The struggle for genital autonomy
and against the involuntary genital modification
of children of any sex:
Male Genital Cutting
Female Genital Cutting
Involuntary Sex Reassignment Genital Autonomy for All!
This site differs from others opposed to genital mutilation: its
focus is on intactness rather than on genital cutting. It is intended to
counteract the mindset that the foreskin is an "extra" "flap of
- and that male genital cutting is the norm, and the
corresponding mindsets that lead to the cutting of girls and
Links to the most useful pages, if they are not in the list
below, are at Background.
Types of male genital cutting articles; male genital cutting in
Shakespeare; infection vs. inflammation; diabetes; other "useless"
organs, the appendix and Jacobsen's organ; whether babies remember
being circumcised; permanent retraction; male genital cutting and
with insufficient anaesthetic: the doctor can hardly
make himself heard over the shrieking baby. Disturbing.
An 8 minute video of a Gomco
uploaded by Dr Kevin Windisch "for health
He has to raise his voice and still can't be heard over
to whom he repeatedly apologises. Disturbing.
For those who think male genital cutting improves the appearance
and is invariably harmless, there's a gallery of pictures of circumcisions.
One man's multiple botches.
of the intact and circumcised penis: you can see the
covers most of the main issues — shows
several circumcisions, not for the squeamish
MexicoA guide (en espagnol) from the National
Center for Health Technology Excellence, with input from the
institutions that make up the National Health System, says
"Circumcision of boys should not be done without medical
The serious bias towards circumcision of a leading US midwifery
textbook, including a chapter telling midwives how to do it (yet
it details the disadvantages of each method)--analysed
and contrasted with a British
textbook. Famous hippie guru midwife Ina May Gaskin used to
cut babies and has never renounced it. This video calls on her to
The case presented for circumcision is hydra-headed:
answer one argument and its supporters will produce
another, and another, indefinitely. (Urinary
Tract Infections, until recently cited as the main
reason to circumcise, were only added to the list in 1982)
Something else is going on--if the foreskin has so many
faults and varied, how could it ever have have survived?
A 1941 article mentions in
passing that some doctors then did it without asking
Former US Surgeon-General G. Everett Koop's site, drkoop.com
has moved forward very little.
The Royal Australasian College of
Physicians' 2010 policy disposes of the medical
claims and (unlike its predecessor) considers the
functions of the foreskin, but still bends over
backwards to blur the ethical issues so that it can stay
on the fence.