Groundhog Day, February 2, 2026, is my sixty-fifth birthday, and I have mixed feelings. On the one hand, I am thankful to be alive and for all the good things I have. I have lived longer than many of the people I have known, and despite the hardship I experienced along the way, things are generally good. At the same time, I am feeling bummed because I learned of the senseless and untimely death of a young man in Ukraine whose name was Kirill. He was killed in action serving in the Ukrainian Army in the ongoing war with Russia. He was twenty-four years old. He was conscripted into military service at nineteen and survived many battles before his luck ran out. I only knew him remotely through my fishing buddy Colin, who was one of many of Kirill’s friends. I learned about Kirill, his background, and character through conversations with Colin and the photos and videos he shared with me. Kirill was a fine young man who withstood the privations and stresses of compulsory military service in a useless war over a territorial dispute. What bothers me about his death, beyond the fact that he was so young and had his whole life ahead of him, is that looking back on my life, I served as a volunteer in the Canadian Army at his age. At the time, I thought military service would be an adventure. My grandfathers and great-uncles served in the Canadian Army and the Royal Canadian Navy during the Second World War. They had a sense of duty and volunteered. One of my great-uncles was killed in France during the battle for Caen. He is buried in the Commonwealth War Cemetery in Calais. I also had a sense of duty. I served for 4 years as a reservist from 1978 to 1982, and I was free to leave the service at any time. I was mustered out after 4 years, and that completed my brief, undistinguished stint of military service.
Homosexual prisoners in a Nazi concentration camp.Michael Elmgreen and Ingar Dragset and the Memorial to Persecuted Homosexuals under National Socialism.
The persecution of gay men in Germany goes back to the 1794 and 1851 Prussian legal codes. In 1871, Paragraph 175 of the German Empire’s criminal code was enacted, based on the Prussian legal codes.
The 1871 version of Paragraph 175 read:
Unnatural sexual acts (widernäturliche Unzucht) committed between persons of the male sex, or by humans with animals, is punishable with imprisonment; a loss of civil rights may also be sentenced. (Holocaust Encyclopedia)
Yes, it criminalized sex acts between men; it did not criminalize men for having a homosexual orientation. Also, it did not apply to lesbians. The law was enforced sparingly during the Imperial and Weimar eras, as a conviction required that two men be caught in the act of having sex. When the Nazi Party took power in Germany in 1933, Paragraph 175 was revised to read:
A man who commits sexual acts (Unzucht) with another man, or allows himself to be misused for sexual acts by a man, will be punished with prison. (Holocaust Encyclopedia)
There was opposition to Paragraph 175. Notably, it was a German physician and gay rights advocate, Magnus Hirschfeld, who first conducted experiments in hormone therapy and sex reassignment surgeries at his clinic, the Institute for Sexual Science in Berlin. No, there was nothing in German law that prohibited his experiments. It was Hirschfeld who coined the term, transvestite in 1910. He founded the clinic in 1919. Before his trials in hormone therapy and sex reassignment surgeries, he established the Scientific-Humanitarian Committee in 1897 with Max Spohr, Franz Josef von Bülow, and Eduard Oberg. Its primary aim was to fight for the abolition of Paragraph 175 of the German Imperial Penal Code, which criminalized sexual contact between men. Then as now, experiments in hormone therapy and sex reassignment surgeries carried risks, as Fara Naz Khan noted in 2016, In 1922, Hirschfeld performed castration on Dora Richter, one of the institute’s employees who later went on to complete her sex reassignment in 1931 with further surgeries at the institute. The institute’s most famous patient was arguably Danish painter Lili Elbe (born Einar Wegener) whose life story has been fictionalized in the popular film The Danish Girl. Starting in 1930, Elbe had five surgeries performed as part of her male-to-female transition. Unfortunately, Elbe died from infection-related complications of her final surgery in 1931. (Scientific American)
Hirschfeld’s trials stopped when the Nazis rose to power in Germany, as Hirschfeld was Jewish. He lived out the last years of his life in exile. The Nazis destroyed his papers–those in which he documented his research and experiments in hormone therapy and sex reassignment in the burning of “non-German” texts beginning in 1933. By 1936, it was Heinrich Himmler, the head of the SS and the Criminal Police (Kripo), who founded the Reich Central Office for the Combating of Homosexuality and Abortion (Reichszentrale zur Bekämpfung der Homosexualität und der Abtreibung). In doing so, he called male homosexuality a “public scourge.” Interestingly, men who cross-dressed and were caught having sex with men were convicted under Paragraph 175. They were prosecuted for sexual offences, not for cross-dressing or pretending that they were women. So the treatment of some cross-dressers or transvestites by the Nazis was peripheral in relation to the stated aim of hunting down male homosexuals. The rate of convictions of homosexual men under Nazi rule increased significantly, as the following data show:
Additionally, two sections were added to Paragraph 175: Paragraph 175a and Paragraph 175b, which read:
coercing another man to have sex;
initiating sexual relations with a male subordinate or employee;
having sexual relations with a male minor (under the age of 21);
In 1934, there were 948 convictions for violating Paragraph 175. This number is comparable to conviction rates during the Weimar Republic, albeit on the high end.
In 1936, there were 5,320 convictions.
In 1938, the number of convictions increased to approximately 8,500. (Holocaust Encyclopedia)
Also, of the homosexual men convicted under Paragraph 175, most received prison sentences and were not sent to concentration camps. Those who were sent to the concentration camps were made to wear the pink triangle on their clothing. They suffered extreme abuse and had a low chance of survival. By contrast, lesbianism was never criminalized under German law. That does not mean that lesbians did not suffer under Nazi rule. There were lesbians who were sent to the concentration camps, but it was because of membership in the following categories: Jews, Roma, asocials, political prisoners, and professional criminals. (Holocaust Encyclopedia) They never wore the pink triangle. There is the Memorial to the Persecuted Homosexuals under National Socialism in Berlin. The memorial was designed by Michael Elmgreen and Ingar Dragset, a homosexual couple who live in Berlin. The memorial was dedicated in 2008. From the website Foundation Memorial to the Murdered Jews of Europe, “the memorial is intended to honour the homosexual victims of National Socialism and at the same time ‘set a constant sign against intolerance, hostility and exclusion towards gays and lesbians’”. That is a noble sentiment and good that the record of the persecution of gay men and lesbians under Nazi rule is preserved for posterity.
Unfortunately, in the present, there is a concerted effort underway to overlay a narrative that what happened to gays and lesbians under the Nazi regime was a part of “queer history.” “Queer,” meaning the 2SLGBTQIA+ community. Recently, I viewed a video produced by Amanda W. Timpson, a “queer public historian,” who runs the website Yesterqueers. I stumbled upon a video she produced about the Memorial to the Persecuted Homosexuals under National Socialism, where she called it a “queer” monument. No, gay men were the primary target of the Nazis, who persecuted them in line with existing German law. Lesbians were affected, too, but not directly targeted by the Nazis or in German law for being lesbians. Experiments in sex reassignment got underway before the rise of Nazism, and there was nothing in German law that prohibited it. As noted above, there were cross-dressing men who were prosecuted under German law for homosexual offences. They were singled out for being homosexuals, not cross-dressers. Absolutely, many people suffered at the hands of the Nazis, but this insipid effort to rewrite gay and lesbian history, diluting it with “queer” gender identity politics, is beyond the pale.
The Cambridge Dictionary defines masculinity as “the characteristics that are traditionally thought to be typical of or suitable for men.” (Cambridge Dictionary) The Collins Dictionary elaborates on the definition of masculinity, stating, “There are many positive qualities that have historically been defined as either masculine (leadership, strength, courage) or feminine (nurturing, compassion, caring). In reality, people are individuals with a unique combination of attributes.” (Collins Dictionary) Fair enough, it is possible for men and women to have both masculine and feminine qualities, or you can be a masculine woman or a feminine man. Either way, it is fine. Personally, I think people who know me would say I blend masculine and feminine qualities. Although the Canadian Army did not think I had the qualities of leadership they wanted, in civilian life, I have exercised leadership, strength, and courage numerous times in emergencies. I have given emergency first aid to strangers at car accident scenes, to a man who suffered a grand mal seizure, and put out a fire that broke out in my house—a candle ignited a curtain that a stray gust of wind blew into the flame. By the time I retrieved the fire extinguisher, the flames had consumed the curtains in the front window of the house and were spreading across the ceiling. By the time the fire department arrived, the fire was out. The firefighters told me I had done a good job putting out the fire, and the insurance company was happy with me, because, as a friend said, “You saved them a piss pot full of money.” Interestingly, it was my military service where I learned to keep my cool in a crisis, to exercise leadership, to give emergency first aid, and to fight fires. In those situations, when I took the lead, those around me followed, and the crisis was brought to a successful conclusion. People who know me also tell me I have the gift of wisdom. They tell me I always know what to say when they are stressed or hurting. I offer more than banalities and platitudes in a difficult situation. They refer to this as an innate gentleness I possess. Yes, it puzzles them that I am a keen hunter. How can someone so gentle make the choice to go hunting and kill game birds and animals?
I am reminded of the “unique combination of attributes” from a documentary on hunting I watched many years ago. The film is called “In the Blood.” The film, made in 1989 by George Butler, documents the safari that descendants of Theodore Roosevelt retraced—the one he took with his son Kermit in 1909. The film provides insight into hunting in general and African big-game hunting in particular. The safari was led by a professional hunter, Robin Hurt, a man’s man and dedicated conservationist. In one segment, Butler’s thirteen-year-old son is taken on a hunt for a cape buffalo. Robin Hurt guided the boy on the hunt across the savanna and wetlands as they closed in on a herd of cape buffalo. When a buffalo was selected, the boy placed two shots into the animal, killing it cleanly. As he walked up to the carcass, tears welled up in his eyes, and he tried to fight them back. Robin Hurt, the great white hunter, seeing this, told the boy, “Don’t hold back. Let them flow; it’s a natural reaction.” Yes, I know how the boy felt. When you make the choice to kill a game animal or bird, the natural reaction is a feeling of triumph and sorrow. Hurt understood that and told the boy there was nothing shameful or unmanly in his reaction.
I am a keen hunter, but I am an actor, too. I have performed roles on stage and screen. Acting requires the ability to connect with your emotions and express them genuinely. It is challenging for me as I am not overly emotional. I do not frighten easily, and have the restraint to keep stupid people from baiting me. I tend to be stoic in my expression of grief, though there are notable exceptions. My maternal grandmother died two weeks after my thirtieth birthday. I had a close relationship with her. My family was surprised at how composed I was. I wrote and delivered the eulogy at her funeral. It was not until two years passed that I finally shed a few tears for her in the cathedral in Lyon, France. On the other hand, when I held my first dog, Christie, as she was euthanized, I cried harder than ever before in my life. For years, following Christie’s death, on the anniversary of her passing, I could not hold back my tears. I loved my grandmother and my dog, Christie, dearly, and I can not explain how I remained so calm and reserved when my grandmother died, and how I went to pieces when I lost Christie. I think my friends are correct. I am a “unique combination of attributes.” As I go through life, I apply these attributes the best I can. I am a man, and I have nothing to be ashamed of about my blend of masculine and feminine qualities.
I remember submitting an essay for grading in a course on the sociology of religion I took at Queen’s University in 1983. When the essay was returned to me with the grade and the professor’s comments, he noted that I used the terms Catholic and Christian interchangeably. He pointed out that while Catholics are Christians, so are Protestants. By using the terms Catholic and Christian interchangeably, I blurred the distinction between the two and risked giving the reader the impression that Protestants were somehow not Christians. Naturally, I understand that there are several denominations and sects in Christendom that profess different beliefs concerning Christian doctrine. However, I took the professor’s point that a little clarity goes a long way. What prompted the memory of my essay and the comment is how I noticed that so many people use the terms gay and queer interchangeably. I see this in news articles and discussions on online forums. Occasionally, someone refers to me as queer or a member of the queer community. I politely correct them, telling them that I am gay, not queer, and no, I am not a member of the queer community. I ask that they respectfully not refer to me as a queer, as I do not like it. The term is a slur, a derogatory term used historically to describe a gay man. It is like calling a black man a coon or a Jewish man a Hebe. Yes, I know that there is a countercultural constituency that claimed to have “reclaimed” the term. They are free to call themselves what they want, but it is objectionable when they use the terms gay and queer interchangeably when referring to gay men. In short, a gay man is a male homosexual, a man who experiences same-sex romantic and sexual attraction. Gay men are represented in all races and ethnicities. They are individuals, and the only thing they have in common is their sex and orientation.
Sadly, countercultural thinking in gay rights activism emerged in 1990 with the introduction of Queer theory; this is an ideological position, as Renee Janiak notes, the Queer theory holds:
To be queer means, “fighting about social injustice issues all the time, due to the structure of sexual order that is still deeply embedded in society” (Warner: 1993). Queer people are not assigned into a specific group or category, which would be comparable with any other type of grouping such as “class” or “race” (Warner: 1993). Queer people have made a change with how they identify themselves, they went from “gay” to “queer”. The self- identification change is due to that fact that “queer” represents the struggle of not wanting to fit into the systems of being “normal”. Queer theory has allowed for new political gender identities (Butler: 1990). (Queer Theory)
By 2016, Noah Michaelson, editorial director of HuffPost Gay Voices, rebranded the blog as HuffPost Queer Voices. In doing so, he claimed, “We, like many others before us, have chosen to reclaim ‘queer’ and to rename the section HuffPost Queer Voices because we believe that word is the most inclusive and empowering one available to us to speak to and about the community — and because we are inspired by all of the profound possibilities it holds for self-discovery, self-realization and self-affirmation,” […]. “We also revere its emphasis on intersectionality, which aids in creating, building and sustaining community while striving to bring about the liberation of all marginalized people, queer or not.” (Advocate) He added, “For a lot of people, intersectionality is difficult,” […]. “I think that a lot of groups who are marginalized or disenfranchised have their sights set on trying to bring about liberation for that particular group. It’s only been recently that people understand that most oppressions are all tied together. We’re not going to really get very far if we’re just trying to work in our own lane. We actually have to be working with each other because at the end of the day we’re all trying to get the same thing, I hope. And that is liberation for all marginalized people and for all people.” (Advocate)
Queer or 2SLGBTQQIA+ replaced gay and lesbian, meaning gay and lesbian people not wanting to fit in “existing social institutions,” defined by the queer theory as “heteronormativity.” Queer activists strive to organize a community composed of “the more socially conscious” gays and lesbians “to provide leadership to the whole mass of social variants” in developing a parallel “queer culture.” Yes, they are free to promote this narrative and pursue their desired goal. That said, in reality, gay remains gay, a demographic, not a community, and increasingly, many gay men, myself included, have actively rejected that narrative. When I mention in passing that I am gay, I typically mention my husband, Mika, with whom I have been for twenty-seven years. We are a conventional gay couple who are not at odds with heterosexuality or “heteronormativity.” Others understand that we are gay, male homosexuals, in a loving and committed relationship. We are assuredly not queer; what does that even mean? What we think of the “marginalized and disenfranchised” has nothing to do with your sex, race, orientation, or anything else. When it comes to the queer community, we ask that they stay in their own lane and kindly stop using the terms gay and queer interchangeably in referring to gay men. Yes, a little clarity goes a long way.
Gay men have long been seen as a novelty, a standard deviation in the demographic where most of humanity is heterosexual. Attitudes toward male homosexuality varied throughout history. In Antiquity, for the Etruscans, Greeks, and Romans, it was a part of life. They understood that people were sexual, so same-sex liaisons were common and depicted in their artwork. With the development of the Abrahamic faiths, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, male homosexuality was viewed in a critical light. Eventually, it was condemned in the Abrahamic faiths and in the wider society. Gay men lived and died through centuries where, at best, they were tolerated, sometimes, and at worst, persecuted and imprisoned. By the eighteenth century in England, the argument was advanced by the British philosopher, Jeremy Bentham, for the decriminalisation of homosexual behaviour between consenting adults in private, in his essay Offences Against Oneself. He wrote the essay around 1785, but it was published posthumously in 1931. Bentham thought homosexuality, as Jeffrey Weeks notes, “an ‘imaginary offence’ dependent on changing concepts of taste and morality.” (Wolfenden and beyond: the remaking of homosexual history) Bentham thought through the issue and reasoned:
To what class of offences shall we refer these irregularities of the venereal appetite which are stiled [sic] unnatural? When hidden from the public eye there could be no colour for placing them any where else: could they find a place any where it would be here. I have been tormenting myself for years to find if possible a sufficient ground for treating them with the severity with which they are treated at this time of day by all European nations: but upon the principle utility I can find none. (Offences Against Oneself)
However, in England and Wales, the passage of the Criminal Law Amendment Act 1885 (48 & 49 Vict. c.69) included Section 11, in particular the clause known as the Labouchere Amendment, which applied to male homosexuality. In short, the clause provided for a term of imprisonment “not exceeding two years”, with or without hard labour, for any man found guilty of “gross indecency” with another male, whether “in public or in private”. The Labouchere Amendment was enforced sparingly and selectively. However, the consequences of arrest and conviction could be devastating. John Gielgud very nearly saw his career as an actor come to an abrupt end in 1953 when a scandal arose over his arrest for ‘persistently importuning male persons for immoral purposes’ (he was caught trying to pick up a man in a public washroom). He was fined £10, and news of the arrest reached the press, causing him a most personal humiliation and the refusal of a visa to travel to the United States with his company to perform Shakespeare’s The Tempest. Gielgud was fortunate that the theatre-going public forgave his momentary indiscretion, and he continued his acting career both in the United Kingdom and the United States. Also, in 1953, the Home Secretary, David Maxwell Fyffe, referred to male homosexuality as a “plague over England,” and vowed to wipe it out. The Labouchere Amendment was repealed in English law in 1967—interestingly, a backbench Conservative Member of Parliament, Margaret Thatcher, broke ranks with the party to vote for its repeal. Since the decriminalisation of male homosexuality in England and Wales in 1967, many countries followed. It was decriminalised in Canada in 1969.
Now, in the twenty-first century, male homosexuality is seen by most as inconsequential. It is a natural expression of human sexuality. True, gay men remain a minority, but are free to take their place in society and live openly. Gay men marry and have families. They are represented in all occupations, and take part in a plurality of pastimes like anyone else. Unfortunately, for some, gay men remain a novelty. The series, Heated Rivalry, released by Crave, a Canadian streaming service, has become a worldwide hit with viewers. The series is based on novels by Rachel Reid, a Canadian author. I do not begrudge her success or the television series’s success, but what concerns me is that the story is pure fantasy. Yes, it is good writing and acting, absolutely, only it made me think of a quotation by Maria Von Trapp. When she saw the first production of The Sound of Music, she said, “That’s a nice story, but it’s not my story.” The story of two professional hockey players, one bisexual and the other gay, came from the imagination of a heterosexual woman. I am not saying there is anything wrong with that. Hardly, she is free to write stories about any characters she chooses. Though they say, “Art imitates life,” sometimes, particularly in romance novels, the lives of the characters are idealised beyond belief. The reality is that there is nothing novel about gay men living in the twenty-first century in most Western jurisdictions. There is no need to fashion romantic fantasies about how you imagine gay men live, how they feel, and what they think. The truth is, we are like everybody else, despite being a minority. There are plenty of openly gay professional athletes, including Jason Collins (an NBA player), Robbie Rogers (an NFL player), Tom Daley (a diver for the British Olympic team), Gus Kenworthy (a skier for the U.S. Olympic team), and Carl Nassib (an NFL player). I do not know much about the personal lives of these men, except for Tom Daley, whose private life is on the public record. Daley is married to his husband, Dustin Lance Black, and has two sons. They lead a conventional life like any other married couple. So, why are people so agog over a fantasy television series that treats the ordinary lives of gay men as something new and unusual?
A gay Marine greets his husband upon his return from a deployment.
The Netflix series “Boots” is not “woke garbage,” as the United States Department of Defence alleged. No, while it is fiction, it is good storytelling. I admit, when I saw the trailer and the still images, a part of me rolled my eyes. I suspected it might be a cheesy rom-com featuring queeny ephebes prancing through the United States Marine Corps boot camp. On the contrary, the protagonist, Cameron Cope, is a gay seventeen-year-old high school graduate who chose military service, specifically the Marines, because his good friend had enlisted, and he wanted a change. The story is set in 1990, when male homosexuality was grounds for refusal in enlistment and grounds for discharge. He was reminded of that upon arrival at Parris Island, where a sign at the entrance for induction listed reasons for disqualification that included homosexuality. He kept his homosexuality to himself, though those around him suspected that he was gay.
The U.S. Department of Defense was clear when it issued the following regulation to clarify its stand in 1981:
(DOD Directive 1332.14 (Enlisted Administrative Separations), January 1981)
Homosexuality is incompatible with military service. The presence in the military environment of persons who engage in homosexual conduct or who, by their statements, demonstrate a propensity to engage in homosexual conduct, seriously impairs the accomplishment of the military mission. The presence of such members adversely affects the ability of the armed forces to maintain discipline, good order, and morale; to foster mutual trust and confidence among service members; to ensure the integrity of the system of rank and command; to facilitate assignment and worldwide deployment of service members who frequently must live and work in close conditions affording minimal privacy; to recruit and retain members of the armed forces; to maintain the public acceptability of military service; and to prevent breaches of security.
Under this regulation, persons having homosexual proclivities were deemed unfit for military service and either refused induction into military service or quietly mustered out with either a general, undesirable or dishonorable discharge if found out after having been inducted. The consequences of the three types of discharge varied in degree of severity. Still, in each, the individual was ineligible for veterans’ benefits and could face discrimination in employment in civilian life. That was the reality in 1990. The Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy in the United States Military was not enacted until 1993. So, serving in the U.S. Military in 1990 as a gay man meant you had to conceal the truth about yourself on pain of serious consequences.
As the story unfolded, it was revealed that one of the drill instructors, Staff Sergeant Sullivan, a seasoned Marine with a distinguished service record and a recipient of the Silver Star, was a gay man. Despite his impeccable record, he came under investigation when a man, a Major in the Marine Corps, with whom he had a romance, was outed and dismissed from the service. Despite the support of his commanding officer and enlisted colleagues, he chose to nearly beat a man to death in a bar fight, knowing it would result in a dishonorable discharge from the service. In his estimation, a conviction of aggravated assault of a civilian was preferable to being outed and dismissed in disgrace as a homosexual. The tragedy in his case was that had he held on another three years, he could have continued his career in the Marines—the U.S. Department of Defense is correct in pointing out that in 2025, gay men are free to serve openly. The Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell policy and the general ban on gays serving in the military were lifted in 2011. “Boots,” however, is set in 1990, when gay men did not have the option of serving with discretion, let alone openly. So, no, “Boots” is not “woke garbage,” it is well-written and superbly acted by the stellar cast. I highly recommend watching the series.
I was a gunner in the 30th Field Artillery Regiment in 1980.
Watching the Netflix series “Boots” resonated with me. It brought back memories of my military service as a Reservist in the Canadian Army. I joined the Canadian Army as a recruit in the 30th Field Artillery Regiment in Ottawa, Ontario, late in 1978, at seventeen–a few weeks before my eighteenth birthday. Unlike the characters in “Boots,” I was not a professional soldier, and neither did I experience boot camp. I served on weeknights and weekends, and with the Regular Force during the summer months. I had the opportunity to serve with the Regular Force on the UN Peacekeeping deployments or with the Regular Force in Europe for extended periods, but chose not to. I was a closeted gay youth serving in the Canadian Army when male homosexuality was grounds for dismissal from the service. I overheard once an NCO mention the dismissal of a man from the service because he was caught “butt fucking” another man. Like the protagonist in “Boots,” Cameron Cope, I chose military service because I wanted a change and hoped to form a more positive view of myself. My father was ex-military and hated the Army. He tried to talk me out of it. Interestingly, my high school music teacher, a veteran, also told me I was not suited for military service.
Those of us across the world who are working to end the involuntary genital cutting of boys are at an impasse. We have demonstrated beyond any doubt that intact genitals are as nature intended and debunked the claims that the male prepuce was a vestigial piece of skin that served no purpose. Despite that, cowardly politicians insist their hands are tied because they cannot breach the rights to religious liberty and parental autonomy over their children’s bodies. At least not when boys are at issue. They had no trouble enacting prohibitions on all forms of genital alteration on girls, no matter how minimal, despite the religious sensibilities and autonomy of parents to raise their daughters how they saw fit. Western nations lead an international effort through the United Nations to end female genital mutilation. When Iceland, a European country with a population of 340,000 people, moved to update its legislation in 2018, prohibiting involuntary genital cutting of girls to include boys, the United States intervened. The US House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee, in a letter sent to the Embassy of Iceland, Congressmen Ed Royce, the Republican chairman of the committee, and Eliot Engel, its top Democrat, wrote: “While Jewish and Muslim populations in Iceland may be small, your country’s ban could be exploited by those who stoke xenophobia [read anti-Muslim prejudice] and anti-Semitism in countries with more diverse populations.[…] As a partner nation, we urge your government to stop this intolerant bill from advancing any further.” (Times of Israel.) The Amendment to the legislation did not pass.
The thing to remember, also, is that in Iceland and the rest of Europe, the majority of the population does not cut the genitals of boys and girls involuntarily–which might make people think that a ban is moot. Still, one wonders why the ban on cutting girls is not viewed as something that “could be exploited by those who stoke xenophobia” [read anti-Muslim attitudes] in countries with more diverse populations.” Somehow, that only applies if you make the ban on involuntary genital cutting universal by including boys, and that is irrational. Despite these hurdles, the effort to protect boys continues — no one said it was easy. There is an interesting development in the recent controversy over “gender-affirming care” for minors. The issues of religious liberty and parental autonomy are back at the fore in the dispute over the ethics and legality of subjecting children to surgeries and drug therapies that result in the chemical and surgical castration of children whose parents believe they were of the opposite sex into which they were born. The Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a Tennessee law that prohibits gender-affirming care for minors is constitutional. The challenge to the law was based on the 14th Amendment, with arguments that the ban was discriminatory based on sex and violated the laws and the rights of parents to make medical decisions for their children, following their beliefs. The court did not consider the latter arguments in reaching its decision.
Given this development, one wonders how scurvy politicians will justify the involuntary genital cutting of boys based on the superstitions and wants of their parents. Why is it not tolerable to alter a girl’s private parts or allow parents to authorize sex changes on their children regardless of their beliefs, but it is bearable to allow radical and irreversible alterations to a boy’s genitals for no other reason than someone else wants it? Why is the notion that boys have rights, particularly to the integrity and security of their person, so contentious? I am cautiously optimistic that the Supreme Court ruling that upheld a ban on gender-affirming care for minors will cause renewed attention to the ethical and legal issues of the involuntary genital cutting of boys. I hope that the Icelandic parliament will reintroduce its legislation to protect boys and girls alike from involuntary genital cutting and that other Western jurisdictions will follow suit. This invidious state of affairs has gone on too long.
I learned what male genital cutting was in high school in health class. The teacher handed out mimeographed copies of pages from a textbook that had crude illustrations. He did this by mistake and hurriedly told us to ignore them, but the cat was out of the bag. Once I knew what it was, I began to think about it. I finally understood why other boys I knew over the years, particularly when I lived in England in the late 1960s with my family, looked different. A couple of years later, while one of my aunts visited, a news story came on the television about male genital cutting. She spoke up about how it could not be done to her firstborn son at birth because of complications following his birth, and that they never saw the need for it later. She had a second son years later, and he was left intact. I remember how pained my father looked when she related that to us. My mother was absent from the conversation, leaving the impression that she was behind it for my brother and me. As I grew older, I came to deeply resent what was done to me.
Hannah Arendt developed the concept of the banality of evil: “Evil comes from a failure to think. It defies thought for as soon as thought tries to engage itself with evil and examine the premises and principles from which it originates, it is frustrated because it finds nothing there. That is the banality of evil.” I am reminded of this when I note the dismay of Intactivists when Facebook posts pop up where a newborn boy is subject to involuntary genital cutting for any reason or no reason. I also note the angry reactions of the parents who do not care for the criticism or condemnation for doing this to their newborn sons. Yes, there is no shortage of people who see nothing wrong with it and will tell you to mind your own business. That and they retort, “Don’t choose it for your son if that’s how you feel!” I watch with interest as Eric Clopper, Attorney at Law and Founder & President of Intact Global, mounts a constitutional challenge in Oregon for the protection of boys from involuntary genital cutting. I stand with him and hope for the best as he and his team of lawyers proceed with the challenge. The challenge is based on the constitutional guarantee of legal equal protection. As the involuntary genital cutting of girls is prohibited in US law (in several states, not federally), the reasoning is that boys deserve equal protection. Though I am neither a lawyer nor a legal scholar, as a well-informed layman, I expect the challenge will be an uphill battle.
Geoffrey & Mika 