by Jay Jackson Feldman (aka – Jay J. Jackson)
An updated version of this article has evolved to become Chapter 19 for the upcoming audiobook edition of Circumcision Scar, due to be released in 2022. This original version will remain online for reference.
The Human Rights Campaign has earned their reputation as one of the largest and most effective advocacy groups in the nation, working tirelessly in the name of fairness and equality for all LGBTQ+ people. However, there remains a crucial aspect of equality they have yet to openly support – the right to choose what happens to our own body – and there is no right more personal than the right to dictate what happens to one’s own genitals.
I believe this oversight stems from a lack of understanding and I’ll present facts most people aren’t aware of that support why this is not only an LGBTQ+ issue, but a human rights issue for all people across the board. I’ll also present a path forward that respects not only the religious beliefs of parents, but the constitutionally protected religious freedom each individual possesses – including children and newborn babies.
Neonatal circumcision is known as the world’s oldest surgery, yet few understand the truth of how it became commonplace in America – a truth rooted in racism, religious imperialism and outright medical fraud.
Straight or gay, most men have no clue why they should care if they were circumcised or not. They thinks it’s a simple matter of aesthetics and have been conditioned since birth to accept their surgically modified penis as normal. In reality, a circumcised penis is smaller, desensitized and less functional than a natural penis – and make no mistake, there’s nothing natural about having part of your penis amputated.
The foreskin is more than a meaningless flap of skin. If you ask, most men, including doctors, don’t know what a frenulum is or how it contributes to normal sexual function. Nor do they comprehend the function of a foreskin and how its absence diminishes pleasure for both sexual partners.
Sadly, circumcised men grow up ignorant to the reality of their own genitalia, and no man, straight or gay, wants to think their penis is essentially a disabled appendage and their sexual performance has been severely hampered as a result. This is a significant obstacle when advocating for this issue – getting circumcised men to accept that there’s something inherently wrong with their own genitalia.
Another misnomer is the terminology of cut vs. “uncut.” Nothing needs to be “un”done to a natural penis. The use of the term “uncut” only serves to obfuscate the reality that circumcised men do not possess a natural penis. The correct terminology is cut vs. intact – with cut being unnatural and intact being natural, not the other way around.
In it’s simplest form, Intactivism is advocating against forced genital cutting of any person not of legal age to offer informed consent, be they girl, boy or intersex. In reality, the Intactivist movement doesn’t hold the maturity, morality or the organizational skills required to lead such an important human rights issue. At present, their most powerful tool is a grassroots effort on social media that often amounts to little more than bullying.
Absent a worthy entity within the Intactivist movement to lead the charge, I wholeheartedly believe that the Human Rights Campaign is the only entity capable of taking on such an important issue. They have the infrastructure, the integrity and the clout to make this issue respected and mainstream, if, they rebrand it as something other than Intactivism.
HRC actually encompasses 2 separate entities of activism: the Human Rights Campaign (“HRC”) – 501(c)(4), which advocates to advance pro-equality political candidates and legislation, and the Human Rights Campaign Foundation (“HRCF”) – 501(c)(3), which educates the community and supports programs that promote equality. This is precisely the sort of infrastructure Intactivism is lacking, and without HRC’s experienced hand at the helm, the movement is destined to fail.
“At HRC, there is no separation between the values we hold and the way we approach our work.” This core value is one that Intactivists fail to understand, let alone live up to – from the most prominent Intactivists within the movement, to the lone Twitter assassins viciously pounding away at their keyboards. Advocating against circumcision is no easy task, but humanity is an essential component of advocating for human rights.
There’s no such thing as a human rights bigot.
My personal writings on the subject have been very angry, but I’ve had circumcision related PTSD since the age of 1. Many Intactivists claim to have PTSD, yet don’t behave like people who actually suffer from it. Instead, they behave more like people with an anger management problem, which is very different from chronic PTSD.
Among the many symptoms associated with chronic PTSD are persistent thoughts of suicide, so if you’re not thinking about killing yourself on a daily basis for years on end, then you don’t have chronic PTSD. Other symptoms I experience regularly are: My mind blanks when I speak and my eyes involuntarily clench as my brain reboots. I can’t remember my own birthday without visualizing my driver’s license. I feel disconnected from my own body and the surrounding environment, as if I’m having a perpetual out of body experience. Then there’s the relentless insomnia and recurring nightmares. I have an inherent need to isolate myself from everyone, both in person and online – it’s the best way to mitigate these symptoms.
If you’re not suffering from symptoms like this, then you don’t have chronic PTSD.
I believe many Intactivists have indeed experienced acute PTSD, which are momentary feelings of trauma that ultimately pass in time. But this too is very different from chronic PTSD, which is an intense, lifelong struggle. Many of the Intactivists I’ve encountered admit they’ve self-diagnosed themselves with having PTSD and seem to confuse that with the compulsion to behave like bigoted jerks. One is no excuse for the other. I think chronic depression is a more accurate description of what many Intactivists are feeling – which is a legitimate response to the sexual violation of circumcision.
Chronic PTSD isn’t a manipulative talking point, it’s an incurable disability with dire consequences.
I’d written extensively about my own circumcision trauma before becoming acquainted with the intactivist movement. I hoped to find likeminded support but was woefully disappointed. Anti-Semitism is indeed present within the movement, as is homophobia, yet intactivists claim blindness to both.
As a gay man, I recognize the red flags – warning signs that bigots are quick to slough off because they’ve never experienced true oppression. Intactivism is indeed a human rights issue, yet a good many intactivists have gone through life not knowing the sting of bigotry and thus remain blind to it. And I indeed see parallels between what the intactivist movement could be and what the gay rights movement was at its onset.
At one time, it was considered obscene to just utter the word “gay,” and coining the term “gay rights” was considered as incomprehensible as it was foolhardy – and the same holds true about Intactivism. Circumcision is considered so obscene that we dare not speak about it – unless making crude jokes – yet, it’s performed daily on the most precious and innocent among us – newborn babies.
There are a lot of good intactivists working to make a difference, but there’s also a core clique that demands consensus of thought before one can sit at the cool kid’s table. The ones who think wearing a mask during a pandemic is stupid and parrot QAnon beliefs as fact. They enjoy being “woke” enough to know the “truth” but lack the maturity to envision pragmatic solutions. Their bigotry isn’t always evident in the message they put forth, but in the attitudes they possess.
When an intactivist told me, gay rights aren’t real human rights, only one person spoke up to rebuke them. When another intactivist blindsided me with ignorant remarks about the transgendered as I tried to console a suicidal intactivist, no one stepped in. And when I confronted an intactivist about anti-Semitism within the movement, he flatly said he didn’t care. It’s a frat boy mentality that goes unchecked and has no place in a human rights movement.
These self-proclaimed alphas indeed dominate the movement, putting in the most time and effort to advance the cause, yet their efforts are largely misguided. True to the alpha stereotype, they’re so comfortable with their own bigotry that they can’t see the forest for the trees. They assure the movement will remain fringe and extremist, with no hope of gaining real momentum or becoming mainstream – and that seems to be exactly how they want it. I’ve had intactivists tell me their movement would be “ruined” if it went mainstream.
Any human rights movement that would be “ruined” by compassion and empathy isn’t worthwhile.
Attacking a new mother on social media for circumcising her son is bullying, not activism. Right or wrong, once a parent makes that choice, the fight has been lost. The focus should be on educating parents before they choose to sexually mutilate their child, and on holding doctors accountable for not providing informed consent and flatly lying about circumcision’s many health benefits.
I believe anti-circumcision laws can’t advance in this country unless religious exemptions are offered to Jews and Muslims, yet intactivists rail against this suggestion. They claim the law can’t support such exemptions while failing to understand the First Amendment protects religious freedom. Refusing to offer Jews exemptions on circumcision only encourages anti-Semitism.
When I became a US citizen, I was asked if I had ever attempted to prevent anyone from practicing their religion. It’s a standard question all applicants are asked under oath – a question that would literally bar intactivists from becoming US citizens, because they are indeed attempting to prevent Jews from practicing their religion.
Intactivists are quick to claim exemptions would make Jewish boys second class citizens, yet offer nary a peep about Muslim boys. Intactivists have their issues with Muslims too, but are far more focused on Jews as being the root cause behind their failure to advance intactivism. Christianity garners the least attention of all, remaining sheltered from the same scrutiny by choice.
If you’ve been an intactivist for decades yet shelter Christian doctors from the role they’ve played in making circumcision mainstream in America in favor of blaming the Jews, then your an anti-Semitic bigot, not a statesman.
The reality is, Christian doctors are thee reason circumcision is mainstream in America. Doctors freely admit circumcision is the oldest surgery in history, and in the early 1900s, it became known as “Remondino’s Operation,” named after the Christian doctor credited with almost singlehandedly making it commonplace in America today.1
Dr. Remondino wrote a bestselling book, was a member of numerous prestigious medical associations, had a weekly radio show and a popular national newspaper column, and was sure to sell America on the morality of circumcision at every opportunity.2 He believed both men and women should be circumcised and made the wild claim that it could cure brain tumors, insanity,3 and was a humane alternative to forced castration that would cure black men of their predisposition to be rapists.4 Yet intactivists remained largely ignorant to Remondino’s contributions until I educated them on the subject – having found their scapegoat in Jews, there was no need to investigate further.
In his book, Remondino explains the old Naval practice of providing prostitutes to sailors in exchange for syphilis treatment, and suggests the same could be done to force circumcision onto the nation – and after World War II, that’s essentially what happened – servicemembers were ordered to be circumcised then went home and did the same to their sons, and the archetype of a clean cut American was born.
Dr. Remondino believed circumcision should be forced on all men and women by civil ordinance, but opted for the more direct approach of simply lying about its many health benefits. He pushed the lie that circumcision could cure syphilis by lingering within the folds of the foreskin5 – the exact lie told today about HIV. The reality is, America has one of the highest circumcision rates in the world, and one of the highest HIV rates too, so the truth of the matter speaks for itself. The aggressive push for circumcision currently taking place in Africa is nothing more than a continuation of Dr. Remondino’s Christian imperialism.
Dr. Remondino believed circumcision rightly belonged to Christianity and took issue with St. Paul for not enforcing it more vigorously.6 Remondino saw it as his life’s work to reunite circumcision with Christianity – and he largely succeeded. Yet the New Testament is clear on its stance against circumcision, while Dr. Remondino’s American Standard Version bible stated it was a requirement, leaving Christians at odds over what to do – hence the introduction of circumcision’s many overzealous “health benefits.”
Personally, I see circumcision as a violation of a baby’s First Amendment right to practice “any religion,” or “no religion.” There are no genetic markers for religion, no child is born Christian, Jewish or Muslim. But children are indeed born gay, and my right to be who I was born to be supersedes the right of any parent to force their religion upon me. Parents have a right to teach children, not to strap them down and force them to have cosmetic surgery on their genitals.
I equate circumcision as being nothing less than surgical rape, that’s why I’ve had chronic PTSD my entire life.
Circumcision is indeed a sexual act – a baby boy’s penis is “manipulated” until it is erect, then his foreskin is amputated. In any other context, this would be considered pedophilia. Amputated foreskins have been sold to cosmetic companies for $100,000,7 and as of this writing, some of those cosmetics are promoted on Oprah.com.8 I expect better from a woman who claims to be both enlightened and compassionate.
Intact America, the national non-profit for the intactivist movement, doesn’t share my views on bigotry within the movement and have yet to openly discourage anti-Semitism or homophobia. Sure, they have an obligatory statement on their website discouraging bigotry, but it amounts little more than lip-service given their refusal to speak out publicly against bigotry within the movement and openly distance themselves from specific incidents. Instead, they chose to write a 14-page document explaining why political correctness is tedious and time consuming, and that anti-Semitism within the movement is overstated – a document that surreptitiously went missing from the internet only after an article linked intactivism to Alt-Right extremism.9, 10
Yesterday’s Alt-Right has morphed into today’s QAnon, and in the future it will morph into something else, but it all points to the same tiresome mantra – bigotry.
When an intactivist was photographed holding anti-Semitic circumcision signs alongside right wing extremists that stormed the Capitol on January 6,11 Intact America remained silent, content to allow intactivism to remain linked to QAnon and other anti-Semitic hate groups present. Silence speaks volumes in integrity’s absence. Worse still, the intactivist Twitter posse as a whole lauded their colleague for posing for such a high-profile photo op, none knowing better than the other why this harms their message.12
When I brought all this up with a respected researcher within the movement, he offered an exhaustive rebuttal essentially making excuses for his bigoted colleagues. What he should’ve said was, “it’s wrong to link Intactivism to right wing extremism,” but yet again, an Intactivist chose to remain willfully blind to the cancer running rampant within the movement, offering excuses over integrity. I liken this sort of behavior to gay people who identify as Log Cabin Republicans – if there were such an entity as “Log Cabin Intactivists,” they’d be the ones making excuses for their bigoted associates rather than just taking a step back and speaking the truth.
I don’t want any child to suffer genital mutilation, be they boy, girl, Jewish or intersex. I encourage Jewish parents to investigate the Brit Shalom, which is essentially a bris minus the circumcision. Christians don’t actually eat the body of Christ at mass, and so too can circumcision be symbolic. If you’re willing to check your social media feed on the sabbath, then you can certainly rethink the genital mutilation of your own son.
My husband was raised in a Jewish household, but doesn’t identify as Jewish now that he’s an adult. Like me, he’s an Apatheist – content to let others worship whatever mythological deity they choose, so long as they leave us out of it. My husband has the distinction of being perhaps one of the only people in history to have had a bris, yet still retain his foreskin.
My husband was born with aposthia, a rare condition where someone is apparently born without a foreskin. In reality, he always had a foreskin, it was just too short to be noticed. As such, his mohel nicked his shaft to draw the required ceremonial blood, and my husband’s foreskin was spared its ritual amputation. Today, my husband has a fully functional foreskin, a fact he’s quite proud of, given he doesn’t identify as Jewish.
My husband and I wholeheartedly believe in children’s rights – especially their First Amendment right to grow up and choose not to be beholden by any religion – and there’s no right more personal than to choose what parts of your sexual organs you’re allowed to keep. But unlike most intactivists, I’m not naive enough to think the fight against circumcision can be won by attempting to deny the First Amendment rights of parents. Precedent currently sides with parents, and until that changes, that’s how it will remain.
In 2011, intactivists attempted to put a circumcision ban in front of California voters,13 but it was struck down on the grounds of First Amendment violations before ever coming to a vote. I agree with the idealism of intactivists, but this is reality, and their failure was a major setback to the movement as a whole. Then governor, Jerry Brown, proceeded to make it harder to advance such laws in California in the future – a reality intactivists created, and a failure they’re quick to blame on the Jewish judge presiding over the case.
For the second time, the Netherlands considered a national ban on circumcision, and both Israel and the United States succeeded in pressuring them not to do it.14 If intactivists want to curb circumcision rates in the US, they’re going to have to wake up to the reality that we can’t save all children. It’s akin to saving 95% from a burning building or letting 100% perish while clinging to idealism. Which is more heroic?
I was diagnosed with chronic PTSD, which I contracted at the age of 1 after a childhood accident. Afterward, I began having recurring nightmares about my time in the ER – I could distinctly remember being in two different hospital settings – one as an infant, and the other at age 1. I had the same recurring nightmares for decades before I finally realized they were memories of my neonatal circumcision – an epiphany that didn’t come until I was in my 50s and had spent decades restoring my own foreskin. I know full well the damage circumcision causes.15
Personally, I’d like to see the Human Rights Campaign (HRC.org) get behind protecting boys from circumcision, but they’ll never get on board with intactivism as it stands today for the exact reasons I can’t – bigotry. So for now, circumcision remains a parent’s choice. But remember this, mothers: “my body my choice” cuts both ways, and the scars of circumcision last a lifetime.
Equality means equal. If you think circumcision is wrong for girls, then you should think it’s wrong for boys for the exact same reason. HRC’s iconic “=” symbol demands no less.
Baby boys are forced to cut their genitals at birth because parents don’t trust them to do it of their own choice as adults – this is the literal definition of cult behavior – forcing another human being to succumb to your ideas of right and wrong and not allowing them to think for themselves. And it’s particularly shameful when gay parents adopt this monolithic mentality. Our community knows better. We’ve butted heads against religious doctrine all our lives. We know full well the pain it causes. We know the importance of letting children be who they were born to be. Don’t pin your son down and force him to be indoctrinated into Dr. Remondino’s bigoted cult legacy.
In my view, the word “intactivist” will remain tainted so long as it’s within the clutch of the bigoted, ignorant and apathetic who currently dominate the movement in America. My advice to HRC, is that they let Intactivists be Intactivists – no amount of common sense will change them. Instead, HRC should coin a new term to encompass those of us who believe boys should be allowed to keep the foreskin they were born with, yet don’t agree with the bigotry Intactivists have become known for.
The term “Genital Autonomy” is gaining traction among the levelheaded, but without more branding, it won’t immediately define the issue for the public at large. Perhaps a better term could be coined. Either way, much work needs to be done to educate the public on why they should care about this issue.
I’ve spent over 50 years traumatized by my circumcision, and 3 decades restoring my foreskin just to find peace with it. I’m a human being, not a punchline. Yet, after all the pain and suffering my circumcision caused me, I can still find it in my heart to have empathy for Jewish persecution. That’s a core difference between chronic PTSD and an anger management problem rooted in bigotry.
I’ve implored intactivists to employ the same empathy and support circumcision exemptions for Jewish people, but it fell on deaf ears. Instead, an ignorant Intactivist accused me of converting to Judaism, which is akin to a Nazi calling me a “Jew Lover” simply because I have empathy for others. When I spoke out against this heinous statement on Twitter, Intactivists were quick to defend the bigot who said it – and virtually none stood with me and said it was wrong. This is what happens when the intactivist leadership fails to lead. This is why intactivism needs to be rebranded into something else, with HRC.org taking up the charge.
It bears repeating:
“At HRC, there is no separation between the values we hold and the way we approach our work.” Again, this core value is desperately needed if anti-circumcision laws are to advance in this nation – a core value that continues to befuddle the current intactivist movement.
I desperately want parents to hear me: Please investigate the truth of circumcision yourself and think long and hard about what you’re doing to your own son. Doctors and pediatricians do not offer “informed consent” on circumcision, as required by law. Instead, they pressure parents into circumcising their sons so they can profit from the procedure and advance their ideas about morality and religion – all in a nation that claims to have religious freedom.
Educate yourself. Do your own research. Your son is worth it.
My husband, Robert, and I have named HRC.org as the beneficiaries to our estate. We offer this Legacy Gift freely without stipulation, but humbly ask that they investigate the possibility of supporting Genital Autonomy for all boys and girls, which includes advocating against nonreligious circumcision.
Perhaps HRC will deem this subject too controversial. Perhaps they’ll succumb to fear and not take on such a challenging issue. But they’ve led the charge on many controversial issues and have done so with strength and integrity. In leu of a worthy Intactivist group to offer our Legacy Gift to, HRC remains our best and only choice. And if they don’t have the courage to take up this issue now, perhaps they will in time. This is the legacy my husband and I hope to leave behind.
The children of this nation desperately need an advocate. Baby boys deserve to keep the natural genitalia they were born with. Is that really such a controversial idea? The LGBTQ+ community has always championed the avant-garde. To stand up against circumcision is to stand against a religious doctrine that’s existed for millennia. This is a generational fight that needs to be won one small baby step at a time. Take that first step today for all the baby boys who can’t yet walk. We ask that all LGBTQ+ people do the right thing and take this issue seriously.
Sincerely,
Jay and Robert Feldman
~
MORE CIRCUMCISION INFORMATION RELATED TO THE LGBTQ+:
Circumcision and the LGBTI Community – from Attorneys for the Rights of the Child – Brochure by Tim Hammond
How Circumcision Affects Trans Women (Video)
Intersex interventions (including genital cutting): The common ground shared with male circumcision (Video)
Jay’s Story – How Jay remembered his neonatal circumcision – in brief
~
ARTICLE FOOTNOTES:
(1) Kaplan, G. (2015). The Journal of San Diego History – Summer Fall 2015, Volume 61, Number 3 & 4 – Peter C. Remondino, MD: The Man and his Library. Page 480. San Diego: San Diego Historical Society. Retrieved from https://sandiegohistory.org/journal/2015/july/july-2015index-61-34/ https://sandiegohistory.org/journal/2015/july/peter-c-remondino-md-man-library/
(2) Baker, F., CALIFORNIA MEDICAL ASSOCIATION. Cal West Med. 1927 Feb;26(2) 229-233. PMID: 18740241; PMCID: PMC1655338. Retrieved from EuropePMC.org: Obituary – P.C. Remondino, Page 233. http://europepmc.org/scanned?pageindex=5&articles=PMC1655338
(3) Remondino M.D., P.C. (1900). The History of Circumcision – From the Earliest Times to the Present – Moral and Physical Reasons for its Performance. Page 274, Philadelphia, New York, Chicago: The F.A. Davis Company Publishers. Retrieved from Books.Google.com: https://books.google.com/books?id=jLkNAAAAYAAJ&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false
(4) Stein, Melissa Norelle. Embodying race: gender, sex, and the sciences of difference, 1830-1934. Page 258, Retrieved from https://doi.org/doi:10.7282/T33F4PZV
(5) Remondino M.D., P.C. (1900). The History of Circumcision – From the Earliest Times to the Present – Moral and Physical Reasons for its Performance. Pages 179-181, Philadelphia, New York, Chicago: The F.A. Davis Company Publishers. Retrieved from Books.Google.com: https://books.google.com/books?id=jLkNAAAAYAAJ&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false
(6) Remondino M.D., P.C. (1900). The History of Circumcision – From the Earliest Times to the Present – Moral and Physical Reasons for its Performance. Page 18-19, Philadelphia, New York, Chicago: The F.A. Davis Company Publishers. Retrieved from Books.Google.com: https://books.google.com/books?id=jLkNAAAAYAAJ&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false
(7) Pudloski, K. (2013, April 15). Is Oprah Supporting the Harvest of Baby Foreskin? Retrieved from Vice.com: https://www.vice.com/en_ca/article/xdm5q7/is-oprah-supporting-the-harvest-of-baby-foreskin
(8) 25 Molvar, K. (2017, April 13). The Morning Rituals of Top Dermatologists – The One Time It’s Okay to Skip SPF. Retrieved from Oprah.com: http://www.oprah.com/health_wellness/morning-rituals-of-top-dermatologists/all
(9) How intactivist’s anti-circumcision movement was co-opted by the alt-right – by Daisy Schofield
(10) Intact America document that went missing after intactivism was linked to the Alt-Right:
“Whose Political Correctness? Changing Language, Viewpoints and Tactics in Today’s Intactivist Movement”
(11) https://www.jewishtimes.com/a-guide-to-the-hate-symbols-and-signs-on-display-at-the-capitol-riots/
(12) https://twitter.com/mamaswati/status/1346960496281477121
(14) https://cphpost.dk/?p=123974&fbclid=IwAR0SB_7dpEAkYURAiIBZzLzkDAbFjsOqMhFwU2Mw6dHSHEyV_DsB6mhhQ1A
(15) https://www.circumcisionscar.com/jays-story/ (childhood drawing of recurring nightmares)