A review of DaC's Strategy statement

[Steven Barendregt]

I've recently taken the time to review the strategy statements from DaC and I see some HUGE problems with it which I believe are counterproductive to our goal of abolishing Male Genital Mutilation. I'd like to discuss here some of the problems with it, and my suggestions for how to improve it. Quotes from the articles will be in bold, while my responses and comments will be in normal font.

• Is there another strategy for Muslim circumcision than the awakening of consciences?

Yes, this is a demographic war. I suggest that we limit the spread of MGM into European countries by limiting immigration from Muslim countries, deporting Muslim refugees, promoting secularism, and getting the birth rates up among native Europeans who will leave their children intact. This will bolster our side in the culture war. Especially since the anti genital integrity Jewish establishment is using Muslim migration as a weapon against us, to promote MGM in Europe. (such as what happened after Iceland's proposed ban, for example)

I also think that we need to convince non-jews and non-muslims that genital mutilation of any child is of course a human rights violation, and a form of religious extremism and terrorism!

In the section "the path of compassion" it says:

• • The particularity of this approach is to be inclusive:

    • the nocircs find themselves obliged to take into account the fears and suffering of the threatened procircs in their traditions.

    • Moreover, one must accept to push this ethical logic to its conclusion, however destabilizing it may be: if the sufferings generated by the fight against circumcision turned out to be worse than the sufferings generated by circumcision, then the nocircs would have to give up their fight!

  • A major cultural change always involves suffering for those threatened by the change:  

WHAT!? We would have to "give up our fight" if "the sufferings generated by the fight against circumcision turned out to be worse than the sufferings generated by circumcision"? This is absurd! THERE IS NO WAY THAT I WOULD EVER GIVE UP THE FIGHT AGAINST SEXUAL MUTILATION OF BOYS, and to even suggest that in a group that is supposed to be dedicated to abolishing MGM, makes DaC's true motive here suspicious.

Furthermore, the next section acknowledges that "Major cultural change always involves suffering for those threatened by the change"... What does this even mean? And how could the "suffering" of sexual mutilators possibly be any worse than the suffering that they are inflicting onto others?

Since the path of compassion involves taking into account the sufferings of the procircs in order to reduce them as much as possible, it has the consequence of making it a very effective strategy in terms of reducing the obstacles to change.

Why should I care about the "suffering" of groups that intentionally cause suffering to others? My number one priority is to stop the RAPE, MUTILATION, TORTURE, and DAMAGE that they do to children, and if this means that they must "suffer" in order to end the suffering that they cause, then so be it. They deserve it. This is Justice. This is a cultural WAR, and the opposing side has already resorted to violence against us when they promoted the genital mutilation of Americans, Africans, and other groups. I will do whatever it takes to abolish MGM and all other forms of Genital Mutilation.

Next:

• The ideal demand is the "Appeal to open a public debate on the conditions for consent to circumcision".

There are huge problems with framing the debate in this way. If we're going to have a public debate, we want to frame the debate in a way that gives us the largest advantage possible. Using the "consent" angle is WEAK, since it would imply that someone would have a valid reason to have someone assist in their own mutilation... and there is NO valid reason for that! This is akin to me saying something like "what are the conditions for consent to have someone assist me in self harm?" It's ridiculous to even ask this question, because the obvious answer is "nobody should assist in harming you, ever". We have to get away from this paradigm of "consent" and focus more on the paradigm of "physical/sexual violence, violation, and harm" instead (note, this is also how the anti-FGM advocates have been able to get success). The "choice" paradigm leads to some very messed up thinking such as, for example, I had one intactivist tell me "If my son grows up and wants a circumcision, I would support his decision, because it's his body and his choice".... To which I replied "If you actually cared about your child, you would discourage him from ever causing lifelong damage to himself"... The same is true on a societal scale.... so my suggestion is, if we're going to have a public debate, instead of talking about consent, lets frame this as "Should boys and men be protected from rape, torture, mutilation, and sexual abuse, or not?"

This claim must be based on the slogan that "Circumcision can cause severe, lifelong suffering, even if not all circumcision leads to suffering.”  

Again, the framing is all wrong. it is not true that "not all circumcision leads to suffering"... The fact is that amputation of Healthy Genitalia ALWAYS causes lifelong suffering, 100% of the time, no exceptions! And that's true, regardless of if the victim is aware of how it's caused them suffering or not! All of us in this group should already know the damaging effects that MGM has physically, socially, psychologically, etc. And certainly the physical damage and sexual violation of the victim is present 100% of the time.

This slogan has immense advantages, first of all to be unquestionable even by procircs, and to awaken consciences without stigmatizing the circumcised (let us avoid them the double punishment, such as the use of the expression sexual "mutilation" which devalues them in addition to being a victim of circumcision).  

First... why cede any ground at all to the baby rapists? We don't want them in a position where they can build from. We want them in a position where anything they say will be seen as indefensible... second... As a victim of MGM myself, I would prefer that you tell the truth and say it how it is, rather than water down the message because you're afraid of offending my feelings. I think that using the terms "sexual mutilation" and other strong terms is accurate and also conveys the severity of harm that was actually done to us. Using weaker words like "circumcision" trivializes the damage that was done to us... to illustrate When anti-FGM advocates call a clitoridectomy "FGM", they are not being disrespectful to the victims of FGM at all.

Furthermore, words hold power. And we should strive to use strong words like "mutilation" "intact" "abolish" "Rape" "disfigure" "manipulate" "exploit" etc... because if people are accustomed to associate these strong words with genital cutting of boys, then they will pass on the connotations of these words.... This has already worked in the USA with the word "intact". I have noticed from my time in the intactivist movement, that five years ago, almost everyone used the word "uncircumcised" to describe a penis that has not been mutilated.... Nowadays, I have noticed that even some of the people in favor of mutilation use the word "intact" because intactivists have been saying it so much... In addition, (if you haven't noticed already) I make a person effort to use the word "mutilated" rather than "circumcised" whenever possible. And because of this, I have had several instances of people in favor of MGM calling it "mutilation". When I first started intactivism, most people were surprised when I used that term because they had never thought of it as mutilation before. Nowadays, people are less surprised. This is another reason why I think anti-FGM advocates use the term "FGM" instead of terms like "clitoridectomy" and also frame FGM as a form of sexual violence rather than asking "when should a girl be able to consent to mutilation?"

Furthermore... a stigmatization against circumcised men, if adopted by society, would actually be a benefit for our cause and discourage people from doing it. Right now in the USA, we have the opposite. We have a stigmatization against the prepuce that encourage parents to mutilate their boys, and encourages adult intact men to mutilate themselves and feel embarrassed about having a normal body. Yes, I understand societal stigmatization against mutilated penises can be disheartening and frustrating to victims of MGM (myself included)... however... on a societal scale, this would only spur interest in penis tissue stretching devices and spur greater demand for applying tissue regeneration technology to the penis.

this demand is not a closed proposal but remains open to different issues, including the age of consent to circumcision. This avoids giving the feeling that the nocircs believe they are the holders of "the truth", but shows that they rely on the consideration of all points of view in the debate, the only source of legitimacy in a democracy 

... But we do know "the truth", and i'm sure all of us have been involved in intactivism for long enough that we already know the points of views of the mutilators. Again. Why cede ground to them? who are we trying to convince here?

this demand is consistent with long-standing actions against female “genital” mutilation, such as a ban at any age, as opposed to a demand for a ban on ritual circumcision before the age of 18, which would conflict with the abolitionist approach to female genital mutilation and be legally discriminatory 

No. Your demand is not consistent, because FGM is not framed as an issue of "consent", but rather as violent sexual mutilation. We should learn from the anti-FGM movement and pursue the same abolishment of male genital mutilation. It is not discriminatory if we simply demand that men are given the same rights as women.

this demand puts everyone around the table, including the advocates of the best interests of the child, who are much more politically powerful compared to the nocircs lilliputians, but also lay people, feminists and many others. 

I'm going to assume you mean "children rights organizations" here, rather than implying that intactivists don't have the "best interests of the child" in mind.... Regardless, to get everyone at the table, we must first work on building coalitions and frame the debate as a human rights issue, rather than a consent issue....


Regarding the "lateral project strategy"...  This is an excellent strategy! This is very similar to the strategy I am working on already, but I did not know it had a name until after I read this. However... there is part of this strategy that I think deserves special attention...

it is impossible to convince "opponents" of a change to support it, so don't bother to discuss it with them, as they will not facilitate the change

What constitutes an "opponent" here? I'm unsure about Europe, but certainly in the USA, I have seen content produced by feminist groups, Anti-FGM groups, and Anti- intersex genital mutilation (anti-IGM) groups, who say things like "FGM is in no way comparable to male circumcision". Does this make them "opponents" to our fight against MGM? or do "opponents" only include groups like "circumcision choice", the "American academy of pediatrics", "The bill and Melinda gates foundation", "the world health organization", "UNICEF" and other groups that are actively promoting MGM as one of their main goals? I tend to think that the former groups are worth trying to convert to our cause, while the latter groups are not worth our time.... Although I also think that for the united states, there's a smaller chance of converting Anti-FGM and Anti-IGM groups to support our fight against MGM, because they know that strategically for them, opposing MGM would make it much more difficult for them to pass a ban against FGM or IGM. And it will be difficult to convince feminist organizations to support our cause unless we frame MGM for them as "contributing to the oppression of women"... Similarly, pitching our goal of abolishing MGM as being integral to the goals of their own group is the best approach to take, and is also why we should not waste time on groups who are directly opposed to us.

Keep this in mind during the next section:

• What are the "lateral allies" of the nocircs, who should be pampered? in order of importance and influence:

  • feminists and more generally actors positioned on "gender" oppressions

  • kiddists, that is, those who are in charge of the child's best interests

  • the laity: atheists, rationalists, humanists, sceptics, etc.

  • Rights and Equality advocates

  • the health professions

  • the intelligentsia and politics

  • sexologists

  • the animal cause: think of the hundreds of millions of animals castrated without anesthetics annually in intensive farming!

  • the actors in the fight against violence: sexual, educational...

  • organizations fighting against FGM

  • generally speaking, algoprioritarian organizations in one way or another: altruism, compassion, etc.

  • the "ex": Muslims, Jews, Christians

  • organizations fighting against intersex (and transgender) sexual mutilation

Notice something strange? DaC put "feminists and more generally actors positioned on "gender" oppressions" at the top of list.... and we know they are not including Men's rights advocates as "actors positioned on gender oppressions" because of their hostility to them in other threads. Even though the MRAs are explicitly fighting against the oppression of boys, including genital mutilation of boys, while feminist organizations are not, and some feminist organizations are explicitly hostile to our cause.... MRAs should definitely be added to the list here...

Another important demographic you forgot are Christians! Christians (excluding the coptics) have a very long history of opposing MGM and we need to remind them of this!!!

 and I think this list has the capacity to be expanded even further if any one of you reading this can think of other demographics to target...

next:
Advanced level of the Appeal to Debate strategy: propose to debate 13 yo as the age of consent ....

This entire proposal is absolutely insane. For obvious reasons. 13 is far too young, and I believe we can do better if we are forced into setting an age limit as a compromise. But I will let the other members of the group discuss this.

For now I just want to point out that this proposal contradicts what this strategy said earlier about a demand that is "consistent with long-standing actions against female “genital” mutilation" ...

next:
Complementary strategies to the Appeal to Debate: the domino game 

This section looks pretty good to me, although be aware that as long as there are Jews and Muslims in the medical industry, they will keep making up bogus medical claims to try and justify circumcision, just like Jews have been doing here in the USA for over a century.

Comparative Effectiveness of "Strength of Law" versus "Path of compassion" Strategies

Nocirc's high-risk strategy: all on the "strength of law"  
questionable “right to physical integrity", which does not even exist in world law: are nocircs really opposed to the education of the youngest, which nevertheless leads to a physical modification of their brains, an attack on their "physical integrity" not consented to and without medical reason? 
So DaC thinks that educating children is an attack on their "physical integrity"? WHAT!? How can you misconstrue education as an "attack on physical integrity" this makes NO sense whatsoever! Education is not "attacking" nor does it violate any principle of physical integrity. A child is still "whole" and "complete" even after being educated!

questionable absolutist "right to dispose of one's body": do the nocirc really want to alienate feminists who fight fiercely to abolish prostitution, even if freely consented to? or those who fight against the harmful street drugs, against "autonomy" over one's own body?
DaC contradicts themselves here and makes an argument against their own core position that their organization is named after!

• What legal strategy for the future? This topic could be developed at another symposium.

  • Following the example of feminists who succeeded in putting an end to the "legal minority" of women in the West after two centuries of struggle, the nocircs should aim at putting an end to discrimination against the youngest by putting an end to their "legal minority", which would radically put an end to forced circumcision: this equality of rights without arbitrary age is precisely the objective of kiddism.

I assume there is a translation problem here? What is meant by "legal minority"? They mentioned discrimination. Are they referring to "protected classes"? What does this mean?

• To put an end to the 1948 Jewish-Christian hold-up on fundamental rights, by promoting a progressive rewriting of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, from which the rest of the legal architecture is derived country by country. For example, the right to found a "family" specifies in Article 26 that "Parents have, as a matter of priority, the right to choose the kind of education to give to their children", confirming the rights of one category of citizens - the parents - over another category of citizens - the children -, opening the door to forced circumcision of one by the other.

Admittedly, I don't know much about this, but what does this have to do with our issue of ending MGM?

Alliance strategy 

• Advanced level of the Path of compassion

  • • In order to achieve maximum efficiency in the "path of compassion", one must understand the illusion of the ego and therefore the illusion of free will, two scientific discoveries which are quite recent in the West. Understanding the illusion of free will allows one to convince oneself that the door has not "chosen" to pinch my fingers and that there is no point in kicking it back, or to understand that procircists never "decide" to circumcise and that one should therefore not hate them for doing it.

This is extremely disrespectful to the victims of MGM who are fighting against this. So you're saying that nobody is responsible for their actions ever? If someone chooses to mutilate a child, or chooses to push propaganda promoting MGM, then I'd say hate for them is justified.... You are asking rape victims to accept that their rapists are not responsible for their choice to rape them. Hate in this instance is justified. It is not wrong to hate evil, it is GOOD to hate evil.  

• Understanding the illusion of the ego is essential to include procircs in the sphere of our benevolence, with a view to a collaboration of all for a maximum alleviation of suffering.

You're fucking kidding me. I have seen how vile and manipulative "procirc" people are. Giving them our benevolence is a weakness that invites them to exploit us. No. These people must be demonized, dehumanized, and exposed as the evil, soulless people they are.


email to Brian Earp in May 2020  

While the force of law approach is a logic of confrontation between two forces that are placed in a rather violent opposition, procirc versus nocirc, on the contrary, the path of compassion brings these two forces together since their interest is to reduce suffering as much as possible:

If you think the goal of baby mutilators are to "reduce suffering as much as possible" then you're extremely naive. These people don't care about reducing suffering or about what's ethical. They only care about continuing their traditions, or in the case of medical doctors, making easy money.

With the path of compassion, we are in a process of collaboration between procirc and nocirc, at the antipodes of conflict, which is more likely to reduce the obstacles to change (on the part of procirc but also of nocirc who must agree to take a step towards procirc).

To expect cooperation between us and them is insane... Remember what the "lateral project strategy" said? it is impossible to convince "opponents" of a change to support it, so don't bother to discuss it with them, as they will not facilitate the change. ... THERE IS NO COOPERATING WITH THESE PEOPLE! and I sure as hell am not going to capitulate to them as you suggest.

Since the major challenge of nocirc in the medium term is Muslim circumcision (in the land of Islam and in the West), it is worth avoiding at all costs a logic of confrontation, but opting radically for a logic of persuasion. If circumcision is abandoned momentarily under duress, it will flourish again at the first opportunity: we are condemned to a demanding work of in-depth persuasion to be lasting. 

Good luck persuading 2 billion of them. not going to happen in our lifetime. Sorry. This is a losing strategy. It would be better to separate the west from Islam as much as possible and save the west for now.

• to put an end to circumcision in the West, to claim "rights" while knowingly ignoring the argument of suffering,

There's no contradiction here. We claim rights to not be mutilated precisely BECAUSE we know it causes suffering....


Ok, this took me many hours to write, but I hope it was helpful. I really hope you will consider making MAJOR changes to this strategy. Thank you.

[Droit au Corps Association]

Hello to all the participants of this forum

The time seems ripe to launch a broad strategic reflection process within the coalition to answer the question included in its statutes: "How is it possible to end male sexual mutilation (MSM) everywhere in the world? And to do so within the framework of the ethical priority of the coalition, which is the alleviation of suffering.”

As this issue only concerns male circumcision, the general forum of ICASM is not the most appropriate one: a dedicated Forum has been created to host this reflection, accessible through the specific center of interest Strategies for the abandonment of male circumcision.

Classically, a strategic thinking process involves these types of steps:

• Foresight: what are the general perspectives to be taken into account for MSM, from the short term (5 years) to the long term (50-100 years)?

• Scenario analysis: given the broad prospects for the future, what are the possible options from the coalition's point of view? What is the optimal option given the outlook?

• Chosen strategic option: key success factors, strategic objectives, etc.

• Operational plan: details of the actions to be undertaken within the framework of the chosen strategic option.

We think it is useful and enriching that each member and guest of the coalition (or participants in this forum) take the time to form their own opinions before being influenced by the opinions of others. As a first step, therefore, we propose that each person produce their own strategic vision and then compare it with the visions of others. In order to facilitate the articulation of the visions of all participants, here is a short reflection guide that you can use (or not) to produce your document presenting your strategic vision.

When your strategic vision is ready, simply drop the link (url) to your document presenting your strategic vision in the discussion thread "Strategic visions of all participants".  

[jean-christophe Lurenbaum]

This is the discussion topic opened on the dedicated forum on MSM to share and discuss Steven's analysis posted on ICASM's main forum.