The struggle for genital
and against the involuntary genital modification
of any sex:
Female Genital Cutting
Involuntary Sex Reassignment Genital
Autonomy for All!
This site differs from others opposed to
genital mutilation: its focus is on intactness
rather than on genital cutting.
It is intended to counteract the mindset that the foreskin is an
"extra" "flap of skin" -
- and that male genital cutting is the norm, and
the corresponding mindsets that lead to the cutting of girls and
Links to the most useful pages, if they are not in the
list below, are at Background.
Types of male genital cutting articles; male genital cutting in
vs. inflammation; diabetes; other "useless" organs, the appendix and
Jacobsen's organ; whether babies remember being circumcised; permanent
retraction; male genital cutting and royalty.
with insufficient anaesthetic: the doctor can hardly make himself heard
over the shrieking baby. Disturbing.
An 8 minute video of a Gomco circumcision
uploaded by Dr Kevin Windisch "for health professionals".
He has to raise his voice and still can't be heard over the baby,
to whom he repeatedly apologises. Disturbing.
For those who think male genital cutting improves the
is invariably harmless, there's a gallery of pictures of circumcisions. One
man's multiple botches.
of the intact and circumcised penis: you can see
the difference (NSFW).
covers most of the main
shows several circumcisions, not for the squeamish
MexicoA guide (en espagnol) from the
National Center for Health Technology
Excellence, with input from the institutions that make up the National
Health System, says "Circumcision of boys should not be done without
The serious bias towards circumcision of a leading US midwifery
textbook, including a chapter telling midwives how to do it (yet it
details the disadvantages of each method)--analysed
and contrasted with a
British textbook. Famous hippie guru midwife Ina May Gaskin
used to cut babies and has never renounced it. This video calls on her
to do so:
The case presented for circumcision is
argument and its supporters will produce another, and another,
indefinitely. (Urinary Tract Infections,
until recently cited as the main reason to circumcise, were only added
to the list in 1982) Something else is going on--if
the foreskin has so many faults and varied, how could it ever have have
article mentions in passing that some doctors then did
it without asking
Former US Surgeon-General G. Everett
has moved forward very little.
Australasian College of Physicians'
2010 policy disposes of the medical claims and (unlike its predecessor)
considers the functions of the foreskin, but still bends over backwards
to blur the ethical issues so that it can stay on the fence.