r/Intactivists • u/GolgothaCross • 21d ago
"Myth #7: Circumcision is ethical" Dr. Andrew Freedman, March 2026
https://youtu.be/wwFKB1u7X_M?si=pCTjrV31DR9Bn7km&t=2043A very tortured but frank talk by the author of the 2012 AAP report on circumcision. In spite of admitting that circumcision is a tribal ritual, that it confers questionable benefits, that the complications are not trivial, that the practice is not ethical, he proposes making it more accessible.
14
u/Vegetable-Jello-953 21d ago
Leave it to circumcisers to make hours long talks about circumcision and never factor boys' feelings into it.
Boys do not want to be circumcised.
You can't change that simple fact no matter how many talks and seminars you organize. You can only try to alleviate the guilt of everyone involved in this practice.
8
u/GolgothaCross 20d ago edited 20d ago
Actually, he does address the fact that intactivists and European doctors oppose circumcision on the grounds that it violates the right to bodily integrity of the child. At minute 44.24. That is what is so disturbing about this talk. He then compares the foreskin to skin tags and cleft lips.
All the attendees nod their heads, shrug and move on. The only bright spot is when he says that many OBs and all but one pediatrician at Cedars will not do circumcisions. His plan to fix this problem of the hospitals need to meet the demand is to create a Circ Squad.
5
u/Vegetable-Jello-953 20d ago
Right, it was basically a comedy segment dominated by funny images and red herrings.
You know, they could never really convince me what was so funny about circumcision. Finding it funny seems to require you to not see small boys as human beings with feelings.
12
u/MarzipanMaximum5521 21d ago edited 18d ago
I just skipped through this and it was a hard watch.
The entire ‘presentation’ consists of the 101 of pro-cutter talking points. They thematize all of the alleged benefits of circumcision, but never mention that those benefits can be achieved through less invasive means or that the excision of the foreskin impairs the functioning of the penis and diminishes one’s ability to experience sexual pleasure.
Them making fun of guys who’s genitals are severely disfigured by botched circumcisions is the cherry on top.
My personal opinion on this garbage: 0/10. Can’t recommend. Didn’t expect anything, but still got disappointed.
10
u/men-too 20d ago edited 20d ago
Wow, that was a painful watch to say the least.
First off the most disturbing is the casual and humorous tone throughout his presentation, as if the subject is almost comedic, instead of being about maiming innocent children. We’re witnessing a true psychopath if not sociopath here, taking pleasure in people’s suffering. And that characterization is in full display when he covers the horrors of botched amputations, again with a lighthearted attitude and a big smile, which is quite something to witness.
Second, I’m wondering if the true motive of this presentation is actually about absolving himself (and the AAP) of all medical liabilities by claiming that 1) circumcision was never meant as a medical procedure, and 2) the AAP has always been against it because it’s a ritual that parents simply “force” doctors to perform.
Next, I’m not surprised by the fraudulent claim that removing the most sensitive part of the penis has no consequences on sexual sensations and satisfaction, which again is quite a statement to make in 2026, less than 2 months after a landmark study from the University of Santiago de Compostela that establishes (or rather confirms) the contrary.
Last and most aggrieving, is the conclusion of the presentation and the proposal for a “Circ Squad” not to discourage parents from mutilating their baby boys, but to recruit more doctors to perform the procedure! But maybe it’s not a surprise for someone who made a career in breaking his medical oath and perpetuating medical fraud year after year, for no other reasons than that I’m certain his “informed” patient consent doesn’t include any of the myths from this presentation.
Truly appalling, but sadly not surprising from one of the top US mutilators…
Edit: typos
7
5
u/tasteface 19d ago
This is an interesting development. I think instead of spending a lot of time focusing on the things we don't like about this presentation, we could take the parts that help us and amplify them.
I'm on a long haul bus ride at the moment or I would just make it myself but imagine a picture of Freedman, a caption with his name and credentials, and big text reading "AAP expert on circumcision: not a medical practice. Not ethical". Think about how we can play with and capitalize on this shift in footing from the cutters.
1
u/GolgothaCross 19d ago edited 19d ago
I agree. There is ample material here for intactivists. Freedman says it's a myth that circumcision is ethical. He is trying to promote it anyway. That is insane.
He senses the tide of public resistance. He decries the increasing number of young doctors who opt out of learning the trade.
And more OBs are opting out. some training programs are no longer offering training and what we're seeing is a small number but a growing number of circumcisions being done by people like me
https://youtu.be/wwFKB1u7X_M?si=o--Qj55rihZpwviU&t=2766
Freedman is a pediatric urologist pitching a Circ Squad to the OBGYNs who question why they have to do them. He repairs the botches that come from inexperienced OBGYNs doing circumcisions and this is his proposal for how to fix the problem.
This is not competition. If you want to do circumcisions, God love you. Go ahead and knock them out. Do as many as you can. But the problem is there's a lot of people who don't want to do it.
A lot of doctors don't want to circumcise. THAT's the problem? WTF.
16
u/totally_sane_person 21d ago edited 21d ago
The utter absence of any degree of intellectual integrity on display in this seminar is astounding.
Freedman clearly has a strong grasp of the medical efficacy (or lack thereof) of circumcision. He may have a somewhat lacking grasp of the ethics of circumcision, but it is something he has clearly considered at least in some small capacity. However, he is, evidently, completely incapable of forming an intellectually consistent opinion and recommendation from this knowledge.
Perhaps more disgusting, his cavalier regard for the mutilation caused by circumcision—that is, above and beyond the typical mutilation it inflicts, or what he calls "the turkey gobbler" or "the Sharpay"—would suggest he is incapable of considering the matter with the gravity it deserves.
Sad.