Their manual 4 performing non-consensual circ argues "cultural & religious" factors should be considered, in contrast 2 World Health Organization (WHO) policy on FGM which says even ritual nicking of the vulva is a *human rights violation* regardless of consent, culture, or religion apps.who.int/iris/bitstream…

One of the lead authors of this new World Health Organization (WHO) manual for American-style non-consensual circumcision of boys, now being introduced to countries with no such cultural practice -- citing studies of *adult* circumcision & conflating the two -- is David Tomlinson of Brown University.

Would it surprise you to learn that World Health Organization (WHO)'s Tomlinson applied, in 2005, for a patent on a device he invented for removing "excess foreskin" (i.e., normal, healthy foreskin) from specifically the "neonatal" penis? patents.google.com/patent/US78790… - again, no evidence this reduces HIV risk.

How much money will Tomlinson earn from mass infant circumcision in African countries w. no existing tradition? In World Health Organization (WHO) manual he touts his own invention to reduce risk of penile laceration & hemorrhage, which occurs "even in developed countries with excellent training programs."

If such penile laceration & hemorrhage occurs even in developed countries with excellent training programs, using existing clamps and procedures, then surely Tomlinson's new device should be preferred for mass circumcision in developing countries with less excellent training?

World Health Organization (WHO) now simultaneously claims Type IV ritual 'nicking' of vulva (which does not remove tissue) is *human rights violation* regardless of consent, culture, or religion, while decision 2 remove 1/3 or more penile skin system in non-consenting babies should factor culture/religion?

The "health benefits" used to bolster the latter claim come primarily from studies of sexually active adults undergoing *voluntary* circumcision. So what are the health benefits of voluntary vulva modifications & should these be extrapolated to non-consenting baby girls? Recall

that World Health Organization (WHO) definition of health is very broad. Not just absence of disease, but "mental & social" wellbeing included. Do social & religious benefits of having vulva modified to fit local cultural norms, avoid teasing, promote marriageability etc., count as health benefits then?

Defenders of "female circumcision" now argue this, seeing that "health benefits" seems to impress Western arbiters of which forms of child genital cutting are permissible. You even see claims of "cleanliness" in parallel with male circumcision now raised gypsyonexploration.com/female-circumc…

More claims of health benefits for "female circumcision" below. Even cosmetic labiaplasty in West is touted as conferring mental & sexual health benefits to women who choose it, well within World Health Organization (WHO) definition of health. If World Health Organization (WHO) conflates adults/infants in males, why not females?

World Health Organization (WHO) has sacrificed all credibility on male & female genital cutting. If ritual nicking is human rights violation regardless of cultural/religious significance, & if 'cosmetic' labiaplasty is wrong to perform on infant girls even though it has WHO-scope "health benefits" in women

then it should not publish manuals for removing 30-50% of motile, erogenous skin system of penis in non-consenting boys based on "health benefits" in consenting adults (in conjunction w. "religious & cultural" considerations) written by inventors of circ devices. Shame on World Health Organization (WHO).

P.S. Study thanking Tomlinson, inventor of "AccuCirc" device (safecirc.com/read-me-2-1) & one of lead authors of World Health Organization (WHO) manual for non-consensual circumcision touting his own device, recommending World Health Organization (WHO) pre-qualification of AccuCirc for mass African scale-up: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P…

Bloodstained Men are in Colorado raising awareness. Male genital cutting is unnecessary and harmful.

@Musonia_Rufa Dlindenii GenerationIntact 👶📢 restoration 4 victims! @fair1ife4a11 ProtectChildren Dejan Male genital cutting is unnecessary. It cuts off a functional and highly erogenous part of a male's genitals.

FWIW, my position is that circumcision is an archaic obscenity, a violation of the rights of a child & the fact that it can be (and often is) conducted outside of clinical conditions and without anaesthesia is utterly abhorrent. >

Thank you, Brendan LaChance for covering today’s #BloodstainedMen & Friends protest in Casper, Wyoming for Oil City News. #i2 oilcity.news/general/2019/0…

Last night Jeff Brown and I rode as Jonathon Conte’s Critical Integrity joining @CriticalMass in San Francisco. #i2 BayArea Intactivists

It's past time to end all genital cutting of children! #EndGenitalCutting #GenitalAutonomy

The ethical double standard for male genital cutting vs female genital cutting is appalling.