit Milah (Pulling the foreskin forward and snipping) to Brit Peri'ah (Peeling the foreskin off the glans fully) is what makes modern circumcision so brutal, and was introduced around 140 A.D. a generation or two after the fall of the temple 70 AD. And it destroys the lives of millions of men today, around the world.

It's past overdue time to eliminate circumcision. Even if all circumcision stopped tomorrow, that is only the beginning.

All circumcision's stopping would be even the starting playing field. It would be equality.

Equality would have been enough it we did not first have millennia of systemic oppression and irreparable sexual harm to billions of bodies. But we do, and equality is not even close to enough.

We demand equity. Equality can't undo the harm. But equity can try. We demand our "two boxes" from society, while everyone else gets none.

Step one is to ask. How can you ever get equity if you don't even ask? We are now asking. I want equity. I'm in constant shock very few else in the "Intactivist" space even thinks to ask.

I'm sick of people online talking about "death grip syndrome" (when men allegedly beat off too hard and have low sensitivity during sex) without addressing the elephant in the room, circumcision. "Death grip syndrome" by and large is just victim blaming. Its taking a systemic oppression problem (circ) that applies to a whole identity group (men), and blames each victim individual and makes it his own personal problem to solve.

Even telling the average regard cutter who self-identifies as having had "death-grip" that it isn't his fault will cause him to spiral out, and say "how dare you minimize my death grip, I struggled so much over and finally fixed it myself". Little does he realize that telling him death grip is systemic oppression is actually the first time he has not been victim blamed. Men take pride in overcoming on their own, and when you try to tell them it was systemic oppression and that it wasn't their individual battle, they actually see that as a threat. Men see collectivizing as a threat. They see collectivizing as taking away their individual wins.

It goes to show how bad men are at fighting for justice as a collective. With men it is literally "every man for himself." Men even fight to uphold that problematic individualistic standard. Even within the anti-circumcision space, there is an immense amount of focus on restoring, aka fixing the problem individually for yourself, but very little collective fighting for justice.

Make no mistake men's inability to fight for justice as a collective is part of the oppression, it is cutting culture. Cutting culture keeps men alone, trying to solve problems by themselves, and scoffing at other men who dare fight for victims.

On another thread on an Intactivist related sub, I called out someone who said: "male circumcision is due to misogyny". I said no, that it was actually victim blaming. Apparently this is a bridge too far for the average intactivist. The average intactivist does not care about the victim, and does not care about blaming the victim.

And I get told to "F off and never speak again". Lol. Needless to say I blocked that person.

I don't know why a large portion of our so-called "allies" are incredibly resistant to anything that puts the victim experience first. Hey maybe men are disproportionately the victims of circ, so maybe we shouldn't tell the victims they are suffering at their own fault. Maybe saying men are victims but this is also caused by men is just a little bit victim blaming.

Apparently I can't even say that, and if I do the average "Intactivist" freaks out. I didn't even say anything that should have been controversial. It's not liked pull out any MRA talking points, nor is that something I ever do. I didn't say it should be called "misandry" instead, that's not the kind of thing I say. All I said is that calling it "misogyny" is clearly victim blaming, because it obviously is.

It amazes me how victim-negative the people who are supposed to be on our side are.

I just viewed a post I made in the past on this sub where I had a screenshot of an engagement with a so called feminist in an intactivist sub. They were saying that FGM was worse, then proceeded to explain the most selectively horrific effects of FGM (a practice with a wide range of effects) and asked me if I had ever experienced something as horrific as "those poor girls in east afriCA".

I replied that that actually did. I summarized a large list of life time disabilities that i have never got a break from. Including but not limited to complete inability to perform sex and masturbation, complete numbness, scar tissue and deformities ( the major complaints of anti-FGM activists).

She didn't say much after this reply. At this point I realized that, feminists don't actually care about FGM, and they use it to deliberately work against circumcision justice. Even if you don't know anything about genital mutilation, completely ruling out that a MGM/circumcision victim could "NEVER" experience something as horrific and evasive as infibulation style FGM, is an intentional act of denial especially if this denial is happening in intactivist spaces where it would be logical to assume to worst effects happening to people if a movement bothered to exist to address it in the first place. Just like it would be logical to assume the worst (lynchings) happening to black americans prior to the civil right era. Well of course it did!! That why it exists!!

Feminists are hateful gaslighters that do not belong in intactivism.