Choose Intact

All children are born with the same human rights. Those rights must be protected. Non-therapeutic genital cutting without their consent violates those rights.

[Choose Intact @ChooseIntact]

I have been physically harmed - permanently - by circumcision. That is not an excuse to then absolve myself over control of the rest of my life. It’s a claim that I should’ve possessed control over this part of my life, too. It’s a factual claim about an ethical violation.

[Choose Intact @ChooseIntact]

@AllyFogg This case was decided this week after a doctor severed a healthy newborn��s penis in 2021.

https://t.co/N80vKqhqfk

[Intact America @intactamerica]

The intactivism movement lost a powerful and beloved member, Leonard B. Glick, MD, PhD, this week. He said, “I’m an American Jew. But my opposition to genital cutting has nothing to do with my cultural and ethical background. For me, it’s an issue of autonomy and ethics.”

[Choose Intact @ChooseIntact]

Yes, raise our voices and speak against FGM. It is ethically and medically wrong to cut healthy children.

But @UNFPA @UNFPAKen is incoherent on gender equality in basic human rights.

“Don’t cut girls” is correct, but advocate for harmful genital cutting of boys? It’s madness.

[Choose Intact @ChooseIntact]

@briandavidearp @fakedansavage Happy birthday. Thank you for what you do and for being who you are. And thank you for sharing about Matthew. It’s wonderful.

[Choose Intact @ChooseIntact]

@NewYorkGuy6 @mgm_survivor There’s a difference between interrupting a concert and forcing people to confront uncomfortable truths. A Pink concert is just interfering with people’s experience when they want to be entertained. Compare that to the Bloodstained Men, who are disruptive in a focused manner.

[Choose Intact @ChooseIntact]

I read this on reddit today: https://t.co/jWJPp9jTYe

I will not defend Pink on anything related to circumcision in any circumstance. She is wrong, full stop. But her being wrong doesn’t mean this protest is beneficial activism. Will she see her error now?

[Choose Intact @ChooseIntact]

@NewYorkGuy6 @mgm_survivor If the vast majority of people are saying, “he’s right, but…”, it isn’t winning.

It’s a soft rule, but in a statement of opinion, you can ignore everything before the “but” because what’s after is the relevant opinion.

Persuading the already-convinced doesn’t move us forward.

[Choose Intact @ChooseIntact]

@qw_jessie Attention is important. I’m not advocating silence. But attention and persuasion are not synonyms. What the protestor did, in the specific venue and context, serves only to harden Pink’s commitment to her error, and as you say, encourage the audience to side with her.

[Choose Intact @ChooseIntact]

So, yeah, if this kind of protest feels good to you, I understand. But it isn't helpful for anything beyond that.

[Choose Intact @ChooseIntact]

So, is a concert of someone who has already hardened her stance against circumcision going to be effective? Is interrupting people’s concert experience going to make them pause to think, “maybe you’re right”? Are people there for Pink going to side with you? It's preposterous.

[Choose Intact @ChooseIntact]

“I value”

It isn’t your body. While what you value may - or may not - be interesting, it isn’t ethically relevant to non-therapeutic genital cutting without the individual’s consent.

[Choose Intact @ChooseIntact]

Pretty much every time circumcision is mentioned on a sitcom

[no context sitcoms ☮︎ 🍉 @oocsitcoms]

one thing about sitcoms is that there’s always that one character that has some kind of deep unresolved trauma that gets completely overlooked for the laughs

[Choose Intact @ChooseIntact]

@suesswassersee Framing the argument this way is *extremely* common, and medicalizing it’s been the predictable trajectory for years. “How dare you say males are harmed* by having their genitals cut like girls, because that has benefits”, basically.

* (as well, not by the same physical amount)

[Choose Intact @ChooseIntact]

I’ve cleared out the identifying info because I’m not trying to attack the speaker or the account.

The question is answered by the defense, “with no health benefits”. People who cut do not (yet) understand the harm. They don’t accept that genital cutting violates a child.

[Choose Intact @ChooseIntact]

FGC is medicalized in part because activists equivocate. Possibly a small part, but culture has adapted to this mindset.

“It is a human rights violation.” The sentence stops there. We need to discuss the rest. But do not concede that benefits could change rights. They don’t.

[Choose Intact @ChooseIntact]

This is why female and male genital cutting are the same violation. Even within FGC, the degrees of harm vary. The violation is the same, whichever type. Less harmful is still harm.

If we give people an option to reject behavior against ideas of a child’s humanity, they take it.