A review of DaC's Strategy statement
jean-christophe Lurenbaum
jean-christophe Lurenbaum
Foresight - What is our major challenge in the medium term? Muslim circumcision
Is there a consensus on this hypothesis? If so, what solutions are envisaged by the participants in this forum to put an end to it, especially in Muslim countries such as Saudi Arabia or Indonesia?
Steven wrote: “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.”
The idea of DaC is that people from the Muslim culture would be needed to solve this problem, as they are best able to imagine and evaluate solutions. One of the objectives when creating the international coalition was that it would be able to attract people and organisations from Muslim culture, in order to build bridges. The Appeal To Debate allowed us to test this hypothesis by collecting many public signatures from this culture (Muslims or ex-Muslims, including many feminists). The case of feminists is very interesting because there is a strong feminist resistance against the discriminatory aspects of Islam (legal minority in countries such as Saudi Arabia, compulsory veiling, tax injustice on inheritance, etc). We therefore have a particular interest in getting together with these feminists to have entry points into populations of Muslim culture.
Hence the extreme importance that Mohamed Fahmy accepted to be an "expert" member of ICASM (after becoming a member of DaC and signatory of the Appeal to Debate). He is also a signatory of Brian Earp's Brussel Collaboration 2019 publication. It is also very important that a collective from the Arab-Muslim world has agreed to join the coalition. We need to continue to support such emergences in the Muslim world.
There are two Muslim segments to consider:
- populations living in Islamic lands, like the Middle East or Indonesia.
- populations living in non-Muslim Western countries, especially "refugees".
DaC considers this immigrant population to be a considerable asset as it is a natural bridge to the populations "living in their countries", thanks to family ties in particular. It is therefore necessary to focus on this population in order to succeed in reaching Muslims in the land of Islam. The case of mixed couples is particularly interesting because it is common for a mother of Western origin to disagree with the circumcision of her son wanted by the father. Conversely, DaC receives cases of fathers of Western origin who do not want the circumcision of their son wanted by their mother (African or Muslim case).
DaC has therefore developed specific programmes for mixed couples, which has become a recruitment channel for the association (which has more than 200 participants). A whole strategy is proposed to the parent opposed to circumcision so that the other parent renounces the circumcision, this can go as far as legal advice. The first piece of advice we give is to talk about "delaying" circumcision, "until the age of consent". The longer the circumcision is delayed, the less likely it is to happen. For Muslims, we can use the argument of the Appeal To Debate, that Ishmael the son of Abraham was 13 years old when he was circumcised, which gives an argument for delaying at least until that age.
One population is particularly interesting, these are the "refugees" in Western countries, who are more inclined not to bring circumcision or any other practice from their country of origin with them. We have therefore developed a specific stream in the networks of "refugees" in order to have an additional channel of persuasion. Here is a testimony from a refugee (whose mother was an exciser, and whose daughters were all excised) who ended up becoming a member of DaC after being welcomed via the Algosphere Alliance refugee stream (of which DaC is a member), which shows the value of making use of synergies between activist networks.jean-christophe Lurenbaum
Strategic option - Are Christians allies of the Intactivists?
Steven wrote “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!!!”
We recalled in the Appeal To Debate that Christian hierarchies in Europe formed a common front in 2018 to support the threatened Jewish and Muslim religious circumcision in Iceland: Christians, Jews, Muslims concerned by Iceland circumcision proposal by Council of the Bishops’ Conferences of Europe and Conference of European Churches. In fact, as early as 2013, after Cologne, the Vatican had mobilised with a petition in defence of circumcision against the risk of a ban at European level. It can therefore be assumed that it is once again the Vatican that is at the instigation of this front in 2018.
This position is not very surprising given the survival and growth strategy used by religions. Confronted with the threat of scientific discourse since the 18th century, religions have understood that in order to survive and reproduce from generation to generation, they must succeed in maintaining the closest possible control over the next generation, the children, in order to succeed in anchoring their beliefs in conflict with the science taught in public schools (notably Darwin's theory which is their pet peeve). Their constant strategy is twofold:
1 - to give as much power as possible to "the family" in general, against the tendency of public policies to reason in terms of "individual rights": religions therefore seek to preserve a maximum of "rights for the family" in conflict with the "rights of individuals", and to restrict the scope of public policies (in particular by widening as much as possible the scope of private education in the face of the threat of public education)
2 - to give as much power as possible to parents over “their” children, so that they can instil as much as possible their own religious beliefs in them. This began with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948 and was amplified in subsequent international legal texts: this is why circumcision is still tolerated in legislation.
Religions have a vested interest in preventing equal rights between young people and adults, by keeping 'children' in a legal minority (this is why they are called 'minors'). The creation of specific 'children's rights' in 1989 was a way of avoiding equal rights, with the known consequence of maintaining legal tolerance for religious circumcision. If the youngest (children) had the same rights as adults, it would instantly become legally impossible to continue performing circumcision on children. This is a fundamental objective of kiddism to end the legal minority of the youngest, just as feminism has succeeded in ending the legal minority of women after centuries of hard struggle (which was much more legitimate than creating specific 'women's rights'), but this legal minority persists for large populations of women, for example in Saudi Arabia.jean-christophe Lurenbaum
Scenario analysis - Comparative Effectiveness of "Strength of Law" versus "Path of compassion" Strategies + email to Brian Earp
Excerpt: “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”
Steven wrote “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 []”
In addition to Droit au Corps previous explanations, here are some details of my own.
Let us assume that our major long-term challenge is Muslim circumcision.
There is no doubt that everyone agrees that, for Muslim countries, the "force of law" option would not only be a dead end but would be seriously counterproductive in terms of the backlash and defence of circumcision that it would create. Persuasion is therefore the only possible approach, not only for Muslims but for all those who practice the tradition of circumcision in the sincere belief that they are doing the right thing.
The weapon of persuasion is communication, which must be deployed as widely and powerfully as possible. This implies multiplying the channels of communication and multiplying the content within each channel. This explains why it is so important to build up a vast network of lateral allies, also in order to mobilise their own communication channels.
The only all-purpose communication argument for all audiences, institutional or private, whatever the region of the world, capable of shaking the certainties of Jews and Muslims (and ancestors), is that of suffering. Those who practise "traditions" must eventually be convinced that they inflict great suffering on themselves (especially in terms of sexuality, which is a very sensitive subject at the individual level).
The argument of suffering is consensual for everyone, except for the Catholic Church, which has long considered suffering to be "salvific" (e.g. pastoral letter of John Paul II). Unlike Catholicism, Judaism and Islam consider it their duty to alleviate the suffering of the world. The argument of suffering must therefore be put at the heart of all communications.
As explained by Droit au Corps, the slogan "Circumcision can cause severe, lifelong suffering, even if not all circumcision leads to suffering" is absolutely strategic because it is unassailable on the part of the procirc and is sufficient for nocirc to demonstrate that this considerable risk of circumcision cannot be taken lightly, but makes informed consent on this catastrophic risk. The contrary assertion "Circumcision always causes severe, lifelong suffering" would only pose problems for the nocirc: the procirc could very easily challenge it (e.g. with numerous testimonials), this assertion would inflict a double penalty on the victims of circumcision and it would alienate many circumcised men who would otherwise be prepared to listen to us (on the suffering "of others than themselves"... of course).
So the whole issue is that we find a powerful and inexpensive communication vehicle to get this message across, based on suffering. This will be the subject of my next post.
jean-christophe Lurenbaum
Strategic option - What advocacy strategy? The Appeal to Open a Public Debate on the conditions for consent to circumcision
In addition to Droit au Corps previous explanations, here are some details of my own. The Appeal To Debate is first and foremost a tool for large-scale communication, but it is also a tool for action.
1 - first of all a communication tool
it is an extremely economical tool considering the very important number of its benefits:
1 single text can serve as a general communication platform for years to come
it can pedagogically contain everything there is to know about circumcision. Let us think of those who do not have time to read tons and tons of articles and Internet sites, with the Appeal they have the "all-in-one".
As long as the public authorities do not grant this demand, we can increase the pressure constantly, without obstacles, without anyone being able to oppose it: the signatures add up over the years, both public and private (several million over time), making the map more and more impressive and universal, allowing us to build up an increasingly imposing and highly qualified file of email addresses, with a view to other initiatives or participatory fund-raising campaigns.
2 - it is also a tool for action
It should be noted that speaking of a "Appeal To Debate" avoids claiming a "ban" on circumcision, but that the outcome of the debate would probably be a "ban", probably in the form of an "age limit" (like Intact Denmark's project with 18 years old). Moreover, from a legal point of view, there is also nothing to prevent the prohibition of all the conditions necessary to perform a circumcision being obtained in stages: for example, general anaesthesia could be required, which would oblige anaesthetic professionals to intervene, and then prevent professionals from intervening on the basis of the Codes of Ethics for Health Professionals. One can also progressively increase the requirements, and therefore the barriers, to the practice of circumcision (qualifications, insurance, cost...).
In parallel to the pressure put on the institutions and depending on their deafness to hear this Appeal, the coalition will take the opportunity to open the public debate itself, on its own website, which will enable it to better steer it. This could be done in the form of questions/answers with experts and lateral allies, in order to pre-emptively sweep away all the procirc arguments, which would be systematically neutralised. Those who try to prevent the opening of the debate will therefore have everything to lose.
Parallel to the Appeal To Debate, the priority is to bring down the "medical" domino of circumcision. This will be the subject of my next post.
Sophie Dallidebour
jean-christophe Lurenbaum
Strategic option - Complementary strategies to the Appeal to Debate: the domino game
Excerpt: “Treat each of the 4 main segments of circumcision: medical, Muslim, ancestral (mirroring FGM), Jewish, etc.
the tactical priority is to take down the medical "domino" that serves as an alibi for the other 3 segments.
the medical domino has 3 main facets: "phimosis" in Europe, neonatal in the USA, HIV with WHO”
In addition to Droit au Corps previous explanations, here are some details of my own.
To bring down "medical" circumcision, the priority is to do away with the term "phimosis". In fact, this term, misused for centuries, has made it possible to pathologize the foreskin from a very young age, opening the way to forced retraction and large-scale "medical" circumcision (almost 100,000 circumcisions per year in France for this purpose).
Droit au Corps has therefore published a very complete dossier that brings together the best state of science on penis health. This dossier is a solid basis for the reduction of "medical" circumcision, and its translation into English and other languages can be done so that other nocirc organisations around the world can benefit from it. His first recommendation is to ban the term "phimosis" from the medical literature.
Thanks to the coalition and its scientific committee, it will be possible to build up a vast network of health professionals to put pressure on the WHO. The primary objective is to remove the erroneous content of the ICD-10 N47 and ICD-11 GB05 codes from the International Classification of Diseases established by the WHO. This will allow us to work together to tackle the VMMC campaign at a later stage.
Droit au Corps has set up a new mechanism, the Penis Health Observatory, which makes it possible to methodically tackle any incorrect information or practice:
a few months after the setting up of this Observatory, DaC has just achieved a first major success, by obtaining from a commercial telemedicine company to remove its erroneous publications from its website.
DaC will make a presentation of this tool at a future meeting of the coalition.
The objective is to generalise this tool at the international level as quickly as possible. This could take the form of an "International Observatory" hosted on the coalition site, which would federate and support the Observatories created country by country with the assistance of DaC.
As far as "traditional" circumcision is concerned, the brakes on change must be kept to a minimum. This will be the subject of my next post.
Kyle Schlegel
Sophie Dallidebour
jean-christophe Lurenbaum
Scenario analysis - The path of compassion
Excerpt: “A major cultural change always involves suffering for those threatened by the change: A change is all the easier to bring about if efforts are made to reduce this suffering, which is an obstacle to change”
In addition to Droit au Corps previous explanations, here are some details of my own.
I think this is an obvious point on which everyone agrees: the greater the suffering linked to change, the more it will slow down change. This evidence has 2 destabilising consequences for intactivists, if they want to be effective:
The more the Intactivists attack those who practise their "traditions", the more they increase their fears and suffering, and therefore the more they hinder the abandonment of circumcision.
While intactivists see traditionalists as enemies and could rejoice in their suffering, on the contrary, imagination and efforts must be made to alleviate as much as possible the suffering associated with change, so as to facilitate the abandonment of circumcision.
Unfortunately, there are intactivists who do not understand these facts, as they are blinded by anger. There is no miracle solution to this problem, apart from :
heal as much as possible from their traumas, in order to regain his lucidity and effectiveness in the fight against circumcision (see Jordan Arel's approach for example or Brendon's book which deals with this point in a paragraph)
more radically, to understand that free will is an illusion of the mind and that in reality no one is responsible for its actions. As destabilising as it may seem, there is no "responsible" person behind the suffering of this world because no one makes a "decision". Those who practise circumcision have not "decided" it, their behaviour is not the result of any free will: it is counterproductive to blame them.
I understand that all this is extremely difficult for angry intactivists to hear. However, you really have to go through this reasoning because it makes the cause nocirc particularly effective. Let's not forget that it is efficiency that should guide us, not anger (which is reflected in many posts on ICASM's forums). I suggest that you let go of this anger for a few moments, just enough time to become familiar with an incredible and fascinating phenomenon called the "ego illusion". There is a lot of literature on this subject, in the field of neurosciences or philosophy. I propose you just a small effort, to watch this video from a British professor of Cognitive and Computational Neuroscience that I find particularly educational: Your Brain Hallucinates Your Conscious Reality, Ted Conference, Anil Seth, 2017, 17’
If you manage to familiarise yourself with this destabilising idea that the ego does not exist, that Descartes was wrong to say "I think therefore I am", then this will help you to understand why free will is also a mental illusion: because "the arbiter" himself is a mental illusion. For those who want to go further, you will find extensive documentation on this subject in the center of interest on universal consciousness.
I will use a simple image to facilitate the understanding of this phenomenon of the illusion of free will. When we have understood that the ego does not exist, that tis idea is a pure mental hallucination, we understand that consciousness is a flow that can be compared to a river: the river flows in the mountain following the steepest slope. It is the same for the flow of consciousness: it flows in our brain following its steepest slope, it is as simple as that. The problem is that sometimes the river overflows and floods houses, making people suffer and kill in these overflows. If we want to prevent this kind of suffering in the future, it is a waste of time to blame the river, as if it were "responsible" for the damage. All efforts should be concentrated on understanding the flood phenomenon and on solutions to prevent it, for example by building dikes. It is exactly the same for those who practise circumcision, we must see them as rivers that overflow and do damage, we must concentrate our efforts on understanding the flood phenomenon and inventing solutions to stem it. And in order to understand the river, it is particularly important to get inside the heads of circumcisers: the more angry you are with them, the more difficult it is to get inside their heads and listen to them attentively, in order to understand the process of overflowing and how to stop it.
In short, there are only advantages for the cause nocirc to understand the illusion of ego and the illusion of free will:
not only avoids getting angry and being blinded by that anger, since there are no "responsible people", but only flowing rivers.
it prevents this anger from leading to aggression against those who practise their traditions sincerely, when such aggression will strengthen the resistance of circumcisers.
it allows us to put ourselves in the place of traditionalists in order to understand the logic of their behaviour, with a view to finding the most effective solutions possible.
Having understood why, in the face of traditionalists, the only possible option is persuasion, and that persuasion is based on communication, and that the Appeal To Debate technique makes it possible to open up as many channels of communication as possible, the most difficult point of DaC's strategy remains to be explained: to include the age of 13 in the public debate. This will be the subject of my next post.
jean-christophe Lurenbaum
Strategic option - Advanced level of the Appeal to Debate strategy: propose to debate 13 yo as the age of consent
To understand DaC's arguments, it is essential to read the press kit of the Appeal To Debate, which makes a comparison between 13 and 18 years old.
In addition to Droit au Corps previous explanations, here are some details of my own.
Let's be perfectly clear: DaC proposes to include 13 years in the public debate, as an age of consent for circumcision that needs to be discussed. DaC does not in any way propose 13 as the age to be used. Since DaC considers that circumcision can cause severe and lifelong suffering, DaC would prefer circumcision to disappear completely from human history. But we must aim for efficiency. I would like to read with great interest the proposals of the Intactivists to put an end to circumcision worldwide, but for the time being such proposals are still awaited: does this mean that no one has ever thought about it?
By proposing to bring the age of 13 into the public debate (I insist on the fact that this is a matter for debate, and not especially in the law), DaC achieves multiple objectives, such as :
denounce the inconsistencies between the prohibition of sexual mutilation and the legality of "cosmetic surgery". It is necessary to prepare immediately for laws prohibiting traditional circumcision (as in Denmark before the age of 18) to be circumvented by "cosmetic surgery", as is the case for FGM in most so-called developed countries. Even teenage girls can resort to it, even younger: it is a booming market.
denounce the very principle of "children's rights", which has the effect of keeping the youngest children under the domination of adults, with the possibility of circumcising them as a consequence. As far as fundamental rights are concerned, it would be much more effective to put an end to discrimination on the basis of age rather than by creating specific rights for the youngest, specific rights that are far less important than the rights of adults. It is the whole point of "kiddism" to put an end to this "legal minority" of the youngest, which there is no justification for. The situation was exactly the same for women until a century ago, as it has always been for the youngest: women ended up obtaining the same rights as men, not "women's specific rights" which would be less important than those of men. The very term "child" is defined with reference to the age of legal minority: a "child" is an individual who has not yet reached the legal age of majority. Nowadays, all over the world, a young person of 18 years minus 1 day is a "child": doesn't that shock you?
Above all, 13 is an age that can be the subject of a compromise solution with Jews, Muslims or ancestors. Highlighting this possibility therefore strengthens the communication capacity of the nocirc with regard to the procirc. Basically, what DaC is aiming at with this proposal to include 13 years in the debate is to acquire an additional tool to increase the communication possibilities of the nocirc as much as possible, with an argument likely to shake up some of the procirc: for example Jews or Muslims with liberal and progressive tendencies. This argument is therefore likely to crack a very united traditionalist front when, on the contrary, it is confronted with aggression and threats.
Furthermore, as DaC points out, if the age of 13 was adopted, it is unlikely that religions would seek to put pressure on adolescents of this age, who are in the full development of their sexuality and who are able to find information on the Internet about the damage of circumcision more and more easily. This would be totally suicidal for these religions, which would simply disappear from the planet in 1 to 2 generations of rebellious young men. And if the age of 13 were to be adopted, this would already put an end to the circumcision of newborns and young children, which would be an enormous step forward (think, for example, of the intense pain suffered by babies who are not anaesthetised). Any postponement of circumcision is just as likely to result in the circumcision being avoided. It is therefore quite possible that 13 years of age is the most effective solution for reducing circumcision as a first step. And what we should be aiming for is effectiveness, not letters to Father Christmas.
After my series of posts detailing DaC's strategy, we need to go back to the starting point of the nocirc cause: why do we want to end sexual mutilation? This question, which some people find unnecessary to ask, is actually crucial. This will be the subject of my next post.
Sophie Dallidebour
- Petit, tu vas me faire le plaisir de sauter, tu m'as bien compris ? Si tu ne sautes pas, tu n'iras pas au cinéma avec tes copains dimanche.
Un groupe de scientifiques plaça cinq singes dans une pièce au milieu de laquelle se trouvait un escabeau permettant d’accéder à des bananes.
A chaque fois qu’un des singes essayait de grimper à l’escabeau, une douche glacée aspergeait automatiquement les autres.
Au bout d’un certain temps, à chaque fois qu’un des singes essayait de monter sur l’escabeau, les autres le frappaient par crainte de prendre une douche glacée.
Bien entendu, au bout de quelques temps, aucun des singes ne se risqua à grimper sur l’escabeau malgré la tentation.
Les chercheurs décidèrent alors de remplacer les singes. Pour commencer, un seul singe de la communauté fût remplacé par un nouveau. La première des choses que fît le nouveau fut d’essayer de monter sur l’escabeau. Aussitôt, les autres le frappèrent.
Quelques coups plus tard, le nouveau membre de la communauté avait appris à ne plus grimper sur l’escabeau sans même connaître la raison de cette interdiction.
Un deuxième singe fût remplacé et subit le même sort que le premier.
Ce dernier se joignit aux autres pour le battre dès qu’il tentait de grimper sur l’escabeau. Le singe arrivé juste avant lui participe à la punition… avec enthousiasme, parce qu’il fait désormais partie de « l’équipe ».
Un troisième singe fut échangé et le processus se répéta. Le quatrième et le cinquième furent changés tour à tour. Tous subirent le même sort des qu’il tentèrent de grimper sur l’escabeau. Le groupe de cinq singes, bien que n’ayant jamais reçu de douche froide, continua à frapper tout nouvel arrivant qui tentait de monter sur l’escabeau.
À ce stade, les singes qui agressent n’ont aucune idée de pourquoi ils n’ont pas le droit de grimper l’échelle. Pas plus qu’ils ne savent pourquoi ils participent à l’agression du dernier arrivé. Au final, après avoir remplacé tous les singes d’origine, aucun singe présent dans la cage n’a été arrosé d’eau froide.
Cependant, aucun ne tentera de grimper l’échelle. Pourquoi ? Parce que dans leur esprit… c’est comme ça, et ce depuis toujours. S’il était possible de parler avec ces singes et de leur demander pourquoi ils frappent ceux qui tentent de monter sur l’escabeau, je parie que leur réponse serait la suivante : “Je ne sais pas, mais ici c’est comme ça.”
Pourquoi en vouloir aux singes de frapper les autres ?
Pourquoi en vouloir aux gens qui circoncisent leur fils ? Les mettre en prison leur fait-il comprendre pourquoi il ne faut pas le faire ? Aurais-je été efficace dans le temps ? On ne peut interdire une croyance et l'Histoire nous le montre dans de nombreux exemples
Nous devons tous ensemble (surtout avec et grâce à toutes nos différences) trouver comment inverser la tendance, pas à coup de points mais en rentrant dans leur cerveau.
Une anecdote et échec personnel. Je suis dans un salon de sexologue où je tiens un stand pour DaC. Un urologue me regarde droit dans les yeux et m'affirme que le prépuce ne contient aucune terminaison nerveuse et qu'il a aucun rôle ni pour l'homme ni pour la femme.
Je ne me souviens pas ce que j'ai répondu mais à un moment je me suis dit : STOP !
- Je suis inefficace, il ne peut rien entendre
- Je suis en train de me faire du mal
- Je montre une mauvaise image de DaC
- Visiblement cet homme a mal et pour dire de telles conneries il doit être circoncis lui même.
L'année suivante c'est une autre équipe de DaC qui va à ce salon. Un urologue approche notre stand et explique que l'année précédente il avait été agressé par une femme de l'association. Je ne l'ai certainement pas agressé mais lui l'a ressenti ainsi. J'ai compris que je pouvais très facilement avoir de la compassion pour les victimes, facilement pour les membres des communautés que je vois comme d'autres sortes de victimes (les 5 singes) mais que je n'avais pas la même tolérance pour les médecins. J'avais oublié qu'ils étaient des hommes avant tout. Bon ça m'a servi quand je suis allée à la rencontre de l'urologue suivant.
Steven Barendregt
jean-christophe Lurenbaum
Scenario analysis - The path of compassion
After my series of posts detailing DaC's strategy, we need to go back to the starting point of the nocirc cause: why do we want to end sexual mutilation? What is your own answer to this question?
Knowing the ultimate reason for wanting to do certain things in life is essential for having a solid criterion for choosing when certain questions arise. If the members of a collective disagree on the ultimate reason why they act, then that collective is in danger of fracturing at any moment, as soon as a choice reveals differences on the ultimate reasons for acting. The case of alliances and collaborations to be made or not to be made is an excellent indicator of the ultimate reason why people act: if the members of the collective disagree on the ultimate reason to act, then they will come into conflict when choosing alliances. This is exactly what happened for our coalition: everything was going well for months until the question of certain collaborations arose. Suddenly, some members realised that they did not agree with the finality, the ultimate reason for acting written in the statutes.
As I explain in another context, in an August 2020 conference entitled How to fail collectively, for sure! Or why get organized and how..., it is quite simple for a collective to choose a purpose, an ultimate reason to act. Indeed, in the history of humanity, it has become apparent that there have only been 2 ultimate reasons to act, 2 ethical priorities: either the alleviation of suffering (the ethics that characterises "progressives"), or reproduction (the ethics that characterises "conservatives", with typically the protection of "traditions"). Any collective, when it comes to forming and setting its statutes, therefore has the choice between these 2 priorities only. Some people will say that they prefer to give priority to happiness or well-being, but because of the definition of happiness or well-being, this priority has the consequence of prioritising the alleviation of suffering, because a moment of happiness excludes suffering.
So ask yourself before joining the coalition: do you give the ultimate priority to reproduction or alleviating suffering? Are you conservative or progressive?
jean-christophe Lurenbaum
Strategic option - Advanced level of the Appeal to Debate strategy: propose to debate 13 yo as the age of consent
The equation of circumcision is very complex, at the crossroads of various very ancient traditions, religion, medicine, cosmetic surgery, the right to dispose of one's body, etc. More than any other age, the age of 13 years is the perfect barycentre of this multifaceted equation which must be illuminated one by one. This post is devoted to 2 major cultures in this equation, Jewish and Muslim.
First of all, it should be remembered that the most important strategic axis is the awakening of consciences all over the world about the damages linked to circumcision. The age of 13 is not a proposal that should be analysed in isolation, but within an ecology of much wider cultural dynamics: we should not remain "frozen" in 13 years, but think simultaneously about the developments that are taking place in parallel throughout the planetary playground and over the years. We will illustrate this ecology of cultural dynamics with the case of France.
What is the result when bills appear that would prohibit circumcision before the age of 18? A very powerful resistance front is formed, associating the 3 religions of the Book, and in particular the Jewish and Muslim religions. This front has been powerful enough to make these projects fail so far. And even if these laws were finally passed, it would not improve the situation in the land of Islam, on the contrary, it could lead to a hardening of identity in the protection of traditions, especially if the theme of circumcision is exploited by populist political parties using Islam as a scapegoat.
What would be the result if the proposal to allow circumcision from the age of 13 was made?
1 - Populations of Jewish culture: the highest religious authorities in France and Europe began to become publicly aware, from 2015, during a colloquium they had organised to defend religious circumcision, that 8-day circumcision was a problem. Unexpectedly, the organisers and speakers at this colloquium, the main representatives of the defence of this practice at French and European level, acknowledged that this act :
leads to an inevitable pain for the newborn baby;
endangers the health and life of the newborn baby;
has absolutely no medical benefit for a newborn baby;
is in no way necessary, at 8 days, for reception in the Jewish religion.
This has made it possible to propose a compromise solution, which avoids the Jews "losing face" (it is absolutely necessary to avoid making the actors we are trying to persuade “lose face"): The future of Jewish circumcision : Brit Shalom at 8 days and Brit Milah at the age of consent? with 13 years old which is a very particular age in Judaism since it is the age of Bar Mitzvah, i.e. the age of religious majority for Jewish boys. It is the age at which the young person finds himself in a position to apply the religious commandments himself. At this age, the obligation to circumcise passes from father to son.
On the other hand, it is known that there is a conflict between the rabbis and the mohalim, the latter complaining that the rabbis are trying to impose more and more constraints on them in order to be able to continue to practise circumcision (obtain a qualification, pay for insurance...). And we know that there has always been a progressive Jewish movement opposed to circumcision for centuries.
In a country like France, one can think that the vast majority of Jews (especially the liberal fraction which is in full development, with even several rabbis who are women, such as the famous Delphine Horvilleur) can easily be convinced that 8-day circumcision should be avoided, provided they are offered an alternative, which would be to practise 8-day Brit Shalom and postpone circumcision until the Bar Mitzvah.
The result of the proposal of the age of 13 would therefore be to crack the Jewish front, between the orthodox and progressive liberals.
2 - Populations of Muslim culture: if the communication on the 13 year old is well done, there is a chance that this proposal will be accepted without too much resistance, and possibly even with enthusiasm:
Circumcision at the age of 13 is perfectly compatible with Muslim traditions because Ishmael, the son of Abraham originator of the Muslim branch of the religions of the Book, was circumcised at the age of 13. So a ban before 13 years of age would not be a major threat: what is certain is that Muslims would not lose face.
If a bill banning circumcision before the age of 13 infuriates Orthodox Jews, it is possible that some Muslims would be enthusiastic to support the bill for this reason alone.
The overall result of the proposal to allow from the age of 13 would therefore not only crack the Jewish front, but also the front that is cyclically formed between Jews and Muslims at each proposed ban before the age of 18. It can therefore be expected that in countries like France, a law banning circumcision before the age of 13 would succeed in passing without too much opposition. In any case the opposition would be infinitely less than the opposition to a law banning circumcision before the age of 18.
What would happen in the lands of Islam if countries with a large Muslim population, such as France, allowed circumcision from the age of 13 (but not before). Not only would there probably be no identity withdrawal, no particular conflict (since Islam would not be threatened), but there would probably be a strong evolution of mentalities within 1 or 2 generations, as to the damage done by circumcision. Why is this?
Let's imagine that in France circumcision is forbidden before the age of 13, as it is considered to be "sexual mutilation".
Then it will become possible to form a common front between the associations fighting against male circumcision and those fighting against female circumcision: the consequence of this union of the two causes will be very considerable. For example, the current state-funded school campaigns for the prevention of female circumcision will have to be extended to male circumcision, in order to avoid criticism of discrimination.
This means that sex education classes in schools (compulsory in France from primary school onwards) will have to integrate the foreskin and its multiple functions, particularly in sexuality.
This means that there will be an increasing amount of communication in France about the importance of the foreskin and its benefits, so that a 13-year-old will be fully aware of what he would lose if he agreed to circumcise.
An even more interesting result is that these French boys of Muslim culture will necessarily communicate what they have learned about foreskin to their cousins 'back home'. Not only will these boys refuse their circumcision (and possibly revolt against the religion itself), but a bridge of nocirc communication will be established from France to the Islamic lands from which the immigrant populations in France originate : Algeria, Morocco, Tunisia in particular.
I hope that this post makes it clear that if the goal is to end circumcision everywhere on the planet, then the age of 13 must be considered seriously and carefully.
Otherwise, I am still waiting for proposals from those who criticize the Droit au Corps strategy, on the strategy they themselves are proposing to end circumcision everywhere in the world: curiously, I still don't see any proposal for a global strategy on this forum, does that mean that nobody has a proposal to make?
jean-christophe Lurenbaum
Strategic option - Advanced level of the Appeal to Debate strategy: propose to debate 13 yo as the age of consent
To fuel the discussion on the age of consent to the disposal of one's body, here is some documentation on different positions that exist around the world. As can be seen, some positions are below the age of 13 and what is striking is the lack of in-depth reflection on this crucial subject.
12 - Sweden - minimum age for the boy’s consent
Swedish, Danish medical groups call for ban on ritual circumcisions, 2014
In Sweden, the recommendation came in a resolution that was unanimously adopted last week by the ethics council of the Sweden Medical Association — a union whose members constitute 85 percent of the country’s physicians, the Svenska Dagbladet daily reported on Saturday. It recommended setting 12 as the minimum age for the procedure and the boy’s consent.
Swede docs say to circumcise at age 12, 2014
12 - Nederland - Law that says you can decide about alterations on your own body when you are over 12 years of age
Meerderheid kinderurologen tegen jongensbesnijdenis (English subtitles), 2018, 11’
Tom de Jong, pediatric urologist, 8’45 “The vast majority of Dutch paediatric urologists thinks you shouldn’t circumcise children under 12 years of age if there is no good medical reason. [] We think that a child should be able to decide about alterations on his own body. And in the Netherlands we have a law that says you can do that when you are over 12 years of age.”
12-13 - age of first sexual intercourse
La 1ère relation sexuelle: De plus en plus jeune!
The average age of first sexual intercourse for 18-24 year olds is 16.5. Almost a third (32%) had their first sexual intercourse at the age of 15 or younger and 7% at the age of 12 or 13.
stat.gouv.qc.ca - sexualite Quebec government statistics, 2011
Among secondary school students aged 14 and over who have ever had consensual sex, almost one in ten (10%) report having had their first relationship before the age of 14, and this proportion is higher among boys than girls (11% vs. 9% respectively).
13-15 - France
Une loi sur les violences sexuelles et le harcèlement de rue annoncée pour 2018, 2017
Defining an age of consent for minors
Should the threshold be set at 15 years, as the former Minister (PS) for Family Affairs, Laurence Rossignol, wishes in her text, tabled on Friday 13 October? Or lower, at 13, as recommended by the High Council for Equality between Women and Men?
“age appropriate to the risk and at which the boy can decide for himself” - Nederland
“Niet-therapeutische circumcisie bij minderjarige jongen” (KNMG), 27 Mai 2010 - position de la Société royale néerlandaise pour la promotion de la médecine - Koninklijk Nederlandse Maatschappij tot bevordering der Geneeskunst (KNMG)
If there are medical benefits, such as a possibly reduced risk of HIV infection, it is reasonable to postpone the procedure at an age appropriate to the risk and at which the boy can decide on the procedure himself or choose any other available alternative.
“an age when they can appreciate what is really at stake” - Brian Earp
Does Female Genital Mutilation Have Health Benefits? The Problem with Medicalizing Morality, Brian D Earp, Quillette, 2017
All else being equal, they should get to decide whether they want their “private parts” nicked, pricked, labiaplastied, “normalized,” circumcised, or sewn, at an age when they can appreciate what is really at stake. This doesn’t mean a “ban” on such procedures before an age of consent is necessarily the best way to go. As I have explained elsewhere, legal prohibition can be a clumsy way of bringing about social change, often causing more harm than good. I worry, for example, that that taking young girls out of their homes, invasively examining their genitals in search of “evidence,” and throwing their parents—who no doubt love them—in jail, could be more traumatic than the initial act of cutting. My own preference is for debate and dialogue, not bans and vilification.
Genital autonomy and sexual well-being [PDF], Earp, Brian D., & Steinfeld, Rebecca., Current Sexual Health Reports, Vol. 10, No. 1, 7-17, 2018
. In Western societies, individuals are not considered competent to consent to sexual relations until the age of 15 or 16 at the earlies.
. “Is it acceptable for a 13-year old girl to undergo “cosmetic” labiaplasty without a strict medical need if she has the permission of her parents? If she was raised in an immigrant community that traditionally practices female—and male—peripubertal genital cutting as part of a rite of passage into adulthood, does the answer change?”
Polémique aux Etats-Unis : deux gynécologues favorables aux excisions «minimalistes», 2016
Brian D. Earp, un chercheur américain en bioéthique [préconise] une «attitude moins tolérante» face à la circoncision, soulignant que les enfants des deux sexes «ne doivent pas avoir leurs organes sexuels endommagés ou retirés avant qu'ils ne soient en âge de comprendre et de donner leur accord à ce type d'intervention»
Do the benefits of male circumcision outweigh the risks? A critique of the proposed CDC guidelines (PDF), Brian D. Earp, 2015
“I conclude that circumcision before an age of consent is not an appropriate health-promotion strategy.”
14 - Deutschland
Humanrights.ch - circoncision-enfants-debat-devient-europeen, 2017
In legal terms, the unsuccessful proposal submitted by Mrs Rupprecht to the Bundestag to amend German civil law could also be a possible avenue. She recommended that before the operation, the child should be 14 years old, have given his or her consent and that the circumcision should always be performed by a paediatric surgeon or urologist.
The Completely Unregulated Practice of Male Circumcision:Human Rights’ Abuse Enshrined in Law?, JohnV. Geisheker, 2013
December 12, 2012, the German parliament, the Bundestag, on a vote of 433 to 100, passed a law ‘enshrining’ male circumcision as an adult right… A compromise proposal, which would have postponed circumcision until the child could consent at age 14, failed by a similar vote.
14 - USA Oregon
CIRCONCISION : PARENTS EN DÉSACCORD, LE CAS D’UNE BATAILLE JURIDIQUE, 2010
The Oregon Supreme Court ruled that the child did not need to wait until he turned 18 to make his choice. It decided that the 14-year-old should be questioned about what he wanted to do.
15 - Norway - boy capable of making his own decision
Norvège : la circoncision menacée, la communauté juive demande l’aide d’Israël, 2013
Dr Anne Lindboe, a children's mediator in Norway, is at the origin of this initiative. "Male circumcision is painful, irreversible and can in the worst cases lead to serious complications." She wants a ban on circumcision until the boy is 15 years old, so that he is able to make his own decision.
15 - Denmark - age of sexual consent
Graugaard Christian (Danish 1967-) medical doctor, professor of sexology at the Aalborg University, critic of the practice of male circumcision
He has published widely about sexology, both in popular and scientific contexts. He has also been a regular contributor to the debate section in the newspaper Politiken. And in his role as director of the organization Sex & Samfund (Sex & Society), he is a frequent commentator on issues related to human sexuality in the Danish public debate. He is a critic of the practice of male circumcision, arguing that it should only be a legal procedure for boys above the age of 15, the Danish age of sexual consent.
15-16 - UK - an age when the boys could make the decision for themselves
Important New UK Decision Upholds Children's Rights, Attorneys for the Rights of the Child
We are pleased to announce that an important new legal decision has been handed down in the UK upholding children's rights. While the judgment is not perfect, the judge's primary reasoning protects the child's best interests and his right to personal autonomy.
This landmark event can be attributed in large part to the tireless efforts of our close colleague and friend James Chegwidden, who co-represented the plaintiff mother in this case. The case involved a threatened circumcision of two boys that was sought by the father to be performed by a medical professional, but for purely religious reasons. The court refused to permit the procedure to be performed, finding that circumcision carries real risks. The court also found that nothing in Islam requires male circumcision before an age when the boys could make the decision for themselves (15-16 years old) and that to the contrary, intact boys can fully participate in their father's Muslim community and culture and would not suffer exclusion. The case can be accessed at http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Fam/2016/849.html. A news article about the case appears below.
16 - South Africa
Targeting mothers and selling men what they do not want (PDF Available), in South African Medical Journal, April 2017
Daniel Sidler, Brian D. Earp, A. A. van Niekerk, Keymanthri Moodley, Sharon Kling
the Children’s Act (Act No. 38 of 2005), which stipulates that a boy to be circumcised must be 16 years of age and must provide his own informed consent.It may only be performed after counselling and in accordance with the regulations to the Act
16 - Few countries
Rapport sur la circoncision : une modalité discutable de réduction des risques de transmission du VIH (PDF), Conseil national du sida, 24 mai 2007
The promotion of male circumcision for medical reasons and not for traditional reasons could also weaken the policy against excision, especially at a time when we are witnessing a return in force of certain traditional practices that had fallen into disuse. This is part of very strong identity movements. Moreover, in order to fight against traditional circumcision, some countries are planning to ban circumcision before the age of sixteen, even though one of the WHO recommendations encourages the promotion of neonatal circumcision, which is simpler and less risky.
18 - Denmark
Danish doctors come out against circumcision, 2016
The Danish Medical Association (Lægeforeningen) has recommended that no boys under the age of 18 be circumcised in Denmark.
The Danish Health and Medicines Authority estimates that somewhere between 1,000 and 2,000 circumcisions are performed in Denmark each year, primarily on Jewish and Muslim boys. Female circumcision, also known as female genital mutilation (FGM), is illegal in Denmark.
Sophie Dallidebour
Moi je trouve cette proposition de 13 ans géniale pour plusieurs raisons. Je tente une explication mais il en faudra sûrement d’autres.
- Elle va sérieusement lancer le débat, peut-être plus que n'importe quel autre point ! Ya qu’à voir rien ce qu’il se passe entre nous.
- Lorsque j'en parle j'explique qu'il y a une ruse derrière cette approche : donner aux juifs et musulmans (bien moins pour la circoncision rituelle) une opportunité de s'asseoir à la table des intactivists. Elle ne concerne pas les européens ni les américains mais ceux pour lesquels 13 ans est un âge en relation avec leur religion. (Luke on ne va pas bien sûr aller voir les tribus qui circoncisent plus tardivement avec cette suggestion de réflexion)
- Aider nos amis de ces communautés en souffrance/demandeurs de l'arrêt de la circoncision à approcher leurs pairs avec le minimum de heurts. Les musulmans ont déjà l'opposition au Coran mais les juifs sont bien démunis
Probablement nous allons trouver des témoignages de personnes circoncisent pour raison religieuse qui diront : j 'aurais aimé qu'on me donne la possibilité de consentir à 13 ans, ce qu'on a pas fait quand j'étais plus jeune/bébé.
Je pense à un membre de DaC qui raconte qu'en rentrant de l'école à 12 ans il passait devant un commissariat de police et qu'il avait souvent imaginer y rentrer pour porter plainte contre le chirurgien qui l'a opéré, à 13 ans il aurait refusé.
Bien sûr ce n'est pas l'idéal pour nous mais imaginons qu'à très court terme tous les musulmans et juifs disent : ok on attend les 13 ans de l'enfant. Nous y verrions une incroyable avancée et nous aurions 13 ans pour continuer à faire le maximum de bruit pour que d'ici cette date la circoncision soit retournée à l'âge de pierre ou que les enfants trouvent internet inondé de témoignages et d’études.
Imaginons que les traditionalistes passent outre ou conditionnent l'enfant pour accepter à 13 ans, comment certains de ces jeunes réagiront-ils quelques années plus tard ?
Si ces communautés acceptent ce compromis, elles auront perdu mais la tête haute et avec une certaine "douceur" et surtout parce que cela viendra d'elles et non de nous. Ici nous faisons juste une SUGGESTION (et nous devons bien l'exprimer ainsi)
Je vais le présenter autrement.
Nous sommes des hommes d’affaires en négociation avec les arabes qui sont d’incroyables marchands de tapis. Nous on veut 0 mais eux veulent 100. Certains d’entre nous ont sorti un plan marketing avec un âge à 18 ans et nous on sort notre dernier prix (je ne descendrais pas plus bas): 13 ans
Nous souhaitons toujours envahir les terres d’islam !
Maintenant nous avons un pied dedans et là on sort le reste des munitions : le Coran, le sexe, l’impact sur la femme, le consentement (son absence plutôt)…
Nous continuons de vendre notre produit en bon capitalistes que nous sommes, nous voulons 100% du marché ! Rien ne nous arrête, nous utilisons tous les moyens : la pub, les médias, les goodies, les boys bands, les pin-up, on achètera des sportifs… On intéressera les meilleurs commerciaux…
L’important c’est de pénétrer le marché !
Ces 13 ans c’et notre cheval de Troie
Plus sérieusement, nous aimerions que demain la circoncision s’arrête dans le monde mais soyons réaliste, nous en aurons pour plusieurs décennies, il ne faut pas minimiser les freins aux changements et regardons où en est la lutte contre les mutilations des filles après 30 ans d’activisme. Plusieurs pays voient le pourcentage de femmes mutilées augmenter pour arriver jusqu’à 98%. Les subventions se comptent par millions et les ressources humaines sont importantes.
Balançons, à l’intention du monde juif et musulman notre bombe des 13 ans et pendant qu’entre eux le jour de repas familial hebdomadaire, sur l’oreiller, entre soirées copains… ils se poseront la question des 13 ans (sûrement avec autant de véhémence qu’ici mais pour des raisons différentes) ils provoqueront la libération de la parole de leurs proches.
Et quand d’un seul coup vous entendez votre mari, votre fils, votre frère, votre père…se plaindre alors que jamais vous n’aviez entendu un membre de votre communauté regretter sa circoncision, vous ouvrez grande vos oreilles. Peut-être aviez vous lu un témoignage d’un homme qui regrettait mais c’était un Islandais (c’est où l’Islande déjà ?) ou un américain (oh ceux-là, ils sont malades !) mais pas vos hommes à vous ! Ce n’est pas possible.
Une fois le débat lancé, on ne peut plus l’arrêter et comptons sur les victimes pour rejoindre nos rangs (parce que au moins, nous on les comprend et on les écoute)
Cette histoire des 13 ans n’est plus pour moi un problème. Ben oui j’ai été comme vous au début et j’ai traité JC de fou (et ce type est vraiment fou mais il en faut des fous comme lui). Il y a une autre question qu’il nous faudra bien aborder un jour (nous n’avons pas réussi dans DaC) et qui me taraude (pour ne pas dire torture) : devrions-nous (comme étape ! Ne me tuer pas !) proposer l’anesthésie obligatoire avant d’arriver à nos fins ?
Johan m’a transmis cette semaine un texte suédois qui impose des règles strictes pour la circoncision non médicale depuis 2001. Ça a fait remonter cette question compliquée que je redoute de travailler.
Sinon pour moi si on me demandait de choisir un âge à partir duquel on peut autoriser une circoncision, ce serait 25 ans : après avoir eu une vie sexuelle plus avancée.
Sophie
PS : Luke, nous traiter de procirc…
PS 2 : Il est 2 h du matin, j’espère que ce texte est compréhensible
luke.a...@gmail.com
The goal of abolition dictates that there can be no exceptions, and no age limits, no gender limits, and no racial limits in legislation protecting humans from forced or coerced sexual mutilation. No immutable characteristic or behavior of the victim can justify the violence and harm inflicted by a mutilator. Abolitionists reject all excuses for sexual mutilation of the innocent.
There have been many proposals to partially abolish sexual mutilation. For example, banning FGM but allowing male mutilation, banning hospital mutilation but not synagogue mutilation, banning child mutilation but not adult mutilation. Under any partial ban, there will exist people living with and suffering from mutilated sex organs. At best, such efforts would amount to a reduced prevalence of sexual mutilation, not complete abandonment or abolition.
Mutilators argue that there is an age where victims become "old enough to consent", but what they actually mean is the victims are old enough to "know better". That they are old enough to be blamed for trusting a mutilator. In their view, it is the victim's fault that they decided to do something they later learn to regret. The choices and actions of the mutilator aren't relevant. The mutilator can lie by omission or lie with false statements, betray their oath to do no harm, and violate the law... just as long as the victim is the right age.
And what is the right age for sexual mutilation? Who can say? Sophie and JCL don't give us an age. They just want to us to debate the age endlessly. We know the Torah says the best age: 8 days old. In the USA, mutilators tell us the best time for mutilation is "now, when they can't remember the pain". Other mutilators say that the victim should post-pubescent. Abolitionists offer the only solution to this debate: the best age for sexual mutilation is never.
The mutilators say that they are on our side, and they want abolition too, but that they can't agree with abolition because bodily autonomy is a human right. Mutilators invert the meaning of the word consent and use it as an excuse for coercion. The coercive behavior of a mutilator also violates the victim's bodily autonomy. Mutilators focus on the characteristics and behaviors of the victim that they can use as an excuse for mutilation. They do not truly value autonomy or consent, but only claim to.
Abolitionists center the debate on the unethical, destructive behaviors of the perpetrators. There's no "too young" or "too old" to be coerced or forced into sexual mutilation. We are vulnerable to attack at all stages of life. There's no "best age" or "right age" for sexual mutilation. The best thing is to be in perfect health, complete with gratitude for being whole and intact, and also have legal recourse against any attacker who inflicts sexual mutilation by force or coercion.
