Regardless of whether you live in Colorado, and your own stance on the particular topic this proposition seeks to actually make change in, voting yes would leave an exclusion for (male) circumcision / genital mutilation to be both allowed and covered by insurance.

You might ask why such an exclusion must be written, and that is because the wording would otherwise prohibit and exclude male circumcision because it is a surgery that alters biological sex characteristics.

Colorado lawmakers are proposing even in this new proposition to not offer male children the same rights to bodily autonomy as female children by making an exclusion to Male genital mutilation.

They even understand the fundamental reasons that one would vote to prohibit male circumcision (genital mutilation) :

“Minors lack the maturity to make permanent, life-altering medical decisions. Like many other
age-restricted rights and activities, gender-affirming surgeries should require a heightened
level of maturity and the ability to make fully informed decisions. Until an individual is a legal
adult, less invasive, non-surgical methods of providing gender-related care should be used.
This ensures that the most permanent interventions are reserved for when a person is able
to fully understand the risks and benefits of surgery as an adult.”

If you take a look at this article : https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6390784/

Female genital cutting “is also perceived to improve hygiene and be more aesthetically pleasing. “

In any case where this might be true, FGM is considered a human rights violation. A marginal benefit in hygiene should be the decision of a person to make for their own body. Men deserve the same right to choose whether they want to engage in an irreversible surgery, that removes ANY part of a man or woman’s sexual organs.

It is 2026 and the time for equal respect to a person’s bodily autonomy is now.

Defenders of circumcision use the it’s legal argument to justify cutting on boys genitals

Our opposition to circumcision has nothing to do with the current legal status of circumcision

In countries/places where circumcision is not common being intact is not culturally significant. In countries where circumcision is common it is seen as being important. In Jewish and Muslim countries it’s mandatory, something that needs to be done for religious purposes, it’s nearly universal. In cutting countries where religious circumcision is not required it’s still culturally significant. Americans proudly promote circumcision and display their distain for foreskin and uncircumcised people. The promotion of circumcision/distain for the foreskin is present in movies, news articles, social media, medical journals, schools, hospitals etc. Even our AI bots are pro circ.

In cutting countries foreskin is seen as gross and ugly, in non cutting counties there are no stigmas against circumcision. I’m glad cut people living in non cutting countries do not face the same bullying, SA and harassment as intact people do in America. But the issue is that people from non cutting countries/cultures do not see circumcision in a negative light, they seemingly jump at the chance to mutilate their child when given the opportunity. I’ve seen studies conducted where they asked people from non cutting countries/cultures if they would circumcise their children. When given the “health benefits” like 80% of parents said they would. These studies were done in China, India, Latin America etc.. When normal people were told the “benefits” of circumcision they wanted to cut their children. Even the uncircumcised “fathers” wanted it for their sons.

Honestly from what I have seen it is too late. Almost all countries are now cutting countries. You should see the street interviews done in China, Latin America, Australia or Europe. People (Women especially) from these counties hate foreskin they sound just like Americans. People from around the world now see foreskin as being ugly, diseased, infected, cancerous and unsanitary. American cultural hegemony has basically won. Cutting culture is nearly universal.

(Spoilers for Wildwood)

I watch a lot of movies. I've been watching the vast majority of wide theatrical release movies (plus some obscure ones) since 2022. I like to pay attention to the ways that movies depict circumcision and the foreskin. I have a rule that if a movie portrays circumcision is a positive light or promotes it as a good idea, I walk out (Bad Moms would be a good example)

To the credit of the film industry, since I started watching every movie I have not had to walk out once. Circumcision comes up very rarely and when it does it is portrayed in a neutral or negative light.

It seems that in the absence of movies actually bringing up circumcision, my brain sees parallels to circumcision in movies that have absolutely nothing to do with circumcision. I thought about this after seeing Wildwood (highly recommend). In it, a girl has to save her baby brother who has been kidnapped by Governess Alexandra who intends to sacrifice him so she can bring back her own son. In the climax of the movie, the baby brother is laid out on a pillar, about to be sacrificed by Alexandra, and in that moment the imagery of a baby boy with a knife pointed at him reminded me so much of infant circumcision. It is almost certainly unintentional but in a way it also made the scene more powerful to me. It also made me sad because a very similar thing to what the villain is doing in that movie is happening to millions of boys every year.

Do you ever see parallels to circumcision in movies that have nothing to do with circumcision?

I went into our guest bathroom yesterday to get it ready for some guests we're having over. The bathroom is across the hall from my son's room. He's usually the only person who uses it, so he's responsible for cleaning it. Look, my son's a typical teenager. Cleaning is not his priority. I didn't have high expectations that it was in good shape. It was "tidy" but when I lifted the toilet seat, the rim was covered in dried pee splatter. It was a war zone. My first thought was, "how does this even happen?" And then I realized - my son isn't pulling back his foreskin when he pees and it's splattering everywhere. It took me a minute. And then I realized that I'm not even mad.

MY. SON. HAS. FORESKIN.

I saw a recent tiktok from a woman asking mothers/expecting mothers if they planned on circumcising (heavily American audience), the vast majority out of 7000 comment said yes. Probably about 70%, and this is consistent with pretty much every similar thing I've seen on social media. And I've been following this stuff since about 2014. It's extremely frustrating and I really don't understand how someone who is young in 2026 could view this horrific practice as being something that is positive and want to do this to their son.

If the official hospital stat is about 50%, the post maternity ward cuts easily bring the total number to 65 or 70%. Intact America's own polling found that 74% of parents do it, though that was 5 years ago and who knows how different it would be today.

The problems that face us are:

-Doctors in the US are overwhelmingly still pro circ and even doctors today are being trained with pro circ curriculum

-38/50 state Medicaids cover it (up from 32 prior to the 2012 AAP statement). And even when Medicaid doesn't cover it, parents gladly pay the $400 or so dollars to have a pediatrician do it.

-Google and AI tend to be pro circ

-A century of severe anti foreskin propaganda from people like Peter Remondino, Abraham Wolbarst, Edgar Schoen, Brian Morris, Aaron Tobian, etc. engrained in the collective thought of the masses

-People are just dumb and fail to think critically about why removing part of your son's genitalia is a bad idea

There is a silver lining though: parents who don't cut seem to be significantly more likely to openly refer to it as mutilation, where earlier in my intactivist days you'd really only see this opinion among actual intactivists.

But we have a long way to go until the majority of parents in the US leave their sons intact, and it will likely take significant institutional change. I would love to see the US break free from the shackles of Abraham Wolbarst, but so far I'm not seeing much evidence that this will happen any time soon.

The medical establishment generally maintains an image of perfect confidence and implacable authority, presenting itself and its recommendations as something that should never be questioned.

But there were moments where this image cracked a little.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. They have acknowledged that babies feel pain during circumcision

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/doctors-weigh-pain-in-circumcisions/

The medical establishment admitted tacitly, not overtly, that it made the mistake of performing one of the most painful procedures possible without any attempt at pain relief, simply because the patient could not communicate or fight back.

2. The use of circumcision clamps has changed significantly, in an attempt to reduce pain

https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article-abstract/141/1_MeetingAbstract/439/1949/The-Length-of-Gomco-Clamp-Timing-and-Its-Effect-on

The medical establishment admitted tacitly, not overtly, that it had made the mistake of inflicting gratuitous pain and distress on babies, by crushing their genitals with a cold metal clamp for many minutes, for no actual benefit.

3. The recommendation to perform forced retraction was reversed to the exact opposite

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/395579194_Policy_Paper_Preventing_Forcible_Foreskin_Retraction_in_Newborns_and_Infants

The medical establishment admitted, tacitly, not overtly, that it had made the mistake of ordering parents to directly assault and damage the genitals of their own walking-and-talking children, for no actual benefit.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That's three times they made a mistake that they themselves later acknowledged.

Some of these points should be brought up, whenever someone claims the medical establishment doesn't make mistakes, or doesn't reverse its decisions to the complete opposite, and therefore that the medical establishment couldn't possibly change its mind on circumcision.

Do any Americans here live in a region where circumcision is no longer the norm? (I mean the norm for boys; not necessarily for men, of course.)

If so, what region is that? And how do you know it’s no longer the norm there? Or, at least, what leads you to believe this?

My scar line is sensitive to light touch It is
relatively more sensitive than my inner skin. I have always wondered whether the Ridged band feels similar to this or not. Overall, what kind of sensation does having a Ridged band provide that a sensitive scar line cannot, since I was circumcised as a child and have never experienced having one.
I’ve heard some people say that during circumcision, the remaining nerves migrate to the circumcision scar line.
Maybe that’s why mine is sensitive to light touch.
I’d like to hear about the experiences of people who were circumcised as adults.
My frenulum is intact and really sensitive. Does the ridged band feel better or different?

https://shop.spacex.com/products/presale-spacex-raptor-bell?

I'm NOT promoting SpaceX in any way but I thought this looked like a fancy restoration device. Idk.

I mean since when is amputation the recourse for a minor infection?

Since when do we amputate part of the vagina when a woman gets an infection?

We don't, because medicine has come along far enough for that to be completely unnecessary.

It's such a ridiculous line of reasoning that cutters propose completely amputating a body part to prevent an infection that might or might not happen.

You're telling me there is literally no other way to treat an STI than by amputating the foreskin entirely? What?

Then how come we're able to treat ear infections, eye infections, skin infections, cavities, without removing the body part altogether?

They don't apply their line of reasoning to anything else in medicine.

I know the research saying that uncircumcised men are more likely to get STIs is already pretty shaky, but I wanted to take their logic for a spin anyways.

---

If you're uncircumcised, then you have more nerves that yield sexual pleasure. Thousands more. Thus, sex is obviously infinitely more enjoyable. So you're going to be more inclined to seek out sex than someone who is 75% numb during sex.

More sex = more chances to get an STI.

---

It's the same way that having toes increases your chances of getting ingrown toenails. So then with their logic we should circumcise peoples toes too and remove their toenails right? 🤣

And I guess we should remove everyone's colon at birth to prevent colon cancer? Why not remove everyone's teeth to prevent cavities? Why not remove everyone's stomachs to prevent stomach aches and just use body-attached ziploc bags instead?

Why not remove ears to prevent earaches? Why not remove everyone's sinuses to prevent sinus infections? Why not remove livers at birth to prevent liver cancer?

You see what I'm getting at. The reasoning makes no sense.

---

Also I could point out how women get magnitudes more STIs and genital infections than men, but for some reason there is zero movement to circumcise them...🤔🤔🤔

(Maybe because we know it's a silly idea, and it's just the nature of genital anatomy)

---

Cutters love to point out a potential downside of having foreskin just like how in an alternate universe they would point out how the downside of toe nails in ingrown toenails.

But no one is amputating their nails even though they know for a fact it increases their risk for ingrown nails. Why?

Because the pros outweigh the cons. And it's a controllable risk. Just like STIs are a controllable risk. You can take care of your toenails, and you can have safe, responsible sex.

Circumcision is not a controllable risk. There is no getting the nerves back. Ever. Sure you may have less STIs, but that's for the same reason that a quadriplegic has less ingrown nails.

---

Like okay, you could get more STIs from having foreskin, but what are the pros?!??!? Actually being able to experience sex fully and getting to experience the greatest pleasure humanly possible??? I think I'll take my chances.

Even their most "scientific" arguments are ridiculous.

https://youtu.be/aBJhyWHnr6s

He shares everything in great detail, including the names of those responsible and how it happened.

Like with many others, he was essentially being protected by one parent, until divorce intervened.
Then hell broke loose and the usual coercion, deceit, and force were used to get him into the hands of medical staff, who then revealed how, apparently, they are actually well trained in the art of sedating and rendering unconscious an unwilling patient.

https://youtu.be/aBJhyWHnr6s?t=580

He experienced meatal stenosis and severe loss of sensitivity as a result of the procedure, as well as recurrent UTIs and even a fistula.

This is a shocking and incredibly detailed testimony that needs more attention. Vincent is willing to name everyone involved in an attempt to get some kind of justice and recognition of what happened.

General anesthesia is used to facilitate the forced circumcision of older boys.

Related: https://www.reddit.com/r/Intactivists/comments/1w1e06z/evidence_that_even_modern_professional_medical/

I was listening to one of the Intact Again podcasts (these guys are doing amazing work) and heard some implication that Christians are required to circumcise. We are not. IF Christians are circumcising it is most likely because of medical misinformation, cultural norms or aesthetic preferences.

Here's the part where I speak specifically to my fellow Christians.

We are no longer under the law of Moses. Jesus has taken on ALL of our debt. There is nothing we are required to do to be sanctified for eternal life - what more could we do than what Jesus has already done. In fact, the Bible explicitly tells us that circumcision is of NO USE to believers in Christ. Galatians 5:2 - ...if "Christ will be of no value to you at all" if you accept circumcision as a requirement for salvation. I hope that clears things up.

Now go and cut no more.

I can remove if it's not relevant idk. I bet a penis could read Braille.

I would like to adress here something that happened to me when I was a young boy, something painful and shameful to many, something that many consider normal medical practice, but in fact this is a genital violence against men: forced retraction of the foreskin.

The foreskin naturally detaches from the glans with time and patience, forced retraction is done in order to hasten this process at the cost of the boy's feelings and privacy. The pediatrician told my parents it was needed and instructed them, they, believing it was needed, performed such brutality, and I suffered for no real need... the pain is unbearable, you scream, you cry, yet it doesn't stop, people don't stop imposing such violence on you.

So friends, bear this in mind when having kids or talking to people who have boys, this genital violence is unecessary, painful and embarrassing. No boy should have to endure this, and the fact that I don't see more people speaking about it is sad and revolting.

Who else got DM'd by him? Help me report him so he gets a little nappy, time-out break