Compelling reasons exist for strong concern among attorneys and the public about the various types of damage caused by circumcision. These include pain and suffering, psychological harm, behavioral changes, irreversible reduction or loss of full sexual function, and underreported tragic complications, including deaths. Moreover, no satisfactory medical justification for routine circumcision has ever been demonstrated.

---

Recent ARC Activities and Accomplishments

"Neonatal circumcision is neither medically necessary nor ethically permissible: A response to Clark et al."

—article by Bob Van Howe and J. Steven Svoboda recently published in Medical Science Monitor, rebutting the erroneous claims by Peter A. Clark et al. in the same journal.

---

London's Interdisciplinary "Genital Cutting in a Globalized Age" Conference Highly Successful

My talk at the Genital Cutting in a Globalized Age conference held in London on July 4 was extremely well-received by the mostly European, academic audience. The conference was held at the Royal Society of Medicine, which published an article by Robert Van Howe and myself on HIV and circumcision in 2005. The talk, entitled, "Three-Fourths Were Abnormal—Male Circumcision, Culture, and Law,"presented an overview of male genital integrity including harm caused by the procedure, law, human rights, ethics, history of medicalization, lack of medical justification, mythologies including the HIV craze, cultural aspects, and connections with the other forms of genital cutting.

Steven Svoboda Presenting at London Conference

The conference was the first meeting ever to bring together activists working in many different areas: intactivism, female genital cutting (FGC), cosmetic female genital surgery, transsexual surgery, and intersexual surgery.

Hera Cook of the University of Birmingham gave an almost entirely favorable response to my talk from an academic feminist perspective.

Famed anti-FGC activist Efua Dorkenoo, O.B.E. (Order of the British Empire) followed my talk by frankly telling the audience that she wholeheartedly supported intactivism and the anti-FGC movement simply made a strategic decision not to work to protect males as it would make their work harder.

Dr. David Ralph spoke in favor of cosmetic female genital surgery. Virginia Braun of the University of Auckland surveyed the same subject skeptically and thoughtfully.

Bo Laurent (formerly Cheryl Chase)

Bo Laurent (formerly Cheryl Chase) delivered the keynote address regarding her longstanding activism on behalf of intersex persons. The conference brought together activists working on female genital cutting, intersex surgery, transsexual surgery, cosmetic female genital surgery, and of course male genital cutting. Activists and thinkers in numerous potentially aligned but previously separate movements came together and strategized together at this exciting conference.

Panel at London Conference: (left to right) Dr. David Ralph, Hera Cook, Virginia Braun, Efua Dorkenoo, Steven Svoboda

We will be back in the UK again in early September for NOCIRC's biannual symposium, presenting a paper entitled, "'Three-Fourths Were Abnormal'-Misha's Case, Sick Societies, and the Law." Here is the abstract for the September paper: "Law, human rights, and medical ethics reflect, transmit, and reinforce social norms. By creating mandates ultimately underwritten by a state's police power, certain ambiguities are eliminated, and others are introduced regarding interpretation. Genital cutting, a tragically flawed attempt to perfect a child, thrives on such ambiguities. Gender identity anchors us from the buffeting winds of social change. 150 years ago, normality was redefined, and suddenly, "three-fourths of all male babies [had] abnormal prepuces." Circumcision helped cover up male anxiety over legitimacy and father-son relations. Cultural constructions of dirt served reigning ideologies then and now. Genital cutting presents a cluster of interwoven discriminations—racial, gender-based, age-based, and class-based—that violate law, human rights, and ethics. Parents (as in Boldt v. Boldt), doctors, and society seek treatment, not the infant. Thus the problem cannot be solved by a medical procedure, which circumcision never was anyway. Only human compassion can end the nightmare."

Hope to see many of you then.

J. Steven Svoboda

Audience at "Genital Cutting in a Globalized Age" Conference, London, July 4, 2008

 

---

On the Radio

I will be appearing on Los Angeles area radio station KVTA 1520 AM (www.kvta.com) this Thursday afternoon, June 5, starting at 4:35 PM Pacific Standard Time. I will discuss recent developments regarding intact rights, including the ongoing Oregon case, Boldt v. Boldt, and updates regarding HIV and genital integrity.

KVTA does carry a live feed so you can listen from anywhere in the world. It is my understanding that recordings of the show will be available a few days after the show on the KVTA website, www.kvta.com.

J. Steven Svoboda

---

Psychology Today Article Published

The Psychology Today "Head 2 Head" piece I wrote has been published in their June issue. The piece is titled, "Making the Cut: Infant Circumcision: Do Parents Know Best?" It is formatted with an interesting introductory blurb by Matthew Hutson that tries to straddle the fence but does end by mentioning "intactivists" and by noting that the rate in the US has dropped from "nearly 90 percent to about 50."

Following is the question, "Is infant circumcision a violation of a child's rights?" The "no" answer is provided by a man "circumcised at 25 for better hygiene" who "wished it had been at birth" and yet refused to give his real name! I wrote the "yes" answer, which was edited from the requested 150 words down to 84 words. This is the version they printed:

Circumcision is a procedure that medical associations worldwide agree is not justified. It is a culturally sanctioned cosmetic amputation. Circumcision forever excises a normal body part with several functions: protecting the penis, enhancing the body's immunological resources, and providing specialized erogenous tissue. Parents cannot really know what their son would want, so the best decision is to leave the healthy foreskin alone. For parents to take away so intimate a part of their son's body without his consent, barring true medical need, is wrong.
—Steven Svoboda is the founder of Attorneys for the Rights of the Child

J. Steven Svoboda

---

ARC's letter to the Sun Magazine (update)

ARC's letter to the Sun Magazine was published in the June 2008 issue, without mentioning ARC and with some minor changes. Here is the version they published:

I was surprised by the normally levelheaded Krista Bremer s misleading attempt to justify her husband Ismail s circumcision of their son. Contrary to Bremer s suggestion, her son, having lost his foreskin, is by definition no longer intact.

Why did Ismail, who rejected virtually all other trappings of his Muslim religion, nevertheless insisting on cutting his newborn son? Why forcibly mark his boy with a sign of his religion when the son may turn out to be as freethinking as his father and move even farther away from Islam?

Circumcision amputates functional tissue serving three critical functions: immunological (helps defend the body against infection), protective (safeguards the glans and the rest of the penis) and erogenous. Yet circumcision continues to be the most common surgical operation performed on males in this country, and the only procedure performed on children without medical justification.

J. Steven Svoboda

---

Two Books Appearing Later in 2008 with Contributions by Steven

Two books are scheduled to be published later this year that will include contributions written or co-written by me. Rodopi Press, an academic press known for its medical works with offices in Amsterdam and New Jersey, will be issuing a volume later this year edited by Chantal Zabus and titled Fearful Symmetries: Essays and Testimonies Around Excision and Circumcision. The Fearful Symmetries book will, as its title suggests, address differential perspectives on female and male genital cutting and will contain two pieces to which I contributed. One article to be included has my esteemed collaborator Robert Darby of Australia as its lead author and is an extensively updated version of our article from the Medical Anthropology Quarterly, retitled, "A Rose by Any Other Name?: Symmetry and Asymmetry in Male and Female Genital Cutting." The other article is an autobiographical account by an acquaintance of mine, Jerry K. Brayton, of his personal experiences relating to circumcision.

The other upcoming book, Human Rights and the Problem of Circumcision, will collect essays by presenters at the 2006 NOCIRC Symposium in Seattle. My piece is titled, "Why Are Circumcision Lawsuits so Hard to Win?"

---

Radio Program (UPDATE)

I appeared on Los Angeles area radio station KVTA 1520 AM (www.kvta.com) on February 15. I am listed on the station website as the "circumcision correspondent" for KVTA. Host of the show is long-time friend of intactivism Maria Sanchez. I discussed the book recently published by Oxford University Press, Does Feminism Discriminate Against Men?: A Debate (by Warren Farrell [with Steven Svoboda] and James Sterba). I also reviewed some recent developments regarding intact rights, such as growing legal opposition to male circumcision in Australia and the ongoing Oregon circumcision case, Boldt v. Boldt.

---

ARC Letter to New York Times

January 24, 2008

Editor
New York Times
letters@nytimes.com

Editor:

We were surprised by a misleading attempt to set up an opposition between male and female genital cutting in Sara Corbett s otherwise fascinating article in The Times Magazine ( A Cutting Tradition, January 20, 2008).

Noted opponents of female genital cutting (FGC), as well as most European and African observers, are skeptical of attempts such as Laura Gaurenti's—to excuse genital cutting of males ("circumcision") while simultaneously vilifying FGC. Such ventures violate basic principles of fair play, not to mention the constitutional doctrine of equal protection.

In fact, precisely the same justifications are used for both male and female genital cutting—esthetic appeal, health, custom, and religion. Yet male circumcision continues to be the most common medical operation performed on males in this country, while simultaneously the only procedure performed without medical justification. It is ironic that we have passed legislation against female genital cutting and prosecuted a grand total of one individual in the eleven years the law has been in effect, while we continue to cut more than a million male children per year.

With your position as perhaps the world's premier newspaper comes the responsibility to investigate and publish the truth. We ask that you set the record straight on this issue. Let s protect all children from needless and painful surgery, whatever type of genital equipment they may have.

J. Steven Svoboda
Executive Director
Attorneys for the Rights of the Child

---

Biannual NOCIRC Symposium

Abstract submitted for the biannual NOCIRC Symposium, to be held September 4-6 in Keele, England. "Three-Fourths Were Abnormal" Misha's Case, Sick Societies, and the Law

By J. Steven Svoboda

Law, human rights, and medical ethics reflect, transmit, and reinforce social norms. By creating mandates ultimately underwritten by a state's police power, certain ambiguities are eliminated, and others are introduced regarding interpretation. Genital cutting, a tragically flawed attempt to perfect a child, thrives on such ambiguities.

Gender identity anchors us from the buffeting winds of social change. 150 years ago, normality was redefined, and suddenly, "three-fourths of all male babies [had] abnormal prepuces." Circumcision helped cover up male anxiety over legitimacy and father-son relations. Cultural constructions of dirt served reigning ideologies then and now.

Genital cutting presents a cluster of interwoven discriminations racial, gender-based, age-based, and class-based—that violate law, human rights, and ethics. Parents (as in Boldt v. Boldt), doctors, and society seek treatment, not the infant. Thus the problem cannot be solved by a medical procedure, which circumcision never was anyway. Only human compassion can end the nightmare.

---

Letter to The Sun Magazine 1-29-08:

The story of Ismail, who rejected virtually all other trappings of his religion, nevertheless insisting on cutting his newborn son, raises the question why he retained this "custom" while rejecting all others?

---

Letter to Discover Magazine 1-2-08:
Male Circumcision and HIV.

---

Letter to Time Magazine 12-19-07:
Circumcision to Stop HIV Not Medical Breakthrough.

---

Article:
A Rose by any other Name: Rethinking the Similarities and Differences between Male and Female Genital Cutting

I am pleased to announce that an article written by Robert Darby, Ph.D. and myself has been published in September, 2007, by Medical Anthropology Quarterly, one of the world's premier medical anthropology journals. (more)

---

New Book:
Does Feminism Discriminate Against Men?

I am pleased to announce that Oxford University Press has published Does Feminism Discriminate Against Men?: A Debate (by Warren Farrell [with Steven Svoboda] and James Sterba). The book is a university-level gender studies textbook... (more)
9-10-07

---

ARC Activities Archive

 

---

Intact News Feed
Thanks to
International Coalition for Genital Integrity (ICGI)