2009-03-31 Washington Post - 'Intactivists' Cut To The Chase About Circumcision Issue

[z726]

Here is press coverage of the demonstration in Washinton DC:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/30/AR2009033003312.html

The article does mention our Mr. TLC (Ron) as being part of it, though not by name, along with others involved in the movement such as Marylin Milos, William Stowell (not named, but referenced as the only man to have sued over a successful circumcision), Soraya Miré (a victim of female circumcision supporting our cause as well), and two guys participating in a hunger strike to get this noticed.

All in all, it seems like a fairly objective portrayal of the march. The article seems more focused on exposing the controversy and debate over circumcision than anything else. I was amused by the following paragraph on page 2:

It's a lopsided fight, but each side has doctors and lawyers. Each side has data. Each accuses the other of denial. One side is labeled as a bunch of baby-cutting sex criminals. The other is labeled as sex-obsessed, fanatical loonies who are duping the public.

[admin]

The article confirmed my fears that the reporter was interested in characterizing the movement as loonie by focusing on the hunger strikers' extremism. They really do blame circumcision for all the wacky things the article lists. I just blame it for pain, suffering, and lousy sex.

-Ron

[z726]

Yeah, I really think some people do go way too far and make the rest of us look bad. In any movement there are extremists who would do whatever it takes to draw attention to the cause no matter how high the cost, as well as those who sensationalize the issues to death. The way I see it, what's important is for the movement to have enough of a voice that these few people don't get all the attention, and others can present a more rational argument.

[Joseph]

With how much coverage pro-circumcision is getting, should we be grateful we're getting coverage at all?

It's so funny how we get characterized as people who are "out to fool the public."

[admin]

With how much coverage pro-circumcision is getting, should we be grateful we're getting coverage at all?

It's so funny how we get characterized as people who are "out to fool the public."

Georgetown U's student paper should have something online about us at DC tomorrow.

We get characterized as "out to fool the public" because the reporter Googled for pro-circ assholes and found the biggest one out there, Morris, and then gave him more column-inches than any other quoted person in the piece.

-Ron

[Joseph]

Georgetown U's student paper should have something online about us at DC tomorrow.

We get characterized as "out to fool the public" because the reporter Googled for pro-circ assholes and found the biggest one out there, Morris, and then gave him more column-inches than any other quoted person in the piece.

-Ron

And it's clear how much we're succeeding at "fooling the public," seeing as we got a multitude of 40 marching for justice.

I forgot who said it, but even among pro-circ doctors, isn't Morris like, the court jester? Is there anyone picking that bone with the Washington Post reporter?

I'd like to see what Georgetown U's paper looks like...

[admin]

even among pro-circ doctors, isn't Morris like, the court jester?
He's not an MD at all.

-Ron

[Joseph]

He's not an MD at all.

-Ron

So NOW who's "fooling the public?" Someone needs to smear this reporter.

[z726]

The article refers to Morris as a professor of molecular medical sciences, and doesn't use the word "doctor."

I don't know whether or not he's a PhD, though. Don't care, either.

[Joseph]

It is deceptive to portray Morris as any kind of authority on the subject, especially if he's not even qualified.

I recall one "Dr. Laura" who pretended to be a psychologist, even though her degree was in physiology.