Abdul El-Sayed Tries to Compare Gender Transitioning of Children to Circumcision
“Do you really want to have this conversation? Are you circumcised?”
Far left Michigan Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed appeared on FOX News last night with host Jesse Watters. Things went about as well as could be expected, with El-Sayed trying to filibuster his way through most of the topics.
Things took a strange turn when they moved on to the subject of gender transitioning children. El-Sayed asked Watters if he is circumcised, in an attempt to somehow conflate the two things.
The New York Post reports:
Abdul El-Sayed asks Fox News’ Jesse Watters ‘Are you circumcised?’ in bizarre moment as he defends sex change surgery for minors
Michigan Democratic Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed got extremely personal with Fox News host Jesse Watters on Monday — asking if he is circumcised — during a bizarre defense of sex change surgery for minors.
“Do you really want to have this conversation? Are you circumcised?” El-Sayed bluntly asked the “Jesse Watters Primetime” host, after arguing that the government shouldn’t get involved in transgender medical procedures for children.
Watters was floored by the question.
“Jesse, are you?” El-Sayed pressed.
“Yeah, yeah, but I mean, that’s a personal question — doctor,” Watters responded.
El-Sayed, seemingly convinced that he ended the debate with Watters, suggested: “You probably should want to move on.”
“Circumcision is different than castration!” Watters fired back.
Undeterred, El-Sayed argued that it’s a “problem” that Watters believes the government should step in to outlaw sex change surgeries for minors but not circumcisions.
“I’m just saying that yes, circumcision is surgery on a kid’s ding-a-ling,” the former public health official told Watters. “So if you really want to bring that up, you can … I just think you guys are really selective about these things.”
Watters described El-Sayed’s position as “wacky” and “sick.”
“Abdul, Michigan’s not going for that. That is sick stuff,” he said.
Watch the exchange below:
🚨MUST WATCH: ABDUL EL-SAYED THROWS HIS SUPPORT BEHIND SEX-CHANGE SURGERIES FOR MINORS 🚨
ABDUL: "Circumcision is surgery on a kid's Ding-a-Ling."
WHAT!?
"That is SICK STUFF, ABDUL" pic.twitter.com/4KLDuJsaeB
— Jesse Watters (@JesseBWatters) August 25, 2026
That is not an apt comparison at all.
Here are some other clips:
"Getting rid of Sharia law is White supremacy? Can you explain that one?"
Jesse Watters presses Michigan Democratic Senate candidate Abdul El-Sayed over his past comments suggesting that efforts to ban Sharia law are tied to White supremacy.
El-Sayed argued on @JesseBWatters… pic.twitter.com/pLCTagD0i8
— Fox News (@FoxNews) August 25, 2026
Watters: "The Green New Deal says phase out fossil fuels."
Abdul: "I'm not going to defend the Green New Deal."
Watters: "You're on record supporting the Green New Deal." pic.twitter.com/VEwW1vJLdt
— Greg Price (@greg_price11) August 25, 2026
They did discuss other topics and you can watch the full segment below if you want. It is 25 minutes long.
Featured image via YouTube.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
I, for one, appreciate the fact that he was thinking about human genitalia instead of the typical caprine fixation.
Hey… Just trying to find the bright side here.
A doctor who can’t tell the difference between a procedure that leaves one’s “ding-a-ling” fully functional and a procedure that permanently removes the “ding-a-ling” shouldn’t be a doctor, or a senator. In fact, I’d prefer he just moved somewhere else. May I suggest Canada?
Pretty sure that even when a boy is circumcised his Johnson still functions.
Pretty sure that when a boy is circumcised his genitalia is still present and accounted for after the procedure.
Unserious intellectual lightweight Watters repeatedly was run over in this incompetent interview. Can’t believe he was so flummoxed that he even answered the question instead of saying something like, “So you would consider getting a girl’s ears pierced comparable to cutting off her ears?”
Maybe Abdul El Sayed just likes talking and looking at penises. 🥒🤔🤗
Mohammed and his master, Satan, say that’s fine if they’re underaged, or unbelievers.
Abdul MOHAMMAD El- Sayed. We need to use his full name. We know very well if the roles were reversed, he would use this recommendation.
Abdulrahman MOHAMMAD El-Sayed
Watters should have asked him about FGM.
Sex change surgery and other related medical treatments on children is unethical and immoral. But circumcision of children is also unethical and immoral, and there is no way around that. Children – and especially newborn infants – lack the capacity to consent. There is no real argument for you to make to counter this. It’s simply wrong. And just because your culture has done it for a long time doesn’t make it right.
So, no children should ever have their ears pierced? Or braces on their teeth?
You obviously have no idea how little impact circumcision has on health or permanent function.
There was a movement not too long ago to ban circumcision. I think it was based in CA and I think it was homosexual led. The base for the movement was a claim circumcision led to loss of pleasurable sensation. This is what I recall but my memory isn’t what it used to be and I might have gotten the story wrong.
No, it is not wrong. Parents make all medical decisions on a child’s behalf, and they’re the ones whose consent is required. The child’s opinion on the matter isn’t relevant.
But we draw the line at serious damage, so parents can’t refuse to treat a fatal condition, or necessary blood transfusions — and they can’t have a girl’s genitals mutilated in the manner customary in such places as Somalia. In Michigan, as in most states, that’s a crime. So Watters should have asked this Sayed person what he thinks of that. Does he agree with the Michigan law criminalizing FGM, or does he think that law should be repealed?
(Note that FGM has nothing to do with Islam. It’s a cultural practice in some Moslem-majority countries, but in those countries it’s practiced by non-Moslems as well. Egypt, where his parents come from, is one of those countries; even in Alexandria, which was a relatively modern city, the majority, both Moslem and Christian, practiced it. So I wonder what his educated parents thought of it, and whether his mother was a victim of it.)
Circumcision of a newborn infant is not a “medical decision”. There is no “medical” reason for this act, and you are hiding under that cover to justify it. It is a cultural decision.
You need to focus my somewhat confused trans supporting friend. The point is that circumcision, in practice and effect, is not remotely equivalent to the trans mutilation procedures.
It is a medical decision; it’s a decision whether to have a medical procedure. Medical procedures do not have to have medical reasons. Parents make all decisions for their children, including medical ones. The state only intervenes in extreme circumstances, where the decision is going to seriously damage the child. Such as castration, or refusing treatment of fatal conditions. Circumcision is not such an extreme case.
Children can’t consent to anything: they are minors.
I daresay few children would ever consent to school, but no one has ever brought up that line of argument against compulsory education.
We make all kinds of decisions on behalf of children, regardless of whether it not they consent, because they are MINORS, and most of the time they simply don’t know what their best interests are. That’s where adult judgment comes in. Children would consent all day long to eat nothing but pizza and ice cream, but obviously we don’t take their whims into consideration.
There are plenty of arguments to make for circumcision. For starters, parents can choose whether or not to do it based on a huge amount of research into the benefits and drawbacks of it. This type of high quality research is not available for gender reassignment surgery. Next, circumcision leaves the penis fully functional and does not cause any changes to normal development in puberty or sexual functioning and reproductive viability. Finally, having worked w/ adult men who have had to be circumcized as an adult due to a serious infection in the foreskin, it is a very painful procedure to do as a grown up, but can save the functioning of the penis. Performing the surgery on a baby is ethical as they will not recall this pain and will sleep through it. Autobiographical memory does not form until around 3 to 4 years of age, so babies will have no trauma or negative psychological impact from the surgery. An adult male, well that’s another story.
This is true. And while it’s relatively uncommon to develop such an infection as an adult with reasonable hygiene, there’s another consideration along the same lines.
If you are ethnically Jewish or Moslem, even if you’re not religious — and certainly if you are — and you don’t circumcise your son, there’s a significant chance that when he’s older he will become at least somewhat religious, and will want it done. And he will then face a serious challenge, because it’s painful. At that time he will not thank you for your decision not to spare him this ordeal, out of some stupid concern for his “autonomy”. He’ll wish you’d done the conventional thing and had it done when he was a baby.
His unbalanced supporters might want to ask themselves why a Sharia supporting loon would promote the trans insanity when Sharia is not, well, all that welcoming to the gay/trans agenda. Might be that he is a dishonest slob with ulterior motives? Of course, the unbalanced are not known for their thoughtful introspection so I suspect that the thought will never occur to them.
I don’t know. Islam was big on eunuchs. So, lumping trans and homosexual in the same group might not work here. (Castration IS banned in Islam, for and by Muslims. Eunuchs bought as slaves are not.)
Now hold on here you seem to be suggesting that Islam condoned the enslavement and mutilation of nonbelievers. I thoroughly object to the use of the past tense.
Islam is complicate don the transgender issue. Some prefer the idea of transgenderism because it fixes the “gay problem.” Meaning they would rather have their son be made into a daughter than see him attracted to men, and visa versa. Disgusting I know but that is what has happened in Iran to “cure” their “gay problem.” And to be honest this is what happens in some cases of supposed transgederism in the US. Where a parent and/or child unable to cope with their same sex attraction starts wishing they were the opposite gender to the point of trying to be the opposite gender versus accept who they are.
The reality of Islam as practiced as well as the vile conduct of Iran is only complicated in fake news/opinions; wikipedia pieces (but I repeat myself); and sloppy feed back loop online commentary (but I repeat myself). Perhaps we could toss in the average AI tool that simply regurgitates this disinformation loop garbage. Islam is not accepting of a delusional victim of the trans nonsense any more than they are of a gay activist, or come to think of it, any non-believer (read: those it seeks to subjugate, ie every non Muslim).
Anything else is as phony as an anti nuclear weapons fatwa.
The false equivalencies he raised while filibustering and begging for a “conversation” were revealing. Glib does not cut it when you’re an extremist pretending to be for the people.
Waters would have gotten more mileage out of the interview had he not answered the question and focused instead on the absurdity of the comparison Mohammed El Sayed was making, using grown up language.
The Grand Mufti of Dearbornistan should be deported.
Google AI, which can be wrong, says that islam considers transgender surgery to be haram, unless child is born with intersex features. Otherwise, doctors and patients could risk death penalty.
Iran might be exception?
The military depends on it for meals. SOS, also called foreskins on toast.
Leave a Comment