Originally Posted by 4chunut1
This was supposed to appear on the ballot in San Francisco in November, as petitioners had enough signatures to insure that. Now a judge says not so fast... Here's the link:
For every two steps forward in the intactivism fight, there is a step back. Not only do we have to convice the medical community of the harm of circumcision in a physical and sexual sense, but there are formidable obstacles from certain religious, political, and now, judicial organizations. Why they cannot see this as a clear human rights violation that also applies to boys is very strange. Girls have already been protected by law from genitial mutilation...boys, still awaiting those protections. The fight must continue...
I think this is the most mind boggling thing for me personally. If you say that it's NOT okay to alter a minor's genitals of one sex, why is it perfectly fine and legal for the other? I'm surprised cases haven't been brought up on this...this is an inequality according to the law based solely on sex of the individual.
I know I've had a few discussions with pro-circ individuals about this and I've mentioned this contradiction and hypocrisy. Either you're for genital alteration for ALL minors (ugh, which would mean they should go out there and lobby that any prohibitive FGM laws be struck down to make everyone equal--ha, as if they would) or you acknowledge that minors of BOTH sexes MUST be protected under the law. You can't discriminate in this manner.
"That's different," I've been told. Is it really?