The clinic where federal prosecutors say up to 100 girls had female genital cutting performed on them is still open at a new location under a nearly identical name. It is run by the same doctor, has the same phone number, and is currently accepting new patients.

In April 2017, Burhani Medical Clinic in Livonia, Michigan was raided by the FBI as a part of the first federal prosecution of female genital mutilation in United States history.1 Federal prosecutors alleged that Dr. Jumana Nagarwala had performed FGM on young girls at the clinic after hours, with the clinic’s owner, Dr. Fakhruddin Attar, allowing her to use the facility and his wife, Farida Attar, assisting during procedures.2 Prosecutors estimated that as many as 100 girls may have been cut at the clinic over a 12-year period.3

As we previously reported, both Dr. Nagarwala and Dr. Attar still hold active, unrestricted Michigan medical licenses with no public record of discipline.45 In addition to allowing both doctors to continue practicing medicine, the state of Michigan has allowed the clinic itself to reopen at a new location under a nearly identical name, where it is currently accepting new patients.6

Dr. Attar now operates a medical practice called Burhani Medical Center at 32910 W 13 Mile Road in Farmington Hills, Michigan.7 The practice uses the same phone number as the former Livonia clinic, (734) 427-9200, and is listed across major healthcare directories including Healthgrades,8 WebMD,9 and the U.S. News doctor database.10 Dr. Attar’s website, doctorattar.com, promotes the Burhani Medical Center as a family medicine practice and states that it is accepting new patients.11

The Burhani Medical Center website lists Sports Physicals among its services and promotes care for patients of “every age group.”12 The practice displays logos indicating it accepts Medicare, Medicaid, and major commercial insurers including Blue Cross Blue Shield, Aetna, and United Healthcare.13 This means a physician federally charged with facilitating genital cutting on minor girls is actively marketing pediatric services and receiving reimbursement from taxpayer-funded insurance programs.

Public records show a link between the two practices. Michigan LARA corporate filings show that Attar, M.D., P.C., the professional corporation that operated under the assumed name “Burhani Medical Clinic” at the Livonia address, was dissolved in May 2021.14 This dissolution came shortly before the final remaining charges against the Attars were dismissed in September 2021.15

The original Burhani Medical Clinic in Livonia was not a licensed health facility under Michigan law. In Michigan, private physician offices are exempt from the state facility licensing that applies to hospitals, surgical centers, and nursing homes.16 This means there was no facility license to revoke, no facility-level inspection triggered by the federal charges, and no regulatory mechanism to prevent the same practice from reopening at a new address under a nearly identical name. The only regulatory oversight over the practice ran through the individual physicians’ medical licenses. As we have previously reported, both physicians’ medical licenses are active, unrestricted Michigan medical licenses with no public record of discipline.

When I called the clinic on February 5, 2026, a staff member answered the phone and confirmed the practice is open. Dr. Attar did not respond to multiple requests for comment.

Subscribe now

Share

This is an ongoing investigation. I’m seeking to raise funds to cover significan FOIA costs and continue this work. If you’d like to support this investigation, you can contribute here:
https://www.gofundme.com/f/expose-medical-board-for-licensing-an-fgm-doctor

The second doctor from America’s first FGM case, Dr. Fakhruddin Attar, still has an active unrestricted Michigan medical license (No. 4301067384).1

Dr. Fakhruddin Attar ran his clinic in Livonia, Michigan raided by FBI in April 2017 in what would become the first federal prosecution of female genital mutilation in United States history.2 According to federal prosecutors, Attar had been allowing Dr. Jumana Nagarwala to perform FGM on young girls for over a decade, with his wife Farida assisting in the examination room.3

As I reported in January, the doctor who performed FGM, Dr. Nagarwala, still holds an active Michigan medical license (No. 4301071795) with no record of discipline.45 The second doctor charged in America’s first FGM case, Dr. Fakhruddin Attar, also has an active unrestricted Michigan medical license (No. 4301067384) with no record of discipline.6

Although the federal case against both Dr. Attar and Dr. Nagarwala collapsed on legal technicalities, state medical boards could still remove both doctors’ medical licenses. Doctors can lose their licenses for inadequate recordkeeping, failing to complete continuing education hours, billing errors, breaches of patient confidentiality, and non-criminal behavior far less severe than performing FGM on minors. Instead, the Michigan medical board allowed both doctors to keep their medical licenses with no restrictions or discipline.

To understand what that means, consider what federal court documents say happened at Dr. Attar’s clinic:

Federal prosecutors allege that Dr. Fakhruddin Attar’s conspiracy ran from 2005 to 2017 and may have involved as many as 100 victims.78

The FBI’s investigation identified nine victims between the ages of 7 and 13 from Michigan, Minnesota, and Illinois.9 When the FBI interviewed those girls, one said she’d been told they were going to the doctor because “our tummies hurt.” She described being placed on an examining table with her knees near her chest and her legs spread apart. She said the doctor “pinched” her on the place where she “goes pee,” and she was given a pad to wear in her underwear. She was told not to talk about it.10

The second girl said she “got a shot” and that it hurt so badly she screamed. She drew an “X” on her picture of the examining room to show where there was blood on the table. She identified Farida Attar as one of the women who held her hands during the procedure. Her parents told her it was a secret. After it was over, she could barely walk. She said she felt pain all the way down to her ankle.1112

Court-ordered medical examinations confirmed the injuries. One girl’s labia minora had been “altered or removed” and her clitoral hood was “abnormal in appearance,” with scar tissue and healing lacerations.13 The other had an incision to her clitoral hood and a small tear to her labia minora.14 One Michigan girl in the broader case was given ground-up Valium mixed into liquid Tylenol during the procedure.15

When agents interviewed Attar on April 10, 2017, he acknowledged that Nagarwala treated girls ages 6 to 9 at his clinic, that she only came after hours on Fridays and Saturdays, that she performed the procedures for free with no paperwork, and that she did so five or six times per year. He described the visits as treatment for “problems with their genitals, including treatment of genital rashes.” He said his wife was present during the procedures “to comfort them and hold their hands.”1617

No party in the case disputed that procedures were performed on girls at Attar's clinic. Instead, the defense was able to prevail on legal technicalities by arguing that the 1996 federal FGM ban was unconstitutional.1819 Michigan passed its own state law banning FGM in 201720 and Congress passed the STOP FGM Act, a new federal ban, in 2020,21 but because the alleged procedures predated the new law, no state charges could be filed retroactively.

However, even though legal prosecution failed, the doctors could still lose their medical licenses. The state medical board could conduct its own separate hearings. Michigan's own Public Health Code empowers the Board of Medicine to discipline physicians for "negligence or failure to exercise due care."22 Undocumented procedures performed on minors’ genitals after hours, with no medical records, no informed consent, and no billing would appear to satisfy every threshold for professional discipline that exists. Yet today, Dr. Fakhruddin Attar’s Michigan medical license remains active, unrestricted, and carries no record of any disciplinary action.

Dr. Attar did not respond to multiple requests for comment. Despite acknowledging receipt of multiple requests for comment for previous stories, the Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs and the Michigan Bureau of Professional Licensing did not respond. Instead, the Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs is asking for $12,792.93 for public records that would explain their actions.23 To support this investigation, we have started a GoFundMe here.

Subscribe now

Share

This is an ongoing investigation. I’m seeking to raise funds to cover FOIA costs and continue this work. If you’d like to support this investigation, you can contribute here: Expose Medical Board for Licensing an FGM Doctor

The Michigan medical licensing board that licensed Dr. Jumana Nagarwala, a Detroit physician federally charged in 2017 with performing female genital mutilation on young girls, wants $12,792.93 for emails that would explain why they are continuing to license FGM-practicing doctors.

As I’ve previously reported, Dr. Nagarwala still holds an active Michigan medical license despite federal prosecution, and state records show Michigan never held administrative hearings on her license. The medical board closed its investigation without public explanation.

To find out why, I filed multiple Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests asking for internal emails about how Michigan handled the FGM investigation. These FOIA requests seek the internal communications that would reveal how that decision was made. The requests were made only for electronic records, after LARA claimed that searching records prior to 2020 would require “manual review of thousands of paper files.”

The Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs (LARA) responded by sending an invoice for $12,792.93 to retrieve the emails. LARA’s fee estimates break down to $2,508 for one request, $2,093 for another, and $8,190 for a third. The largest invoice claims it would take 405 combined hours of labor to search their emails for basic keywords like “FGM” and “female genital cutting.”

According to LARA’s written response to my questions, although they confirmed they could search every email box at once with enterprise-wide keyword searches, their preferred method is “contacting every staff member with the terms to search,” each employee “performing the searches and providing results,” and the liaison “following up with any staff who do not respond timely.” One invoice explicitly calculates: “153 employees × 12 keywords × 5 minutes.”

When I asked why they don’t just search all inboxes at once, the same LARA representative gave multiple contradictory answers. One email claimed enterprise-wide search would involve “a similarly priced fee estimate” but could “take much longer.” Another cited the “heightened cost” of enterprise-wide search as the reason for using manual methods instead. In other words, according to LARA, keyword search would cost the same but take longer, unless it takes the same amount of time but costs more.

When I asked whether their email records are maintained in an electronic system that supports keyword searching, LARA’s FOIA liaison responded: “Not sure what they mean by this. Is Outlook an ‘electronic system?’” The liaison also admitted they would have “no idea of the volume” of responsive records until each employee performed their individual searches—meaning the fee estimate isn’t based on any actual assessment of how many records exist.

Michigan’s Freedom of Information Act requires agencies to use “the most economical means available” when fulfilling requests. Having 153 employees individually search their own inboxes, compile results, and forward them to a coordinator, rather than running a single enterprise search, is the least economical way to approach the problem.

Entering “FGM” into a search bar is not a $12,792.93 task that requires 153 people and over 400 hours of labor. Instead, this appears to be willful incompetence to avoid accountability. These are public documents that the state must provide me by law. They can’t legally say no directly, so instead it appears they are making the process of providing the documents as convoluted and expensive as possible, which is also against the law, but harder to prove.

The difference between their handling of reasonable questions from the public and female genital cutting could not be more stark. The Michigan medical licensing board closed an investigation into FGM for free, without a single hearing. Now, they want $12,793 to explain their actions to the public. The board has also not responded to multiple requests for comment, which is free.

I’ve filed a formal appeal challenging these fees. LARA has 10 business days to respond. However, if this appeal does not prevail, the only way to discover the full story behind why Michigan is licensing FGM-practicing doctors would be either to pay the fee or file a lawsuit. Since both would require funding, I have started a GoFundMe to support this investigation. Please contribute here:

GoFundMe: Expose Medical Board for Licensing an FGM Doctor

This is an ongoing investigation. I’m seeking to raise funds to cover FOIA costs and continue this work. If you’d like to support this investigation, you can contribute here:
https://www.gofundme.com/f/expose-medical-board-for-licensing-an-fgm-doctor

Subscribe now

Share

Freedom of Information Act (FIOA) records show Michigan never held administrative hearings regarding Dr. Jumana Nagarwala, the Detroit physician federally charged in 2017 with performing female genital mutilation on young girls in what prosecutors called the first FGM case in U.S. history.

Records from the Michigan Office of Administrative Hearings and Rules (MOAHR) show zero proceedings related to Dr. Nagarwala despite her role in the landmark FGM case. Dr. Nagarwala still holds an active, unrestricted Michigan medical license (License No. 4301071795), valid through 2026.

MOAHR handles cases where physicians challenge disciplinary action. No records means that either Michigan never initiated proceedings against her or she did not contest action taken against her. Given that her license shows no restrictions, suspensions, or disciplinary notations, it is likely that the Michigan licensing board never took formal action against a doctor who performed female genital cutting on minors.

The FOIA records requested cover 2010 to present, including the 2017-2018 period when Dr. Nagarwala was under federal indictment and the federal FGM ban was still law. The federal law wasn't ruled unconstitutional until 2018. This means there is no evidence Michigan's licensing board took any disciplinary action against a physician facing federal charges for performing female genital cutting on minors, even while federal law prohibited the practice.

While federal law fell on constitutional grounds, state medical boards retain full authority to discipline physicians whose conduct violates medical standards. Medical boards routinely suspend or revoke licenses for issues far less severe than performing female genital cutting on minors. Their inaction raises questions as to whether or not the state medical board condones physicians practicing female genital cutting.

This sustained non-enforcement aligns with a 2010 American Academy of Pediatrics proposal to allow physicians to perform a “ritual nick” on girls’ genitals, similar to what Dr. Nagarwala practiced. They withdrew the policy only after public outcry. However, selective non-enforcement allows medical authorities to support female genital cutting, without explicit policy changes that would risk public backlash. Michigan’s inaction, even during a federal case, shows which strategy is more effective. Until now, no one noticed.

The Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs has not responded to multiple requests for comment.

Share

This is an ongoing investigation. I’ve filed additional FOIA requests to determine how widespread this issue may be. Subscribe to receive updates as records are released.

Subscribe now

In 2017, federal prosecutors charged Detroit emergency physician Dr. Jumana Nagarwala with performing female genital mutilation on young girls, some of whom had been driven across state lines from Minnesota to a Michigan clinic,1 in the first federal FGM prosecution in United States history.2 A year later, a federal judge threw out the core FGM charges, ruling that Congress had exceeded its power under the Commerce Clause when it first criminalized FGM in 1996.3

The case was such a failure that it ended the 1996 federal FGM ban.4 Not only did the doctor evade legal consequences, she still practices medicine today. Public records indicate Dr. Jumana Nagarwala still holds an active Michigan medical license (License No. 4301071795), valid through 2026, with no public record of discipline or suspension.5

Why does the doctor are the center of the landmark case that legalized female genital cutting in the United States still have her medical license?

There is no question that Dr. Jumana Nagarwala practiced female genital cutting. Rather than dispute the allegations, Dr. Nagarwala defense argued federal law was unconstitutional.6 Alan Dershowitz, the Harvard law professor who represented Jeffrey Epstein,7 consulted for the defense team and was prepared to argue that the Dawoodi Bohra community should be allowed to practice female genital cutting because the type they practice, what the World Health Organization classifies as Type I FGM,8 is merely a “symbolic pin prick” that is less harmful than male circumcision and part of their “religious freedom.”91011

Medical organization have already issued statements supporting legalizing female genital cutting. In 2010, the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP) issued a policy statement proposing that U.S. physicians be allowed to perform a “ritual nick” on girls’ genitals.12 The statement was withdrawn only after public backlash.13 The “ritual nick” described in that policy statement is similar to the kind practiced by the Dawoodi Bohra and Dr. Jumana Nagarwala.

For years, Intactivists and other against circumcision have warned that American medicine would attempt to normalize female genital cutting with the same methods they use to defend male genital cutting. The fact that Dr. Jumana Nagarwala still has her medical license suggests that medical organizations are integrating female genital cutting into the medical community and engaged in a soft-legalization of FGM through non-enforcement.

Despite acknowledging receipt of multiple requests for comment, The Michigan Department of Licensing and Regulatory Affairs and the Michigan Bureau of Professional Licensing did not respond.

Share

Subscribe now

I need your help: I’m seeking rare, hard-to-find intactivist materials—PDFs of books, articles, or resources that are print-only or not online—to build a specialized AI knowledge base for accurate academic citations.

Why I need this: AI can access all public online content, but offline or obscure items like full books, out-of-print pamphlets, or rare historical journals will add depth and accuracy not available in other AI models.

How to contribute: If you have a digital library (or know someone who does), share PDFs or scans. Hit reply to this email or use WeTranfer.com to send your files directly to the email you got this article from.

For authors and creators: If you contribute your original work, you have my word that I won’t share or distribute it publicly. It will only be for use in my AI training and knowledge base.

Deadline: I will begin building the knowledge base in one week. Reach out immediately if you have something.

Share

Subscribe now

For years, Jewish organizations and media outlets have targeted Intactivists with false claims of antisemitism. News documentaries and articles describe the movement as “alt right”1 and “a breeding ground for antisemitism, Islamophobia, misogyny, and misinformation.”2 These accusations were not presented by news organizations as opinion, but fact, and used to dismiss human rights and children’s activists.

Beyond being false, these claims share another problem: the activist who made those claims that the media elevated as their expert on antisemitism and Intactivism is involved in the Palestinian movement. That activist, Eliyahu Ungar-Sargon, directed a feature-length documentary on the Israel-Palestine issue, the same way I made a documentary about the issue of circumcision.3 After the October 7th attacks in Israel, he posted an article describing claims of antisemitism in the Palestinian movement as slander.4

The Palestinian movement has been described by many of the same Jewish and media organizations that have attacked the Inactivist movement as the primary source of rising antisemitism in the world. Yet, the individual elevated by the media as an authority on antisemitism and the Intactivist movement was demanding the Intactivist movement model themselves after the Palestinian movement and adopt “woke” social justice politics. The past ten years of attacks against Intactivism made the the Palestinian movement central to their accusations.

Media attacks on the Intactivist movement prioritized those who were most prominent: myself, Georganne Chapin, and Eric Clopper. Despite there being an activist with a comparable social media following, who self-identified with far-right labels and published a book on the Intactivist movement,5 media articles claiming to fight the “alt right” or “antisemitism” avoided mentioning him, instead focusing on the leadership of the movement. This pattern suggests that destroying the movement, not fighting “extremism,” was the real opposition goal.

When I filed a defamation lawsuit against those making accusations, instead of attempting to prove them as factual, the defendants claimed they were merely making “statements of opinion.” Though this legal strategy helped them avoid accountability, it carries implications for media organizations who have a professional and ethical standard to distinguish between opinion and news. Media organizations that presented attacks on the movement as fact were lying and engaged in political activism, not journalism.

Attacks on the movement crossed the line of public debate into harassment. Jewish activists working against the movement contacted people in my personal and professional life, attempted to turn them against me, and spent years trying to socially isolate me. Those contacted were told not alert me to their behind the scenes campaign or seek to hear my side of the story.

To this day, no Jewish person has ever directly asked me to change my views. Instead, Jewish people have run secret campaigns against me, contacted people in my personal and professional life, and written more hit pieces on me than I’ve written articles about the Jewish issues. Many involved in hate campaigns against myself and the Intactivist movement had my personal contact information and could have contacted me directly. That they felt the need to hide their actions shows they knew they were doing something wrong.

What is odd about these attacks is that if Jewish organizations had sat down with myself and other leaders of the movement to dialogue, although there might have some statements they considered “over the line” that we found legitimate, I would have been willing to avoid those statements if it allowed both sides to engage peacefully. Instead, they made diplomacy impossible.

When I attempted to address their demand that the movement become more like the social justice and Palestinian movement by writing Children’s Justice, their attacks escalated. Missing from their hit pieces was that the intellectual foundations of the book were what they were pressuring the movement to adopt. Children’s Justice took their ideas seriously and intellectually engaged with them. The book was an olive branch and an attempt to give them was they said they wanted. Their response suggests their demands were never sincere, but merely a tool to stop criticism of circumcision.

In police work, demanding someone take an action and then prosecuting them for it is known as entrapment. In their attempts to police the movement, Jewish organizations and their media allies employed a similar tactic. They applied political pressure for the movement to adopt social justice and Palestinian movement politics and then attacked those who gave them what they asked for. Their reaction made it clear that there was no safe choice but to fight back. I responded: This is what your ordered. Eat it.

When those who claim to fight antisemitism elevate and collaborate with same people they describe as responsible for a rise in antisemitism and a threat to the safety of Jewish people, while attacking those who engage in good-faith criticism of circumcision, it reveals their priorities. Some Palestinian groups might kill Jewish people, but in death, they are still Jewish. Ending circumcision, in their view, ends Jewish identity. Jewish identity is a higher value to them than Jewish people. Their actions show that they would rather have their people dead than intact.

Through their hypocrisy and bad-faith attacks, Jewish organizations have fostered the radicalization they claim to oppose. When I talk to younger activists now, they engage with more extreme ideas, because they’ve watched how I and others who acted in good-faith were treated and concluded that moderation and compliance carries a higher cost than open conflict. If any criticism of circumcision is treated as antisemitism, then there is no political reason for activists to avoid “crossing the line,” because the movement is already treated as if it has crossed it. Despite being moderate, movement has paid the price for “extremism.”

Opposition groups have removed any incentive for the movement to moderate its speech, behavior, or associations to avoid pejorative labels. I’m certain that they’ll attempt to frame the consequences of their actions as “proof” that the movement has “always” been some caricature they constructed. Instead, the behavior of myself and other activists going forward can only be understood if we acknowledge how opposition groups changed the cost for such actions and created a precedent that collaborating with extremist figures and movements is acceptable. If opposition groups treat their own lines as meaningless, then others are free to do the same.

Share

Subscribe now

From DeepNewz:

Elon Musk has made headlines by mocking the U.S. Agency for International Development's (USAID) circumcision policy, which has been funded by taxpayer dollars. Musk stated that USAID was offering free circumcisions globally while charging U.S. taxpayers high prices. He claimed he would compete for this business. Over the past decade, USAID has spent millions on circumcision programs abroad, particularly in Africa, under the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), which aims to combat HIV. Critics have highlighted that these programs reportedly reduce the likelihood of HIV transmission by nearly two-thirds. Musk's comments have sparked debate about the effectiveness and funding of such health interventions, with some defending the program as a cost-effective measure against HIV transmission, while others question the allocation of taxpayer funds for these services.

My response: Cut government waste, not children.

Prior to his name change, I publicly supported the decision to end these programs. Many of us were messaging him, saying that DOGE should defund circumcision. It looks like he got the message. Musk changed his name on X to “Harry Bōlz” to joke about ending those programs.

Now, I’ve written an open response to Elon Musk regarding the issue of circumcision, which you can view on his platform X here:

https://x.com/bdmarotta/status/1889751748564099452

I appreciate @elonmusk bringing attention to the issue of circumcision through Harry Bōlz, but one aspect of taxpayer-funded foreign circumcision programs lost amidst the jokes is the scale of fraud and harm.

The scam run was simple: Often, the person writing pro-circumcision policy also runs a company that manufactures circumcision devices, which they award a multi-million dollar contract at the taxpayers’ expense. Years later, after they’d taken taxpayer money, many of these programs were quietly shut down due to the staggering rates of harm inflicted on children.

The true cost of these programs was paid by unconsenting children. PEPFAR’s infant circumcision program had to be shut down due to its high botch rate. American-funded circumcisers were using the Mogen clamp, a circumcision device known to cause botches after the manufacturer was sued out of business after it removed the glans of a child. PEPFAR did not release data on what they considered a high enough botch rate to end the program. By now, they say they have done 35 million circumcisions and spent between 500 million and 1.5 billion American dollars.

These authors knew their devices would sexually harm children. In the case of the ShangRing, another device known to cause botches, PEPFAR wrote that the only way to find out if the device was safe was to test it on “sufficient volumes” of “immature genitalia.” In other words, medical trials on unconsenting children. Because these campaigns occur overseas, the perpetrators never face legal justice or medical malpractice lawsuits they would in America.

The fraud here isn’t merely monetary. These programs subjected millions of infants to botched surgeries, lifelong disfigurement, and loss of sexual function. This was a violation of basic human rights, inflicting irreversible harm on children who cannot consent. When a single infant is violated, it’s called sexual abuse. When millions are, we call it a public health initiative.

I am glad these programs are over. However, since the American government funded this, we have a moral obligation to repair the damage done. There are still millions of children who have lifelong sexual harm because of these programs, including botches that even those who led the programs acknowledge as harmful. There are still between 500 million and 1.5 billion taxpayer dollars in the pockets of those who harmed these children. We must pursue justice.

First, we must hold those responsible accountable. Every individual and organization that profited from these programs must face legal action and punitive damages intended to recover the taxpayer money wasted on these programs. This exploitation will end only if those who engaged in harm can no longer profit from it.

Second, we must heal those who have been harmed. At present, there is no way to restore the tissue and sexual function lost to circumcision. However, recent advances in regenerative medicine and limb regeneration make it possible to restore what was lost for the first time in human history. I have spoken with multiple researchers who have laid out a clear path to full foreskin regeneration using existing science.

One researcher I spoke with suggested it would take 100 million dollars to bring full limb regeneration to market. Given that at least five times that was spent harming children, if we recoup even a fifth of that money through legal damages, we have the funding to heal every person harmed by these programs. Instead of the taxpayers having to clean up another government mess, the perpetrators themselves would pay for the harm they caused.

That said, since Elon is a fan of Milton Friedman, let me propose a free-market solution: A preliminary survey showed that 9.1% of circumcised men would pay over $20,000 for full foreskin regeneration. Extrapolating from this, the potential U.S. market is $224 billion, with a trillion-dollar global market. If you reach even one percent of the US market, you would make 2 billion on a 100 million dollar investment or a 2000% return on investment. The first person to solve limb regeneration will make billions. Multiple teams have plans to get there. They just lack funding.

I want this issue solved. I want children to be safe. I want men to be healed. How we get there is up to you, whether through legal justice and public good or private profit and the next billion-dollar company. Both solutions lead to the same goal. No matter what solution you pick, we have a moral responsibility to act. The U.S. government funded this harm. Now, we must make it right.

Elon Musk has made decisions based on feedback he received on X. This is a unique opportunity to share this message and create once-in-a-lifetime change. Please share this message on X as much as possible.

Subscribe now

Share

The word “gaze” in social justice refers to a way of looking or perceiving that is influenced by socialization, culture, and power dynamics. For example, “the male gaze” refers to the way that men depict or perceive women as sexual objects for male gratification. In The Birth of the Clinic, Michel Foucault uses the phrase “the medical gaze” to refer to the way the medical system views people as individual body parts rather than a whole person. There are many other examples of this use of the word “gaze” in critical social justice, such as the “white gaze,” “colonial gaze,” “female gaze,” etc.

These uses of the word gaze often refer to the way a particular group is socialized into perceiving another group. For example, the “male gaze” does not just refer to the male perspective, but how that perspective specifically views women and the impact being perceived that way has on women. Even if a particular man does not view women through the “male gaze,” the concept still exists as a social construct and it is legitimate to refer to this gaze by the group socialized into, the perspective this gaze assumes, and the group whose power structure the gaze reinforces.

Often, the group best suited to understand a gaze is not the person gazing, but the object of their gaze. Many women intuitively understand the male gaze because they are viewed by it and regularly interact with it, while not perceiving the world from the perspective of that gaze. For many men, “the male gaze” is just their perspective. Since it is behind their eyes, it is not visible to them.

It takes an incredible amount of awareness for a person to separate their perspective of the world from how the world actually is. Even writing about the male gaze now, I notice the inclination to write “women are attractive” rather than “I find women attractive.” The first phrase removes me as the one making that judgment and presents attractiveness as an inherent quality of women. The second recognizes that judgment is a part of my perspective, that might not be shared by those who are not attracted to women. Though anyone can find women attractive, a woman reading the statement “women are attractive” would likely guess the writer was writing from a heterosexual male perspective.

Someone who is repeatedly perceived through a “gaze” will come to recognize it. A woman repeatedly objectified will recognize “the male gaze.” An Asian person repeatedly referred to as “exotic” will recognize “the Orientalist gaze” or “colonial gaze.” Some might not have the academic language to express these concepts, but they intuitively understand the experience and power dynamics these gazes refer to and their understanding is greater than those who gaze upon them.

Read more

In my earlier article, How Social Movements Die, I showed what factors lead to the death of a movement. I also showed how using those risk factors as a checklist, one could diagnose the dangers facing a movement and how applying their opposite could lead to a movement thriving.

Yet, the risk factors in How Social Movements Die: Repression and Demobilization of the Republic of New Africa by Christian Davenport could be used to destroy a movement instead of diagnosing and healing it. If someone wanted to deliberately destroy a movement, how would they do it?

Let’s look at the chart of risk factors again:

Read more

When attempting to persuade someone, it is wise to base your argument in shared values. If someone supports certain values, you argue that they should also support your cause according to those values. However, there is one exception to this rule: If the values are merely an excuse for the behavior you are asking them to change, no persuasion from the values will work.

Read more

Read more

Originally published on BrendonMarotta.com on September 28, 2020 here.

A reader asks:

If parents regret having their sons circumcised, and would like to address it earlier in their life or speak with them openly about it, what should they do? Are there any modalities you’ve seen people try?

Great question.

First, anything you do as a parent must be centered on the needs of the child.

If parents feel guilty about a decision they made, talking to their kids could become about fixing the parent’s guilt rather than meeting the needs of the child. If you as a parent have feelings about something you did or allowed to happen, make sure you take care of those feelings as an adult, rather than unloading them on your child. Children aren’t responsible for processing their parent’s feelings, and learning about this issue will likely bring up feelings of their own they might need to process. In other words, secure your own healing first before trying to fix someone else.

Second, allow your child to have whatever feelings come up.

This is essential if you want to maintain your relationship with your child. Think about how you would feel if your spouse or partner allowed something similar to happen to you. You might be furious, sad, or even want a divorce. Children feel all the same things when their parents wrong them, but they cannot leave the relationship because of their dependent status. When children aren’t allowed to have certain feelings in relationship with their parents they either bury those feelings in their unconscious to come out in future relationships or break their relationship with their parents around those parts of themselves. Either way, if you want a relationship with your children, you have to make it safe for them to have all their feelings, including feelings of anger or upset directed at you.

What would you do if you wronged your spouse in a similar way? If you wanted to keep that relationship, you’d have to allow them to be mad at you or upset for as long as they need to be. If you allow the people in your life to have their feelings even when those feelings are not convenient or comfortable for you, then your relationships will grow stronger, including with your children. If your children know it is safe to be mad at you, and you are the kind of person who admits when you are in the wrong, then they will feel safe sharing the other things in the relationship that bother them, or coming to you when they have a problem, rather than just cutting off the relationship when they have the freedom to do so.

Third, listen to them, and give them whatever support they need.

This is difficult and might require expansion and growth for both of you. Right now, we do not have a way to fully repair the damage of circumcision. We also have a larger culture that does not recognize the damage that comes from genital cutting or offers resources for men who are harmed by it. However, broadly speaking the principles and healing methods that apply around other healing methods apply here. Non-violent communication and peaceful parenting methods can be useful when talking to your kids. Healing methods that work on physical trauma, sexual abuse, or childhood trauma can all help with the feelings around circumcision.

However, I want to caution parents against pushing these on their children. When a parent offers therapy of any kind for their kids, it can make the child feel like there is something wrong with them and their parents are trying to fix them. There is a danger of making your kids feel broken when they do not see themselves that way. Often, the parents feel like they made a mistake, and are trying to fix themselves through their kids. This is using the child the fulfill the adult’s needs, rather than centering whatever healing takes place on the child’s needs.

Imagine how you would feel if your spouse wronged you, and then tried to push you into therapy when you were mad at them about it. Yes, you might need therapy after being wronged in your relationship, but you wouldn’t want them to try to “fix” you, when they were the one at fault. If you offer support, it has to come with the frame that they are okay, they have the right to feel whatever they are feeling, and it is up to them to decide what they need. You as a parent can offer resources, but you have to respect the child’s response, or else we’d be crossing their boundaries and telling them there is something wrong with them again.

This is why it’s crucial for parents to do their own healing work. If some part of you allowed this to happen, then we need to heal that and process the feelings of guilt and grief that came from that decision. If you think your kids need healing but you don’t, remember who it was that made the mistake. Doing your own healing work will allow you to know what works and frame healing as something people normally do, rather than something they have to do because there is something wrong with them. Kids learn by watching their parents. Asking a child “would you like to talk to someone like mom does?” is a very different frame than “do we need to find someone to fix you because we screwed up so bad?”

In my own life, I’ve found the Completion Process, NLP (Neuro-Linguistic Programming), somatic therapy, family constellations, and having a good listener to all be effective healing methods. If you ask any person who has done healing what works, you’ll get different answers, and almost all of them are valid for someone. However, any effective healing method will begin by validating the feelings of the person being healing, which is why it is so important to allow your kids to feel whatever they are feeling. If a healer invalidates your perspective or downplays this issue, they are not a healer and you should avoid them. Healing might reveal a new perspective, but it will meet you where you are at.

Keep in mind, your child might not feel they need anything. When I did my own healing work, I didn’t go looking for circumcision trauma. I had anger. I stayed with that anger until I found the source. So if your child doesn’t feel like talking about this issue, that’s okay. Support their healing where they decide to do it. That healing might lead to feelings around this issue, or it might not. It would be a mistake to treat this issue as a separate issue you can fix and be done with, rather than part of the relationship as a whole. Circumcision is based in thinking that you can “fix” one “separate” part of the body and it won’t impact the whole. Avoiding the same mistake will require shifting your thinking from trying to “fix” parts of your child to looking holistically at the whole relationship.

Hope that helps.

Subscribe now

Share

When I was working on my documentary American Circumcision, those triggered by the issue of circumcision would tell those speaking about it to “get over it.”

“Get over it” is actually good advice. If you have trauma, you should seek to get over it. However, these people were not suggesting that I do a process of healing and integration because they were concerned for my emotional well-being. They were saying “get over it” because they were uncomfortable and wanted me to stop expressing my views and feelings so they could more easily bury their feelings of unease.

My response to “get over it” has become: “No, I’m not doing to do that for you.” This framing often produces an uncomfortable laugh, especially when said calmly with a smile. It reveals that their request wasn’t for my benefit, but theirs. It shows that I have boundaries around my own emotions and won’t silence or change them for the benefit of others. It sometimes leads to a deeper conversation, because I’m also not attempting to silence or change their feelings of discomfort. For some, it acts as a pattern interruption, causing a confused mouth-open stare as they find themselves with no programming or social script. Confusion can be a hypnotic induction, so if immediately followed with calm new programming, change is possible.

“Get over it” can take more insidious and hidden forms. One I have seen emerge in the popular culture is the suggestion that others “should do therapy.” Like the phrase “get over it,” these calls for public figures or social groups to do therapy aren’t because the person suggesting it deeply loves them and want to see them thrive, but because their behavior makes them uncomfortable and afraid.

I’ve done therapy. I’ve done many different healing methods. I recommend many of them. However, if you are suggesting that someone else “needs” therapy because their behavior makes you uncomfortable, consider that your discomfort might be your problem, not theirs, and you are the one with healing work to do.

If I had seen “therapy” used in public discourse the way it is now, I would have actively avoided it. When therapy was presented to me years ago, it was framed as a option one could chose to better understand your own feelings. The vision of therapy presented in these calls for others to get therapy isn’t about understanding, but social control. Therapy is seen as a tool to modify behavior that threatens social systems. This discourse fits philosopher Michel Foucault’s critique of psychology, where he argues hat psychology is not about self-exploration, but policing social norms and enforcing discipline and punishment on unacceptable forms of behavior and thought.

It might be that the person you are suggesting “needs therapy” would benefit from healing work. My perspective is that the majority of the planet would benefit from healing work. However, the results of healing work will be different than you expect. Someone acting in a way that others dislike is likely doing so because of their beliefs and feelings. If they become more in touch with those feelings, they might become more aligned to the behavior you dislike, not less. In my case, the more I “got over” traumas, the more confidently I could speak about them. I became more out-spoken, not less. If others experienced the same, I doubt those saying they “need therapy” would be happy with this outcome.

The question to ask around any call for healing work is: who is this for? If someone believes they have a problem and seeks help for that problem, it is for them. If the “therapy” is for the benefit of others, it is social control. The reason many avoid therapy is that they accurately recognize that therapy is used as a tool of social control in public discourse and have a need for freedom. If you want healing work to appeal to them, it must be done in a way that respects their autonomy and self-determination, rather than impose the therapist or societies vision of who they should be.

If you are someone who has previously avoided healing work due to the popular discourse around therapy, consider that it could make you more of who you are rather than less. “Getting over it” might mean that you can now advocate for what is important to you without any emotional charge or residual pain. Healing work won’t make you someone else. It will remove the impediments to your authentic self so you can become more of who you are. If a particular form of advocacy or self-expression is a part of your truth, healing will strengthen it.

Subscribe now

Share

The biggest shift in my understanding of parenting since having kids is that now I understand that parenting decisions are often made under stress and time constraints.

When you aren’t a parent, parenting is something you can think about in your free time while relaxed. When you are a parent, parenting decisions often have to be made in the moment, while someone is upset, stressed, or sleep deprived.

Many non-parents takes on parenting are correct, but they miss the pressure parents are under. It is a bit like someone sitting on their couch watching a sports game and saying, “that athlete should have caught the ball.” Yes, but also try doing that after sprinting for forty-five minutes straight.

This explains why parents often become defensive when non-parents offer them advice, even when that advice is correct. Those parents feel the stress and pressure they are under is not seen by the person giving advice. They may also know they could do better, but feel shame or guilt for not being able to accomplish everything they wish they could.

If you’re not a parent, an apt comparison is the difference between what people say their “standards” are in a relationship vs. who they actually date. Someone who rants about how they “need” their partner to be high status, devoted, accomplished, etc. doesn’t always live up to their own words when they meet an attractive red flag. Many of the “standards” from which people give advice are more aspirational than practical.

This difference between what people know they should do and what they actually do is true in all domains. We all know we should eat healthy, yet people still reach for junk food when tired. We all know we should be kind to others, yet people often lash out when feeling upset. We all know we should be a good parent, yet sometimes behave reactively rather than proactively.

If you’re not a parent, you should still research parenting issues. I’m glad I learned as much as I did before becoming a parent, because it meant in those moments where there was urgency or stress, I already knew my values. Just be aware that no matter how much you research, there will be times where you are presented with a blind spot and must make the a decision without the benefit of long intellectual inquiry.

If we want parents to do better, the best way to accomplish that is by supporting them. Most criticism demoralizes more than it improves. Parents who want to do their best will be better able to make good choices when they feel relaxed and happy. This can be accomplished on the individual level through acts of kindness and service and on the societal level through changes in cultural norms and laws. Simply understanding that your new parent friends are going through a lot will ensure that whatever else you’d like to offer them is better received.

Share

Subscribe now

If you’re involved in the issue of circumcision, you’ve probably seen a gish gallop.

A gish gallop is when someone floods the debate with weak claims that take far longer to debunk than they do to make.

Here is what a gish gallop looks like on the issue of circumcision:

“Circumcision prevents [bad study], [false claim], and [claim even doctors don't believe]. It also [religious concept from a completely different discourse]. It's [platitude like "cleaner" or "healthier" with no explanation for what this means] and [cultural myth with zero studies]. Plus, [claim based on their personal subjective preferences]."

Debunking each of those claims would require a paragraph each.

In some cases, I've interviewed the author of the study they're citing after a 2-second Google search. While I could take them through that study, it would not change their mind, because they don't actually care, and would immediately move on to the next baseless claim.

In these cases, it's better to reframe. For example, if you reply: "Would those be reasons to circumcise women too?" they'll immediately start making intactivist arguments for you.

Depending on where you want to take the conversation, you can try different reframes. A reply like: "Wow, it sure seems like you've spent a lot of time thinking about reasons to touch babies' genitals" will likely be met with anger and fragility, since you’ve shifted the conversation to their underlying motivation for making those claims.

The purpose of a gish gallop is to flood the conservation with surface-level nonsense so the speaker doesn’t have to examine the issue. Gish gallops are often full of thought-terminating cliches. The points are being brought up to end discussion, not invite deeper exploration.

If you spend time debunking an individual claim in a gish gallop, the person will often ignore that one of their points has been disproven and immediately move on to the next. Rather than accept their frame, call out the tactic they are using and set your own frame.

Share

Subscribe now

Every movement I've seen or been a part of has been concerned with optics. Optics are how the group is perceived. While there are endless discussions in movements about optics, it is less common for any group to have open honest discussions about power. Yet power is the more important goal for a political movement.

No amount of optics alone will give a movement political power. Even if you look perfect, the dominant system won’t hand over power simply because of your pristine image. While activists obsess over their image, many in power look awful yet face no consequences.

When someone has bad optics but remains in power, their bad optics are a flex. They can look bad, while the rest have to watch how they behave. Their bad behavior serves as a status marker. The rules don’t apply to them. They’re above it all. You’re not.

If that optics aren’t necessary for power, why do movements care about them? Bad optics are often paired with disempowerment. When a dominant power wants to abuse an incumbent movement, they will justify their actions with the movement’s bad optics, digging through everything the movement has done to find out-of-context distortions to justify abuse. If no justification exists, bad optics are manufactured through hit pieces and lies.

Movements that suffer this abuse sometimes mistakenly believe that the abuse occurred because of their bad optics. In reality, their opposition wanted to harm them and then found justification for their abuse, not the other way around. Like a battered wife who thinks if she could always obey her husband he’d stop hitting her, optics-obsessed movements think that if they could always act perfect no one would ever write a hit piece on them or try to hurt them.

In other words, obsession with optics is a cope. Those who don’t have power always have to be on their best behavior. Those that have power can do whatever they want. The better situation for any movement would be if they could have bad optics without consequence. In that situation, whether or not a movement avoids “bad optics” actions would be due to personal preference rather than fear of external punishment.

If the goal of a movement is change, they should optimize for power rather than optics. Those goals often overlap, but if the two come into conflict, movements should choose the action that increases power even if it causes some people to claim it makes them “look bad.”

If someone claims a person or action makes a movement “look bad,” the question to ask is “to whom?” Whose approval does it lose? Do we care about their approval? What are the consequences of not having their approval? What power or support does it gain or lose? Analyze the optics of the situation through the lens of power rather than image.

There might still be situations where optics matter for a particular goal. In those situations, questions about power will lead the movement to become clear about whose approval they need and why, rather than having a generalized concern for “optics.”

This also prevents enemies from shutting down winning actions through claims about optics. There is a saying that “if you’re taking flack, you’re over the target.” The phrase suggests that the opposition will increase their attacks as you approach your goal. The more effective a leader is the more opposition will claim they “look bad.”

Those who do not want a movement to succeed will always claim that winning actions are bad optics. From their perspective, they are correct. It doesn’t look good when a movement gains power — for them. From the perspective of the movement itself, nothing looks better than winning.

Share

Subscribe now

In 2018, my documentary American Circumcision trended on Netflix. It was on the platform for 1.5 years. Netflix does not release viewership data, so I never knew exactly how many people saw it, but based on the amount I saw on social media and the fact Netflix had 139 million subscribers in 2018 I knew it was a lot.

Since 2018, Netflix has released more data for its trending films — data that an AI could use to estimate the likely viewership of a previous trending film. To get an estimate for how many saw the documentary, I asked ChatGPT “How many views would a film have needed to trend on Netflix in 2018?” It wrote:

In 2018, a film needed around 10-15 million views within its first week to trend on Netflix, based on viewership patterns and competition at the time.

When I followed up with the question: “If a documentary film trended in 2018 and was on the platform for 1.5 years, how many likely saw it?” it replied:

If a documentary trended in 2018 and was on Netflix for 1.5 years, it likely received 50-100 million views, considering its initial popularity and continued accessibility on the platform.

American Circumcision likely received 10-15 million views in the first week and 50-100 million during its run on Netflix.

Of course, this is just according to AI. Only Netflix has exact numbers.

P.S. You can watch the film for free when you subscribe here.

Subscribe now

Share

“The purpose of a system is what it does” is a phrase used to emphasize that the true purpose of any system is understood by observing its outcomes, not its stated intentions. This phrase cuts through the lies used to hide outcomes. If the purpose of a system is harmful, public understanding of this purpose would lead to opposition to the system. Intended or stated purpose acts as a mass psychological defense against seeing harmful outcomes as the true purpose of systems.

As an example, the stated intention of a company might be to produce food products, but if the system is designed to maximize profit and reduce costs more than health, the real purpose of the system might be to poison consumers with chemical additives. If we were to say “The purpose of the food industry is to poison consumers,” executives in those companies would object that they don’t intend to poison anyone, despite their actions regularly producing this outcome.

Outcomes can be produced whether or not anyone in the system consciously intends them. When those in a system say that they don’t intend to produce an outcome, they are being honest. However, their intention is irrelevant. When we describe the purpose of a system, we are not describing the intentions of anyone in that system, but the outcomes that system produces. An evil villain trying to poison America’s food supply would be less effective at harming the health of consumers than a harmful system in which no one has bad intentions, but in which everyone participates.

A system might have multiple outcomes. The stated purpose of schools is to teach students, yet compulsory schooling produces many other outcomes. It uses force to coerce students. It segregates them from society. It ensures children have somewhere to go so parents can earn capital during the day. Children are regularly abused physically, emotionally, and sexually in the school system. All of these could be described as the purpose of the school system more than “teaching.”

The stated purpose is the least accurate description of the system. If the stated purpose of the school system is “teaching,” but teaching is measured through standardized tests, then it is possible that no real learning is occurring. The purpose of the school system would be better described as generating test scores. If those test scores secure funding for the school which pays administrators six-figure salaries, then we could say that the purpose of the school system is to use child labor to produce funding for school administrators.

All of these descriptions produce significant fragility and defensiveness on the part of those who participate in these systems. If you were to tell a school employee that they were benefiting from child labor and participating in a system that harms children, they would react negatively. They might scream at you, laugh at you, or say you are making a bad “argument.” However, this framing is not an “argument.” It’s a description. The purpose of this framing is not to persuade anyone, but to better understand the system.

One of the mistakes some make when applying systems thinking is to attempt to convince those in the system of this framing. Even if you were to persuade those in the system of your perspective, the intentions of those in the system do not matter. A person who participates in the system will produce its outcome whether or not they believe that the system is good or bad. The only choice is whether or not to participate in the system in the first place. If one person quits, the system can replace them. The only way to create real change is to dismantle the system or produce a new one.

Systems understanding produces a new focus for change. If your goal is to change a system, persuading individuals might not be the path to success. One can achieve change faster through direct focus on the system itself, rather than individual participants. Systems already produce outcomes the majority of Americans oppose. If public opinion is irrelevant to systems that produce bad outcomes, why should it matter if the same method is used to produce good outcomes? The opinions of those in the system are irrelevant. They will go along with the system whether or not the outcomes are those they support. It’s what they’ve always done.

The reason I use the phrase systemic pedophilia to describe systems that harm children is that this phrase describes what the system does rather than its stated intention. Those who participate in this system do not intend to harm children. Many might even be pleasant people. However, the outcome of their actions and participation in this system is harm. Their intention is irrelevant because the purpose of a system is what it does — not what they “intend” to do.

Using the term “systemic pedophilia” removes the gaslighting of claimed intention. If someone knows a system produces a particular outcome and they choose to participate in that system, that is their purpose, whether or not it matches their stated intention. The fragility they respond to this truth with is a psychological defense to avoid accountability. Acknowledging the system would remove the story they have about themselves and their intentions.

Directly attacking someone’s psychological defenses triggers them and often causes them to become defensive. It is not a persuasion strategy, but persuading those in the system doesn’t matter, because their opinion doesn’t matter. What matters is the outcome of the system. I have spoken to teachers who acknowledge the school system causes harm, doctors who acknowledge the medical system causes harm, and police who acknowledge the criminal justice system causes harm. They still did their job. Staying in the system was comfortable.

Talking about how “the purpose of a system is what it does” makes those in the system uncomfortable. That’s the point. Only when the pain of participating in the system is greater than the pain of change will they behave differently. I continue my work even when challenged because I believe in it. Those in the system don’t believe in anything. They’re just doing a job. When participation in the system becomes uncomfortable, they will leave. If the purpose of a system is what it does, then only a change in outcomes matters.

Share

Subscribe now

Non-violent communication can be revealing when applied to political discussions. In non-violent communication, instead of violently thrusting labels upon another person — “You are a bad person!” — one describes their feelings without labeling the other — “When you do that, I feel hurt and upset.” This style of communication allows the other person to understand the impact of their actions without having to accept shaming labels. However, politics often involves placing labels on the other side — racist, sexist, antisemitic, and perhaps the most insidious of all: “controversial.”

Labeling a person or issue “controversial” removes the person speaking and makes their target the focus. “Controversial” — according to who? If we rewrite this claim in the language of non-violent communication, it would read: “When this subject comes up, I feel uncomfortable,” which tells a different story. A neutral observation absent the speaker’s feelings would read “Others have strong opinions on this subject.” However, the subject itself is not “controversial.” The person calling it that is “uncomfortable.” Likewise, most political accusations if voiced in non-violent communication would read “When you voice those opinions, I feel hurt, angry, threatened, etc.”

The reason political attackers do not use non-violent communication is because this language would reveal whether or not there is fragility behind their accusations. It might reveal that they are the ones creating controversy, not their intended targets. It might also reveal the violent intent behind their actions. In many cases, accurate non-violent communication would read “When you say that, I want to kill you.” When someone wants to enact violence on another, they won’t communicate non-violently. If politics is war by other means and every system of power rests on a system of language, then those who want to go to war must use violent language.

Underneath violent communication is often hurt. If someone doesn’t feel safe exploring the hurt and anger that arises in response to a subject, it’s easier for them to hurl judgment at what triggered them. Emotionally violent language allows hurt people to deflect their feelings at the expense of another. Hurt people hurt people and those who feel unsafe exploring a subject will try to make it unsafe for others to do the same. Violent language serves the function of making it unsafe for others to discuss a subject or associate with a person.

Creating safety first requires changing the language. If we want it to be safe to have certain discussions, we must name them correctly. When someone preemptively labels themselves or what they are about to discuss as “controversial,” they are engaged in a sort of self-harm. They are internalizing and repeating others’ judgments about them, instead of defining themselves by their own actions and feelings. No one is controversial. Other people are triggered. Let that be their problem and define yourself by the truth of who you are rather than other’s reactions.

Subscribe now

Share

Two-caveats:

Read more