Pages in red proposed to be created - Some entries may be more appropriate for Wiktionary]]
(Currently intactivism redirects to the page circumcision controversies, which is more of a historical page, whereas this one is underdevelopment to describe the campaign itself.)
Why is there no discussion of intactivism on the page: Children's rights movement?
The individuals and organizations listed below view the circumcision of infants and children as a blatant abuse of their human rights.
Circumcision is one of the most contentious issues on Wikipedia.[1][2]. The decision to perform this particular form of genital alteration on infants and children is primarily an issue of ethics... Presently, in the U.S. the right to choose whether or not to circumcise their children is given to parents. The intactivist campaign, which has been evolving over the past 20 years or so, is trying to amend that.
Intactivists proclaim a two-fold purpose: 1) to educate parents and the general public about the harms done by circumcision, and 2) to enact legislation to ban the practice on individuals that are too young to consent.
This ethical debate defining this circumcision controversy is fueled by both medical and religious controversies. The medical controversy is focused on the prevention of disease and later psychiatric well-being. Circumcision is compared to vaccination. However, there is evidence that circumcision is much less effective that common forms of safe sex practices. Furthermore, there is evidence that circumcision can have many complications ranging in time from mistakes made during the procedure itself to (similar to those inherent in any surgery, including permanent deformities) to years later in life (when circumcised men report to using more drugs to treat erectile dysfunction than non-circumcised men, as well as the experience of psychological pain and trauma). The religious controversy is represented by religious zealots, to whom circumcision is a ritual that is practiced in order to satisfy the demands of their God. Certain intactivists acknowledge that these individuals be granted religious exemptions.
Presently in the U.S., infant females are protected by law from the unnecessary cutting of their genitals, but infant males are not. Intactivists question this from a perspective of equal rights.
Education...
Legislation... Circumcision and law
Genital autonomy describes the Human right to Genital Integrity. This concept is an evolving component of the Civil rights movement, and specifically, the Children's rights movement.[3] The right of children to have the choice to keep fully intact, natural sex organs is considered obvious to many conscious beings, though many believe and practice rituals that prove otherwise.[4]
Intactivists are people who work to protect the freedom of children from the the unnecessary surgical or other cutting of infants and children's genitals, known as genital modification and mutilation.[5] The activities and message of intactivists is at the core of one of the most contentious issues in the free world and on Wikipedia: circumcision.[6][7][8]
The voices of infants, children, adolescents and men when they realize what was allowed to be done to them.[9]
What is the first recorded use of the term intactivism?
Discuss in regards to both male and female circumcision/modification/mutilation
Education of Parents, Doctors and Legislators regarding Health and Human rights. Legislation...
Physical and psychological effects of circumcision
Anatomy and Physiology
Explore the link between circumcision, depression and violence throughout the lifetime.[10]
Database of personal stories and survey from victims and all those affected[11]
Inconsistency of the American Association of Pediatrics
Appears to be primarily religious[12]
Medical?
Intactivism in legislature: International Australia Europe United States MGM Bills[13] New York San Francisco Explore possibility of a religious exemption
Intactivism in the courts Personal and class action lawsuits[14][15][16][17][18]
Intactivism in mainstream media: Davis, Kristy. "Protesters ask Good Samaritan Hospital to stop circumcision study"[19] (Intact America [20]) [21]
Intactivism on the internet (Facebook and YouTube) What is Wikipedia's policy in terms of noting these forms of media?
Critical Integrity Bike Ride[22]
Genital Integrity Awareness Week (GIAW)
International Symposia Highlights:
"The 2012 Helsinki Declaration of the Right to Genital Autonomy,"[23]
Genital Autonomy 2014: “Whole Bodies, Whole Selves: Activating Social Change” (The 13th International Symposium on Genital Autonomy and Children’s Rights), University of Colorado Boulder, USA: July 24-26. [24]
Attorneys for the Rights of the Child[25]
Bay Area Intactivists[26],
Circumcision Information and Resource Pages[27]
Doctors Opposing Circumcision[28]
Genital Autonomy [29]
Intact America [30] protesters[31]
Intactipedia[32]
National Organization of Circumcision Information Resource Centers (NOCIRC)[33]
Saving Our Sons[34]
U.S. MGM Bill Status [35]
Bloodstained Men & Their Friends[36]
Brother K[37]
Adler, Peter W. "Is Circumcision Legal?"[38]
"The Bioethics of the Circumcision of Male Children"[39]
"International Human Rights Law and the Circumcision of Children"[40]
Love, Christina, "Circumcision, Religion and the Rights of the Child[41]
Molyneux, Stefan. "The Truth About Circumcision"[42](has excellent list of references)
O'Barr, William M. "War of Words: Circumcision and the Internet"[43]
The International Child Symbol[44]
"ROUTINE INFANT CIRCUMCISION VIOLATES HUMAN RIGHTS"[46]
"STOP INFANT CIRCUMCISION" during GIAW[47]
The religious controversy is represented by religious zealots, to whom circumcision is a ritual that is practiced in order to satisfy the demands of their God. Certain intactivists acknowledge that these individuals be granted religious exemptions. (Although, freedom of religion should dictate that children have the right to be born free of religion.)
The medical controversy is focused on the prevention of disease and later psychiatric well-being. Circumcision is compared to vaccination. However, there is evidence that circumcision is much less effective that common forms of safe sex practices. Furthermore, there is evidence that circumcision can have many complications ranging in time from mistakes made during the procedure itself to (similar to those inherent in any surgery, including permanent deformities) to years later in life (when circumcised men report to using more drugs to treat erectile dysfunction than non-circumcised men, as well as the experience of psychological pain and trauma):
Both of these controversies should be discussed in independently on the page circumcision controversies:
(Currently intactivism redirects to the page circumcision controversies, where there is no mention of autonomy, which is the root of the ethical debate. On close examination, that page is outdated, incomplete and lacks organization. It is more of a historical page, whereas this one is underdevelopment to describe the campaign itself.)
Children's rights vs. Parents' rights and responsibilities and Freedom of religion
This article fails to highlight and describe the distinction between law as it applies to adults vs. children. Clearly law is, and ought to be, applied differently to consenting adults and children. In fact, the circumcision of infants is the main point of this article because no one contests the right of an adult to genital alterations.
Which is more objective: genital modification and mutilation, or genital alteration being valueless, whereas genital modification vs. mutilation is based on a difference in point of view that is not even discussed on the page, assuming modification connotes a positive, beneficial change, and mutilation results in a negative, unintended, even destructive change.
I recommend changing the genital modification and mutilation to genital alteration, and then make a section within that page to describe the difference between the terms modification and mutilation, which is based on the consent and intent of the individual involved.
Discuss these terms as they relate to children to children.
Why is the same term not used for a similar procedure? Mutilation is obviously a value judgement. See genital modification and mutilation. Understand and describe cultural biases resulting in circumcision controversies.
I suggest a page to compare them both, side by side.
(This page may be incomplete because it does not discuss genital modification.)
"Male circumcision causes permanent and severe harm and violates human rights." (15. Conclusions) [50]