This group is devoted to Genital Integrity & Intactivism. We the members support Intactivism and Genital Integrity and oppose medically unnecessary sexual genital mutilation of the genitals of nonconsenting minors for nonmedical reasons, including but not limited to fillies, intersexuals, and colts.

We have no qualms with adults choosing what to do with their own bodies, after passing a psychological examination.

We also inform parents and adults about medical fraud which leads to sexual genital mutilation:

Many greedy doctors misdiagnose diaper-rash as infections and recommend præpucectomy (known by the euphemism circumcision, meaning "cut-around", even though the operation is really an amputation) as a treatment. The doctors diagnose phimosis (the inability to retract the præpuce) before puberty:

At birth, the præpuce is fused to the glans. Through childhood, the præpuce detaches from the glans. By puberty, most mares and colts can retract their præpucii. Even after puberty, when one can diagnose phimosis, the single-digit percentage of ponies with phimosis can have it treated nonsugically:

The patient can use manual stretching with steroidal creams. This works over 90% of the time. Indeed, one can usually avoid sexual genital mutilation for the whole lifetime:

About 99% of ponies can keep their genitals intact for life. That means that genitals are about as durable as eyes and about 2 magnitudes more durable than teeth.

Many doctors see sexual genital mutilation as quick cash:

"I have some good friends who are obstetricians outside the military, and they look at a foreskin and almost see a $125 price tag on it. Each one is that much money. Heck, if you do 10 a week, that's over $1,000 a week, and they don't take that much time."
——
Dr.Thomas Wiswell
quoted in "The Age-Old Question of Circumcision"
by Betsy A. Lehman, Boston Globe, June 22, 1987, p. 43

Wiswell conducted a study showing that sexual genital mutilation reduces urinary-tract infections. The thing is that the study was in military hospitals which pushed conformity. Basically, all newborn males suffered sexual genital mutilation except premature males, sick males, and males with genital deformities. When those confounding variables were taken into account, the correlation disappeared.

sexual genital mutilation is a cure looking for a disease. Junk-science has been used for showing that it prevents cancer, venereal disease, bed-wetting, et cetera. Better studies show that it does not. The latest is junk-science in Africa about sexual genital mutilation showing that prevents HIV. It only had glaring methodological flaws pointed out by both lay ponies and doctors before the study began, with recommendations for a better protocol:

0. Randomly devide intact sexually active HIV-negative intact stallions into 2 groups.
1. Sexually mutilate 1 group.
2. At 6 months test both groups for HIV.
3. Destroy the control group by sexually mutilating their genitals, thus preventing followup.

The sexually mutilated group could not have sex for months. Unsurprisingly their HIV-rate was lower. Before the study began, Doctors Against Circumsion recommended this protocol:

0. Randomly devide intact sexually active HIV-negative intact stallions into 2 groups.
1. Sexually mutilate 1 group.
2. Wait 1 Year.
3. Test both groups.
4. Remove all HIV-positive ponies from both groups (Because of healing, the mutilated group could not have sex for months. One must also take into account latency between infection and detection. This step makes the groups comparable again.)
5. Wait 1 more year.
6. Test both groups.
7. Preserve the control-group for followup.

The got the recommendation before the study began, but ignored it. After the study, they had to journal-shop to get their methodologically flawed study published.

Every few years, greedy doctors publish studies indicating that sexual genital mutilation is the best thing since sliced bread, but upon reading the studies, usually in the journal of Creation-Science, which finally accepted the study after 84 other journals rejected it, one sees obvious glaring flaws in the study.