a conundrum

I regularly read the news from places where I used to live, places where my friends and family have settled, places that I know well and in which I feel I have a vested interest. So, a couple of months ago, when I saw a few stories about a proposed ban on infant circumcision in San Francisco, I took notice. Most of the articles I read at the time dismissed the man gathering signatures as a weirdo, and the idea as too farfetched to ever succeed. Well, weirdo or not, Lloyd Schofield's measure may actually end up on November's ballot, and I'm really, really conflicted about that possibility. 

Firstly, I'd like to say -- though I've said it before and will, undoubtedly, say it again -- I am completely opposed to the practice of circumcising infants and children. It is, in my opinion, a grievous violation of another person's body. A cosmetic surgery that, in the first world where I live, serves no medical purpose. A betrayal of your child's innate trust in you. There is no situation in which I consider it excusable, and I say that as someone who chose a bris shalom over a brit milah to varying degrees of protest from friends and family. With full understanding of and respect for the Jewish tradition, we could not fathom marring our son's perfect body, least of all without his consent. 

That said, the reaction to the proposed ban on circumcision, now that it's making more than local headlines, has surprised me somewhat. I never expected to receive a thank you card from my son in twenty years, expressing his gratitude that I made such an enlightened decision, but I've read some male perspectives ranging from "I was circumcised and I resent the implication that my parents mutililated me" to "Who cares?" Very few responses have been supportive of the proposed measure, and I've read exactly zero men's opinions that lean in fervent favor of the ban. What gives? 

As someone who fights with voice and vote for body autonomy -- for the rights of every person to make his or her own choice about the only thing we each (should) own inalienably -- I'm shocked at the lack of response this is getting from pro-choice feminists. Women who would go to the mat over my right to do what I want with my uterus aren't willing to so much as argue for my son's wang. And I think I know why, at least in part. It's an uncomfortable subject, and a valid sticking point for those who might otherwise vote to ban circumcision: antisemitism. Is it possible that I'm engaging in antisemitism by being an intactivist? I say no, and here's why (though, YOU may be an antisemite, so you know... check that shit):

1. To get this out of the way, Jews can be antisemitic. Self loathing takes many forms. This is not that.

2. You would be hard-pressed to find a reasonable member of any cultural or religious group that believes wholeheartedly in every single tenet they are supposed to uphold. I think 'reasonable' is key here; I appreciate that we allow zealots their beliefs, but I also appreciate that the zealot's right to be zealous ends at another person's body and/or wellbeing. This fact is decreasingly true, but mostly holds for now. 

3. Female genital mutilation (FGM) is defined by the World Health Organization as a procedure that intentionally alters or injures genital organs for non-medical reasons (sound familiar?). It is internationally recognized as a human rights violation. This, too, was a difficult issue as FGM's prevalence in some African and Asian cultures brought up questions of racism and ethnocentrism. Since the WHO first began actively discouraging the practice and campaigning for changes in public policy in 1997, it has been outlawed here in the US. I doubt you could find anyone willing to come out in favor of the removal of an infant's clitoral hood or partial removal of her labia.

4. It is obviously unfortunate to kick an entire culture while they're down, and Jews, like African immigrants to the United States, have certainly had enough outright assaults on our traditions. Being downtrodden, however, does not make us automatically right. Those who need social justice the most are the most helpless members of already oppressed groups. 

Despite all this, I still don't know how I feel about legislature barring observant Jews (and Muslims, for that matter) from participating in a tradition they hold dear. Part of me wishes everyone would just wake up tomorrow and decide that it's mean to cut up a baby, regardless of the history, what Moses said or the cruelty of boys' locker rooms. I know, though, that the discussion is what will facilitate change. I hope sufficient discussion happens before November, because a thousand dollar fine won't help any more than my wished-for inexplicable overnight revelation. In the meantime, I'll be rooting for you, Lloyd Schofield, because everyone deserves a turn on the ballot whether I've made up my mind to agree with him or not. 

(Readers, what do you think about this ballot measure? I'm especially interested if you live in SF!)

Comments

[Ron Low]

The WHO may define male and female genital cutting differently, but the main difference practicaly speaking is that 94% of the world's females live under laws forbidding even a pin-poke to draw one ceremonial drop of blood with no religious exemption, while NO males are protected. Granted these laws are rarely enforced.

ANY amputation of a healthy normal body part when there has been no diagnosis of defect or disease and no less-destructive methods tried should ONLY be done with the consent of the person whose body it is. Forget about anti-semitism; anyone who can't see this basic truth besmirches his/her own belief system far more than any defamation ever could.

I saw one note online supposing this ban was a ploy by "secret Muslims" to harrass Jews. Never mind the utter ignorance; there are 50 times as many circumcised Muslims as there are cut Jews. Islam supposedly requires circumcision (even though there is no mention of genital cutting for either gender in the Qur'an).

NOT ONE national medical assoctiation of doctors on earth (not even Israel's) endorses routine circumcision. As such it is cosmetic surgery.

Holland's very up-to-date 2010 policy statement says of circumcision: "KNMG is calling upon doctors to actively and insistently inform parents who are considering the procedure of the absence of medical benefits and the danger of complications." They also say there is actually a good case to make it illegal.

[stefanie]

I don't know if we should "forget about antisemitism," though I obviously agree with you on your basic points. I know many Jewish men who argue in favor of the tradition though they don't speak for everyone and I'm still not sure that willing adherence to tradition actually matters in the grand scheme of things. In any case, when sweeping legislature is happening that could potentially further marginalize an already disadvantaged group, I think analysis of the impact of said legislation should be examined from all sides.

[roger desmoulins]

Very few responses have been supportive of the proposed measure, and I've read exactly zero men's opinions that lean in fervent favor of the ban. What gives?
ME. I am married, the father of daughters, a Judeaophilic Christian, an intactivist, and myself intact. Many intactivists on FaceBook and elsewhere have supported the SF ballot initiative. Stephanie, please understand that most intactivists are women of childbearing age like yourself. Many are crunchy. Most men intactivists are either damaged by circumcision or gay. The typical circumcised adult American male is having considerable trouble seeing what was done to him as a sexual violation. Women are far far more sensitive to sexual violation and gender issues. I see intactivism as ultimately grounded in the feminist upsurge of the past 50 years.

I would support a ban on routine circumcision done before the 18th birthday, and enacted by the state legislature, with a religious exemption. Secular and humanistic Jews should abandon circ immediately. I invite Reform and Conservative rabbis to accept parents who wish to defer bris milah until a son has passed his 21st birthday. I would support a law stating that brit milah has to be performed under local anesthetic, and that mohels have to be pediatric urologists.

That said, I cannot support the SF ballot initiative. It was not at all well thought out.

As someone who fights with voice and vote for body autonomy -- for the rights of every person to make his or her own choice about the only thing we each (should) own inalienably -- I'm shocked at the lack of response this is getting from pro-choice feminists. Women who would go to the mat over my right to do what I want with my uterus aren't willing to so much as argue for my son's wang.
ME. I am not surprised. Again, most intactivists are mothers or women who eagerly look forward to being mothers. Classic feminism is not all that friendly to motherhood. Sex positive feminists also find the intactivist argument persuasive, simply because they see circ as interfering with a good thing, namely sexual pleasure and functionality.

Never forget that a newborn boy has none of the attributes of a man. He is as helpless as a newborn girl. On average, he is less healthy than a girl of the same age. To circumcise a boy when he is 1,2,8 days old, without anesthesia, is fully as barbaric as cutting into the genitalia of a girl of the same age. The boy cannot help but perceive what is being done to him as an assault and violation.

And I think I know why, at least in part. It's an uncomfortable subject, and a valid sticking point for those who might otherwise vote to ban circumcision: antisemitism. Is it possible that I'm engaging in antisemitism by being an intactivist?
ME. Many classic feminists are indeed Jewish and may fear that criticising circ could land them in a doghouse peopled with "self-hating" Jews.

1. To get this out of the way, Jews can be antisemitic. Self loathing takes many forms. This is not that.
ME. There is a powerful feeling in some Jewish circles that Jewish intactivists are self-hating, disloyal, and giving aid and comfort to the historical enemies of Judaism. I urge Jews puzzled by all this to discover the powerful writings of Jewish intactivists such as Miriam Pollack and Rebecca Wald.

2. You would be hard-pressed to find a reasonable member of any cultural or religious group that believes wholeheartedly in every single tenet they are supposed to uphold. I think 'reasonable' is key here; I appreciate that we allow zealots their beliefs, but I also appreciate that the zealot's right to be zealous ends at another person's body and/or wellbeing. This fact is decreasingly true, but mostly holds for now.
ME. Jewish opinion about bris is more diverse than American Jews think and American rabbis let on. Many European and Latin American men of Jewish ancestry are intact, but don't wear that fact on their sleeves. Many Israeli men born in the former Soviet block are still intact. Since 1990 or so, a number of secular Israelis have opted to leave their sons intact, without fanfare. Israeli hospitals don't cut babies, you see. You have to make an appointment with a mohel. That's easy to skip.

3. Female genital mutilation (FGM)...
ME. I firmly agree that FGM as practiced in many African and some Moslem cultures is the single most disgusting sexual practice on earth. There is no justification for it. It is dangerous and sexually barbaric. That said, there are strange psychological and cultural parallels between FGM and male circ. Enough so that to condemn FGM and be morally indifferent to male circ is an untenable position. For starters, every culture that cuts girls also cuts boys.

4. It is obviously unfortunate to kick an entire culture while they're down, and Jews, like African immigrants to the United States, have certainly had enough outright assaults on our traditions. Being downtrodden, however, does not make us automatically right. Those who need social justice the most are the most helpless members of already oppressed groups.
ME. Intactivism was founded by a secular Jew, Edward Wallerstein, and the wife of a secular Jew, Rosemary Romberg Wiener. Intactivism for many years targeted only the obsessional American hospital circumcisions. There was not one iota of antisemitism. Matthew Hess and his Foreskin Man changed that, and we intactivists may pay a price for his callous insensitivity.

Lloyd Schofield is not the villain. Matthew Hess, not he, drafted the language of the ballot initiative. Schofield is not Jewish but comes from another victim community: he is gay. Most of the support for the initiative came from SF's large gay male community. Gay men are very foreskin friendly, because they know from personal experience the difference foreskin makes in sexual activity. The brouhaha in SF is the result of a clash between two major historical victim communities: Jews and gay men. I have seen this clash as inevitable since I discovered intactivism in the 1980s.

"... the cruelty of boys' locker rooms."
ME. Sex positive feminism has done a splendid job of educating women about the natural variety in their private parts. Men are simply going to have to walk down this road as well. Another thing. There is growing talk by women in the blogosphere and social media that intact is sexually preferable. Men can read this, and teenage boys are probably already reading it. It is likely that by 2020, cut boys will be unhappy about their status, and intact boys will know the sexual truth about themselves. This will be tragic for cut boys, because they never chose to be cut.