Why I Don’t Go With The Flow

Interestingly, you would think this blog would be a hub for parent’s choice advocates, parents who are upset about being bullied, and people looking for some information about intactivist claims.  Instead, it’s usually a hate read, or a way for certain intactivists (like Brother K, for example) to pretend to be victimized.  It’s a place to solidify outrage.  But why?  I’m not lying about anything.  The questions about Carol weren’t an attack, merely someone finally asking the questions a lot of people have quietly been asking each other (and by the way…a picture of a sandwich and a video of a male and female voice with the camera pointed at a Facebook page?? L.O.L) for awhile now. The bad behavior shown here is not photoshopped, or made up.  It’s just a light shined.  Yes it’s a one-sided story.  But a lot of the time, there really is no excuse for that bad behavior.  And it shouldn’t be excused.

This is a legitimate advocacy.  I want to see it succeed.  I know some people will say that I’m some sneaky snake or an intactocop (a word used to prevent self-correcting).  That’s because I’m not going with the flow, I’m not sitting down and shutting up, and I refuse to.  Anti-circumcision advocacy should be better than this.  Those voices shouldn’t be the overwhelming voices, shouting down the more reasonable advocates.  Read nearly any mainstream media piece about intactivism (or the comments section in any story about circumcision) and intactivists look unhinged.  Why would I want to be a part of or excuse that kind of behavior?

When an advocacy has more in common with extremist anti-abortion advocates, including threats of violence, that’s an advocacy I’m not ashamed to speak out against.  And the thing is?  That kind of advocacy isn’t the majority of anti-circumcision voices.  If I’m not highlighting your behavior, I’m not talking about you.  If you’re getting offended on behalf of someone else because they’re ‘saving babies’, you need to really consider that.  Really think about it.  Sure, it does work sometimes.  But it certainly hasn’t done much to change the numbers significantly over the last decade, which is about the point the advocacy got really aggressive.  Keep in mind, the majority of your audience is simply reading silently.  It’s only a small portion of the people that are actually reading that will be interacting with you.  How do you think most people react to people raging at them, threatening them, calling them ‘cutters’, telling them their abusing their children, raping their children, that they themselves should be mutilated and raped, and ascribing essentially every negative action by a person to them being circumcised?  Yes there is room for aggressive advocacy, but there isn’t room for it to be shouting down more moderate, information-based advocacy.

We also know that fear-based approaches don’t work.  Over-emphasizing risks and minimizing benefits (to the point that many claim there are none) is a fear-based approach. It’s also not a truthful approach.  The best evaluation of the current science is that there are few benefits, fewer risks, and it is unnecessary.  That is hard to hear when you’re being told over and over and over that circumcision is the biggest atrocity perpetuated on helpless infants, that doctors are just out for your money and don’t care about their patients, and that there’s some big conspiracy to keep circumcising infants to steal their foreskin for face creams.

Finally, there is the all-too-common anti-Semitic attacks on Jews.  Claiming that because members of the AAP taskforce were Jewish that they are biased, for example.  Well, Jews don’t proselytize.  They don’t want Goyim circumcising.  That is their covenant with their G-d.  It is an important covenant that cannot be replaced with a made up ceremony.  And yes, some very ultra-orthodox Jews engage in a practice called metzizah b’peh.  This is oral suctioning of the blood from the infants penis.  Yes I find it abhorrent.  But presenting it as a common practice in Brit Milah is bullshit.  And that doesn’t even begin to address the claim of the ‘traditional Jewish circumcision’.  Most intactivists don’t know anything at all about Judaism, but they want to tell Jews how to be Jews.

Lastly, the constant comparison to FGC.  It is done to shock, because most people know the picture painted by anti-FGM advocates instead of those who study it.  They picture a 14 year old girl thrown down and having her genitals cut out and sewn up shut, leaving only a small hole for menses and urine, for her husband to cut open when he takes her virginity.  Then the intactivists yell about how that’s not the most common type.  But that’s the reason they use the comparison, because they want to transfer that same horror onto infant circumcision in the US, which really isn’t comparable and which really is less invansive.  But yes, there are methods of FGC that are less invasive, like in Malaysia.  Yes, that is true.  And yes, people are still horrified by even that, despite it being less invasive.  Because they are trained not to think critically when it comes to FGC.  Trying to take the horror from a procedure that is, in most ways, completely incomparable to male circumcision in the US, is disingenuous.

These are my biggest issues with the advocacy.  Not the basis of the advocacy.  The attitude.  The aggression.  The parroting of information (accurate or not).  The lack of self-correction.  The lack of critical thought.  The constant confirmation bias.  The Dunning-Kruger effect. The threats.  The echo-chamber.  The refusal to converse with people who don’t agree with their tactics.  The labeling and shunning of ‘other’.  The violent language.  The willingness to lie.  The bullying.  The harassment.  Not the fact that they are against infant circumcision.

Because I am against infant circumcision.  I want it to be widespread knowledge that infant circumcision isn’t necessary.  I want people to willingly choose not to do it, not have their hand forced because advocates are impatient.  I want advocates to leave Judaism and Brit Milah alone, no matter how much they don’t agree with it (AND NO, THERE IS NO RELIGIOUS REQUIREMENT TO CUT A GIRL).  I want solid science used.  I want advocates to know how to understand the science, and how to use it effectively, not to parrot what they see on Dr. Momma.  Not to post idiotic memes.  Not to regurgitate un-sourced claims.  Not to repeat lies pulled straight out of the ass of Dr. Fleiss.  Not to rely on the well-meaning-but-erroneous math of Dan Bollinger.  Not to bully well-meaning parents or cuss out well-meaning doctors.  Not to threaten people or use violent language.

I want to see anti-circumcision advocates to use critical thinking, including critical thinking of their information and their tactics.  Because I think what they are doing now is failing to accomplish anything.  That makes me angry and sad.  I want them to succeed.  But that isn’t going to happen through fear, and anger, and lies.  Please.  You are better than this.


Intactivist Interview 2

Here is part 2 of our really awesome interview series with members of the intactivist movement. For part 1, click here.

Q – As a male in the intactivist movement, what is your perception of the way the foreskin is talked about, or circumcised penises?
Um, There are some women, some men who will go on about how great the foreskin is, how it’s like a million times better to sleep with an intact man as compared to a circumcised men. There are a few people who will like, go on about how bad sleeping with a circumcised man is or like how dried out and horrible it is.

Q – How does it make you feel, or how do you think it would make some other circumcised men in the movement feel?
I could see how it could affect some of the men’s self-perception or self-esteem. I think some of them buy into that narrative. People who haven’t had a botched circumcision, that they can never really be sexually fulfilled, because they’re circumcised. Like, their sex life is never gonna be as much as it could have been, or it’s gonna be a shadow of what it could’ve been because they’re circumcised, so I could see how that could damage some men.

Q- Do you think they hyperfocus on the sexual aspect of circumcision, especially when talking about circumcising infants?
I think they like…over-exagerate the effects, all around. I think there is some concern, the infant will become a man someday, so it WILL affect him . I think a lot of them really believe that your sex life will be dramatically altered or even ruined if you are circumcised, I mean, they throw around like 90% of the feelings are gone if you’re circumcised, which is, um, a gross exaggeration.

Q – I see words like ‘research’ thrown around a lot, but don’t see a lot of actual scientific information used by intactivists. How scientifically literate do you find most of them to be?
A lot of intactivists are very scientifically ILliterate I would say. They’ll just parrot whatever statistics they see, and they don’t actually look to see if there is any backing to them. There are certain statistics I see parroted a million times over like the 20k nerve endings…I’ve seen 70k nerve endings (laughs) there’s not a lot of backing (note: there is none outside of a quote by Prof. Fleiss in a Mothering Magazine article, and that was 20k) to this, the 117 deaths a year, um, that study is clearly flawed, and it’s not scientific if one really reads the study and reads the critiques of it. I still see it repeated over and over. The autism study also comes to mind (laughs).

Q – What suggestions would you have to help intactivists become more scientifically literate?
Before reading a statistic or what you believe to be a fact, actually LOOK to see if you can find a credible source for these ‘stats’ before you spout them out. That’s the main thing I would say. Perhaps actually reading through a study before you take facts from it or cite it.

Q – How often do you think intactivists get information from a bad secondory source and take their interpreation of it as factual?
Many intactivists will just take any ‘fact’ that they hear, it doesn’t matter how biased the source is or how unrealiable the source is, and just run with it. For exampble, before I joined i2, the article stating 32% boys are being circumcised, and it’s clearly like, 2x that, and it was being repeated over and over again. I still see where people say ‘a majority of boys are left intact’, when it’s clearly not the case.

Q – You say any ‘fact’, but you really mean any fact that actually validates their anti-circumcision opinion. Do you think that weakens a legitimate advocacy?
Yeah, because our opponents will jump all over this, that all intactivists will only use very biased or unreliable sources. So all of us get lumped into anti-science people or people who are really just full of shit (laughs) I don’t really know how to put it better.

Q – What is one of your biggest criticisms of some of the ‘extremist’ intactivism?
One of the big things: from the inside, some things make sense. You have to put yourself in the shoes of someone on the outside of intactivism who knows nothing about circumcision, who think it’s just a snip or whatever…and they see these guys with bloody crotches and signs that say ‘circumcision anguish’ or whatever and they have no idea what they’re talking about and they just…look like a cult to someone from the outside.

Q – Is there any advice you would give to a new intactivist?
Um, I would say really make sure that the facts you use have a credible backing. Just because another intactivist says something, doesn’t mean it’s true at all. And don’t buy into the ‘intactocopping’ stuff, just because someone is an intactivist doesn’t give them free reign to do anything they want to. Don’t buy into when they say ‘every type of intactivism works’ some things DO hurt our cause.

Q – How often do you think intactivists lies about stuff, like being a man damaged from circumcision (like ‘David J Bernstein’) or comes up with fake personas (David J Bernstein, Hollie Redinger) in order to manipulate people?
A majority of intactivists I don’t think lie or knowingly lie. If they do use false statistics they don’t think they’re actually false. But there are quite a few, unfortunately, who condone what Bernstein and Redinger and the rest do when they make fake profiles and fake stories and the like. I wouldn’t trust any stories from anonymous people on the internet, for intactivism and just in general as well. I’d be very skeptical of these people, really.

Q – I’ve seen a lot of excuses made for people who make violent statements in the name of intactivism (Die baby fuckers, die, etc) or threaten murder or rape or say women should be circumcised. Do you think i2 should crack down on that sort of thing from within, since it is so damaging to the movement?
I think that sort of behavior certainly needs to be cracked down on. When people see that they’ll think all intactivists are complete nutjobs (laughs). I mean like, if people are gonna be angry or whatever that’s fine, but it’s really not acceptable to go on about how people should be killed and stuff for um, supporting circumcision or whatever. This is the problem of how some people go about intactivism. The antagonism towards other people. Calling people things such as “baby fuckers”. I see it in threads all the time, of other intactivists being antagonistic, leading to people getting defensive, and closing them off to our message. I understand the frustration of seeing the same things being repeated to us a million times, but pissing them off does nothing to help our cause.

Q – Do you think making excuses for that behavior is acceptable?
Uh, no. I think a lot of people they see circumcision as the worst thing ever, and they see anyone who could possibly be for, or even neutral on it, as supporting evil. And so that’s why they excuse demonizing people. It’s like ‘cutter’ or whatever. [A way to dehumanize them so they don’t feel bad about excusing that.]

Q – What about people who don’t even support circumcision, but are against the bullying behavior (like myself)? Do you think we deserve to be lumped in with people who actually fetishize circumcision, or called cutters or trolls?
No, I don’t. I understand why people call out the bad behavior. I myself have tried to call out people or at least question things a few times. And been called an intactocop for doing so (which is really an idiotic term). I believe that the people I am speaking of are a very small fraction of the people who vocally oppose circumcision. But they seem to get most of the attention, and their actions give the rest of us a bad name. There is also the problems of some intactivists belittling cut men in general, and insulting cut men that disagree with us. There are even a few which insult regret mothers. Nothing good can come of this. Now, I still strongly oppose the non-therapeutic circumcision of minors, and will continue to be vocal about it. But the idiocy and craziness has got to stop.
Stay tuned for more interviews!


An Open Letter to the Father of Chase

Hello Dennis.

I’m sure that in the past months, you’ve experienced a lot of emotional upheaval.  I’m sorry about that.  I’m sorry about that, because I recognize your humanity.  I know you experienced a recent court battle, and that making this choice is your legal right.  Parents make all kinds of decisions for their children day-to-day, controlling every aspect of their lives.  Of course, not circumcising him is still a valid choice that you could make.  But these things can sometimes become overwhelming.

I know that you have been harassed, threatened, called names and been pushed hard.  I know that because I write a blog detailing the abuses by intactivists.  I also know that many of them are doing this because it hurts their heart so badly that this is happening and they can’t stop it.  Recognize the humanity in them, please.  I realize you’ve been left no graceful way out, and so you may feel very pressured not to back down. But I do think a valid question to ask is “does your son need this surgery?”

I do think you genuinely believe that circumcision is the better choice.  But truly, Dennis, that point is four years past.  Or fourteen years in the future, if it were your son’s preference.  Consider the pain your child will go through.  Is that pain benefiting him at this point, when he has been problem-free for four years?  I know that you probably aren’t moving forward with any intent to hurt your son, but the fact that he will experience unnecessary pain is undeniable.

I want you to understand, Dennis, that if there was a medical necessity I would be firmly in your corner.  I want you to know that I am very against any of the vile things I’ve seen said about you, along with the doxxing, picketing and harassment.  I want you to know that I know that that makes you feel further pushed into making this decision.

But you don’t have to.  You really don’t.  Please consider that this may not really be the best thing for your son.  There is still a way to reconsider.  Because surely you are a good man, Dennis, one that is doing this without realizing what this surgery entails for a four year old.  I believe that.  But I think you’re making a poor decision. Your son has lived without being circumcised for four years now, without any issues- I believe that putting him through an unnecessary surgery, at this point, to be wrong.  I don’t say that to join a volley of voices that are raised against you and your decision.  I say that as somebody who cares, somebody who wants you to have a kind voice in your life telling you that no, you don’t have to do this.

Paper0Airplane


Intactivist Interview 1

This is the first of a multi-part series of interviews by intactivists.  I’m very excited to have gotten these interviews and I think they are excellent and thought-provoking.  Words from people who truly believe in the necessity of education against circumcision, but not in the inclusion of hatred in that message.

I got a chance to talk to a prominent intactivist by phone today, who has described some of her experiences with intactivism, the current implosion in certain corners, and what you can really do to make a difference.

Specifically, when it comes to the extremist intactivists, what is your experience with how much time they actually spend thinking about or discussing this topic?
A: Oh you can’t talk about anything else, everything comes back to circumcision, it’s all about circumcision, you have a group, people come out and they just, ugh, they basically can just find anything to assign to circumcision or foreskin/genital related. I would post about making bread and somebody would respond about the keratinization of the bread.
All i thought about was circumcision I thought about infiltrating groups, making sure we were protected from the trolls, it was crazy, it was completely, completely time sucking
How many disenfranchised people are you seeing over the latest drama?
A: I think there are a lot of disenfranchised people, the IM’s im getting over this stuff is people saying ‘oh it’s been getting really mean and i’ve walked away from it myself’ i think people are seeing the questions raised about the leadership and people are questioning their involvement and what it should be and I think people are just getting involved with their families again.
How effective do you think this type intactivism really is? Do you think that people tell the intactivists talking to them what they want to hear in order to get them to leave them alone?
A: All these intactivists talk about how many messages they get (about ‘saving babies’) and I never get them, it’s really weird.
I’m sure the smart ones pacify the intactivists and then go on and do their own thingsthe ones that speak up and try to reason with the intactivists, these are the ones that end up getting hunted down. The really really harsh tactics, do they work? Absolutely. But you’re alienating more people than you’re bringing in like that.
What methods are used to hunt them down?
A: They have groups where if someone sees a post about someone who is gonna have their son circumcised they post the thread and if comments are available they leave them or if not they PM the person. They have groups where if you want to ‘educate’ someone you can go to the groups and find people to go ‘save the baby’ but it really is just a way to scream and yell and bully. I mean if the parents do their research that is fine, if they got the information that is fine. There will be regret parents who didn’t have the information and screaming yelling and bullying isn’t going to bring them to our side any sooner, and if it does, it’s going to bring them a little broken.
We like regret moms, but they have to feel really bad. They have to keep reinforcing how bad and awful we found. If a regret mom says ‘my one son is very happy about the decision I made, and so is my other son I didn’t circumcised’ they’re ostracized, called a troll, people would look for pictures or question whether that person is genuine, whether its who they really thought it was all along, and before you know it, they’re kicked out.first of all you’re not allowed to say your circumcised son is ok. This is where they came up with these taglines ‘every circumcision is a botched circumcision’ they keep repeating these things to the mothers, you CAN’T say your son is fine.

There’s no dissent allowed in intactivism.

Intactivists frequently say they’re not organized or structured, how do you respond to that?
A: (Laughs) They definitely aren’t. They’re like a ragtag army, the most ridiculous group (laugh) there’s different chapters all over the place, the left hand doesnt know what right hand is doing, people go to events to antagonize people, not make friends. They just make everything into a war.

If you had to give advice to somebody questioning the methods or message of intactivism, what would you say?
A: First I’d tell them not to get involved, I’d tell them to do their own thing, I’d tell them not to get involved with this movement because it’s toxic. I would tell them (laughs) I’m so jaded right now. I would tell them just get enough involved so you get ahold of studies, get involved with people who don’t use the same extreme tactics. Get an understanding of the medical terminology and anatomy of the penis. You can’t advocate for something if you don’t know the facts. This whole movement is full of people who parrot things they don’t understand. They don’t know how to research. You have to have a core of studies that you use to talk about. Don’t get emotional about the topic, it IS emotional but you have to step back. Don’t let it consume you, because it will.

Having been involved for so long, what would you say has been the most effective way of “saving babies”?
A: Real legitimate science. Honest answers. If you are gonna tell someone ‘there IS a slight reduction in risk for a UTI’ then you look at the risks of circumcision and ask, is this really legitimate? You have to ask if the risks are really worth the benefit, even up to death? You have to decide between a course of antibiotics or a circumcision. If the person feels the risk of a UTI, for example is enough, then you have to say OK. I think people have to be a dispassionate source of information. You can’t make the decision for them. You don’t have to respect what they did but you do have to respect that it is their decision. You have to leave them room, not alienate them. Give them valuable resources. Reverse the belief that foreskin is deadly and circumcision is a panacea, circumcision will lose popularity. It won’t be such a cultural norm.
People say ‘if I had only known, I wouldn’t have done it’. You have to let people know, and if they do decide to do it we have to leave them alone. Don’t go after them.

Is there anything else you think is important to add?
A: Be careful who you follow.


I2 and the Hatred of Women

I, and other women who have been or still are involved in intactivism, have noticed a particularly disturbing trend within the movement: the hatred of women. Women have been blamed for the prominence of circumcision within the United States. Women have been told that they should have miscarriages, that their genitals should be mutilated and even that they should be raped. Discussions regarding female genital mutilation rarely go on without someone saying something along the lines of “male circumcision is worse! you women are hypocrites!” Mothers are harassed via private message and have their faces plastered on hateful pages such as Butthurt Bitches.

11015154_10155456085395314_806011787_n

11005568_10155456085555314_2109963485_n

10999173_10155456085780314_781984185_o

11004663_10155456085815314_261625752_n

 1

10013196_754861857965379_8804262144406275745_n

10801712_745627232222175_5646469338188297375_n

10885489_729507590500806_2306344724057224922_n

10888879_730166843768214_810705079881402739_n

10968031_10205282269632956_1506235889_n

11004128_10205282277953164_487383454_n

11016557_10205282259392700_230715663_n

11012263_10205282266632881_1424421_n

 

What is it about intactivism that draws the attention of so many men who harbor anger toward women?  After all, circumcision was invented by men. Why place the blame on women? Why be so angry and hateful toward mothers who are just trying to do the best thing they can for their children, based on the opinions of their medical practitioners?


Saving Babies – A Comparison of Intactivism and the Anti-Abortion Movement

Is there anything so righteous sounding as saving a baby?  I can’t think of anything right off the top of my head.  Specifically, throwing oneself in the fire in effort to save an innocent.

Truly that is the stated goal of both intactivism and the anti-abortion movement.  I’ve witnessed a lot of eye rolling at this comparison, but not really much in the way of any actual reason for why the comparison is not apt.  The closest thing was simply that a baby had to be born to be circumcised, but not aborted, and the person would not have a third trimester abortion herself, but she would support a woman making that choice.  As it turns out, so would I.  I know that women do not have third trimester abortions for no reason, and that things have to be desperate.  I know that the majority of women have an abortion early in the pregnancy, the vast majority in the first trimester.

But, that is sort of like saying circumcising a baby at 2 days old is better than circumcising a baby at one year, or a child of five years.  To many in the Intactivist movement, circumcising a child at all is a violation.  Just as to many in the anti-abortion movement, abortion at any point at all is a violation.  Even for rape or incest.

Think about that.  That is clearly an argument that is based entirely in emotion, throwing out facts and reason for their feelings.  That is fine, when it comes to them and their children, or their body.  But that is not fine when it comes to trying to make a choice for anyone else.  At that point the argument must be based on solid evidence, solid reasoning.  Solid evidence is not evidence that only validates your point of view in its entirety.  Solid evidence is evidence that is strong, and solid reasoning is following that strong evidence, even if it leads you to a conclusion that goes against your gut.

In what ways are the two activist movements comparable, specifically?  Intactivists claim that circumcision is child sexual abuse, that it results in the infant’s loss of virginity, that it is rape for profit, that it causes complications it doesn’t cause, and that, more than anything, it is a human rights violation.  Anti abortion advocates claim that abortion is murder, literally murder with intent, that it is the wholesale slaughter of innocents, that only sluts need abortions, that it causes complications it doesn’t cause, and that, more than anything, it is a human rights violation.

Now, maybe you agree with one or both positions, that you find that reasoning solid.  I certainly left out some of the more extreme tactics of each side, but my readers are aware of my thoughts on that anyway.  But why do you think that reasoning is solid?  The comparisons to sexual abuse and murder themselves are emotional ones, devoid of any respect to the actual definitions of those two crimes.  The claims of erroneous complications (such as being the reason for America having high viagra sales or the ED in America, and the claims that abortion causes breast cancer) certainly are not backed up by good science.  Trading claims between one group of physicians and another in op ed pieces isn’t evidence.   Dr. Momma isn’t evidence any more than any other prominent and biased Pro Life group or website.

Of course, writing this blog isn’t exactly an evaluation of different studies.  This is a piece written about why I find the two groups comparable, and my case for why I find it so.  The biggest thing that I find comparable between the two of them is the extreme appeals to emotion, the need to control and dictate what others do, and the lack of ability to distinguish good science from poor or good evidence from poor.   The last one of course being fine, if it weren’t for the need to control and dictate what others do.

What is the takeaway message of this?  Emotions are not evidence.  They have their place.  They exist, and there is no use denying it.  It is perfectly fine to make a decision for yourself based on that emotion.  It is not OK, in my opinion, to assert your emotional opinion as fact, or to make decisions for others based on emotion instead of evidence.  The fact exists that there are good reasons to question the prevalence of circumcision.  But none of those good reasons involve appeals to emotion.

Many would find being compared to extreme anti abortionists as extremely distasteful.  Why do you think that is?


UnMasqueing Carole Anne

Carole Anne Masque/ Carole Anne Babyak is very well known amongst the intactivist circle. She is supposedly the partner of Brother K (aka Kenneth David Hopkins,) and mother of their daughter. However, I have many reasons to believe that Carole Anne is not Brother K’s partner and has not been for many years.

Problem A:
Carole Anne’s account is for the most part inactive, unless Brother K’s account has been temporarily banned by Facebook. Here you can see that Carole Anne’s account was rarely used until Brother K’s recent seven day ban, when Carole Anne’s page started posting multiple updates per day. BK’s ban started on February 6th, 2015. Prior to that, Carole Anne’s page posted updates a few times a month. The majority of the posts on Carole Anne’s wall, prior to BK’s ban, are posts that BK tagged her in.
I find the idea that someone would just turn over control their FB account to their partner highly suspect. Which brings me to problem B…

Problem B:
The posts on Carole Anne’s wall are clearly written by BK. They use the same dramatic language, excessive usage of stickers, caps lock, etc. Here are a few examples to illustrate the similarities:

UC1 UC2

UC3

UC4

UC5

UC6

Problem C:
Carole Anne has never been sighted at any protest with Brother K. In fact, there have never been any modern photos of her posted at all. Every single photo of Carole Anne ever posted is from the 1980’s. When approached about Carole Anne, or rather the lack of Carole Anne, Brother K simply ignores and blocks.

UC7

No modern photos of Carole Anne. Check her page out!

No modern photos of Carole Anne. Check her page out!

Problem D:
Brother K claims that he and Carole Anne have a daughter. I have searched and I have been able to identify her based on the information about her that Brother K revealed on his page (her university, her year of graduation, her birthday, her mother’s maiden name, etc.)

I will not reveal her identity here, because she has done nothing.

However, her birth info on FamilySearch lists only her mother’s maiden name, which is Babyak. As you can see in the photo below, the mother’s maiden name is hyperlinked. However, when clicked, it just takes you right back to ‘x’ Babyak’s page.

corrected

Problem E:
I was able to find an obituary for Carole Anne’s sister, who passed away in 2010. In the obituary, Carole Anne’s sister’s siblings, their partners and her nieces and nephews are listed. Both Carole Anne and her daughter are listed, but there is no partner listed for Carole Anne.

If Carole Anne and Brother K were together in 2010, as he claims, why wasn’t he listed as her partner in her sister’s obituary?

UC12

Problem F:
There is no real proof of Carole Anne having existed aside from the obituary posted above and these photos of newspaper clippings from the 80’s posted by Brother K. I could not find the archived versions of the articles through the newspapers’ websites, so I have no way of confirming their authenticity.
UC9 UC10
I searched for Mary Ann Babyak, Carole Anne’s sister, on Family Search and Ancestry.com. I could not find Carole Anne listed anywhere. I couldn’t find a birth certificate, marriage certificate or death certificate. There are no real addresses on record for her, only PO boxes. There is absolutely no evidence at all that she is Brother K’s partner… I cannot say that she does not exist at all, but it seems highly likely that if she does, she changed her name at some point. And then we are left wondering why she would choose to do that… Perhaps to hide from Brother K?

Brother K is constantly talking about the American people being fooled, which is ironic because it seems as though he is also pulling one over on his followers. Intactivism has become somewhat of a cult group, with those who question the methods and motives of the “leaders” ostracized and declared trolls. But take a minute and ask yourself about all of the things I have presented. Something doesn’t add up…

If you have any information regarding Carole Anne Babyak, please e-mail greenejam20@gmail.com