As long as they disagree, a smear is reasonable?

Following on my entry on forced circumcisions in Kenya, I remember that I don’t read Wonkette any more for a reason. Wit requires intelligence. Instead, Wonkette’s writers have decided that mockery without thought makes for better copy. No thanks.

In the comments to that entry, this damning attack:

Let’s see what our homegrown anti-circumcision fanatics do with this item.

In a context where criminals are forcibly circumcising men and boys to leave a preferred ethnic tribal mark, those who oppose such violence are fanatics. Because we see rationally understand that there is no difference in outcome whether it’s imposed (without need) as an attack or it’s imposed without need as a well-intentioned gesture by parents, we’re fanatics. Because we believe in applying individual rights to every person that can’t be violated by a stranger or a relative, we’re fanatics. Because we believe each male (and female) should decide for himself (herself) what should or should not be done to his (her) genitals, even if it means he (she) ultimately chooses genital cutting, we’re fanatics.

In response to multiple comments in the same thread, there is not a focus on every female genital mutilation or rape that occurs every day because every one in the civilized world understands that they’re both obscenely wrong. Those of us who are fanatics simply refuse to accept the discriminatory lack of thought that views gender as a valid dividing line for determining if an act is a violation of the individual. Few people will argue that the rape of a male is acceptable, but a majority mistakenly pretend that it’s acceptable to cut the genitals of males, whether or not he needs or wants his genitals cut. Somehow, age and relationship are deemed criteria for applying basic human rights to the individual male.

I’m not the fanatic.