If we can ban trans medical procedures, why haven't we banned circumcision?
Was just talking at dinner with family, and it seems a logical action to ban circumcision, as in most cases, doesn't have consent, and is a major (genitals are important) body modification. Can we ban it at the state level? Just a thought.
682
Comments320
Circumcisions should be banned because they are mutilating children's genitals without consent. At least trans medical procedures have consent.
I think it's just religious people being hypocrites again. Hard to convince delusional people of facts when they make up what they believe based on the circumstances. The decisions of religious cults shouldn't have more power than the decisions of individual people. Completely crazy what this country is devolving into
Trans surgical procedures have some of the best outcomes of any major procedures. they are performed on consenting individuals who are always well informed and at or very near adulthood, and only after many other interventions have been ongoing. People who receive these interventions show incredibly low rates of regret (compare for example the percent of people who regret knee replacements or probably circumcisions), and enjoy increased happiness and satisfaction by almost any metric.
Basically every major medical organization in the world (and certainly in America) agrees these interventions are medically useful and should be performed. While there are doctors who dissent, they are in the vast minority and almost never actually work with any trans people, but rather insist all the doctors who do work with trans people must be wrong. It's not a controversy in the medical world, just the political one.
Then we shall ban dentists too. They never had my consent to touch my teeth.
How many healthy and functional teeth have you had inconsensually removed from your skull by a dentist?
Did they remove your perfectly healthy canines because a bronze-age book said dogs are unclean? If not, get the fuck out of here with your infant penis mutilation apologetics.
There is scientific evidence that circumcision results in the area being cleaner and easier to maintain. I'm not denying it is child mutilation, but you also shouldn't just sweep it under the rug as religious bullshittery.
And if you shave your head, you don't have to brush your hair.
Honestly such a weak argument. Having helped my uncircumcised son learn to keep himself clean, I can probably say this myth needs to be laid to rest already. It's just not true.
I dont get it either. However the American pediatric association and a couple others keep suggesting it’s “cleaner.” I think it’s based on some large global datasets and there are less STIs with circumcised penises? Even WHO recommends it. It seems like recommended people clean themselves would be much easier…
I'm sure there are many body parts we could amputate to help with maintenance.
Let me tell you about my revolutionary way to prevent athlete's foot! Also, did you know you can prevent testicular cancer with one simple
snipstep?Wouldn't that require two snips?
“Root and stem” with one rubber band!
it'd be easier to brush your teeth if you didn't have any teeth
Does your teeth develop phimosis?
No. But, if they were to I reckon if I'd have the dentist look at them and decide what to do then...rather than rip 'em all out preemptively.
Well one is done precautionary as it doesn't have any big life altering side effects while removing all your teeth does. I understand your enthusiasm but a little medical knowledge wouldn't hurt no one. It's also more difficult to get circ done after growing up.
I mean, reduced sensation, higher rates of some kinds of sexual difficulty later in life, and like anything that causes pain and stress to a neonate there are signs that it can have long term psychological effects.
You would only notice it if you get it done after growing up. I don't understand the logic here. Have you been circumcised?
Most cultures in the world don't circumcise and it doesn't cause much issue. It's only the US where it became so common, because the wacko Kellogg had enough money to push his weird ideas, and somehow people still follow it. You should follow his other "preventative" ideas if you think circumcision is such a great idea.
Here's a good video to get more ideas from. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZ4ES8mOzYg
If god wanted my parents to cut part of my dick off why did she put it there in the first place? Are you saying god made a mistake?
Maybe it was on purpose. The Abrahamic god is a sadist who apparently fucking loves killing and maiming people, so maybe he was like, "yoooo, you know what would be funny?" and then convinced a bunch of people they should cut part of their babies' dicks off.
Wasn't there also that weird ass bible tale where some dude brought another guy 200 foreskins so he could marry the guy's daughter? If I don't have one, at least nobody will kill me and take it from me to give to a potential father in law...
I still have to give the little fucker a good scrub to not stink though so the cleanliness thing has got to be bull.
Yeah. I get that it's supposed to represent how many enemies he killed, but why foreskins, Saul? Could've asked for a lot of other things besides dick skin. Like, idk, their weapons or something.
Because you could buy or steal their weapons, but there's only one way you're going to end up with a piece of their dick. Also means you don't get to count enemies who were Jews.
It's not really about the evidence though.
45 years ago my parents genuinely thought they were doing the right thing by asking the Dr to circumcise me.
They weren't great at critical thinking and have made numerous poor decisions in their lives as a result of vibe-based reasoning.
You can say I was "mutilated" if you like, but I don't feel like a victim.
My parents also supported my education, where I learned to be skeptical, and challenge my preconceptions.
As a result, I didn't have my son circumcised.
Where is this evidence?
I don't think cleanliness is an excuse for lopping off part of a non-consenting infant.
It would be a lot easier to clean your head if you didn't have any ears. Should we cut those off of babies too?
https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/131/4/796
So, yeah. To paraphrase, "When reviewed by people without the same clear and obvious cultural bias, circumcision only conclusively provides an incredibly marginal benefit, with evidence lacking for other supposed (and still very marginal) benefits."
I never had not have ever heard of anyone I know having infections or cancers because of a foreskin.
Technically, you can't get foreskin cancer if you don't have foreskin. Not sure if that is an acceptable reason to cut off part of a non-consenting infant's genitals.
The vast vast vast majority of the worlds men have foreskins though.
I mean it does reduce the risk of penile cancer (for basically the same reason a mastectomy reduces the risk of breast cancer - less cells means less cells that can turn cancerous), but penile cancer is one of the more rare ones to begin with and the reduction is pretty small.
Suggested. "However, this is unverified"
Okay mate.
The first link says it's unverified, and also says "suggest", not your phrasing.
There is a lot of misinformation in this post. Here's a snippet of my research about the anatomy of the penis and the damage of circumcision causes.
The foreskin has specialized nerve endings called Meissner's Corpsucles located at the tip in an area called the ridged band. It is connected to the penis by the extension of the shaft skin in areas called the outer foreskin and the inner foreskin. The inner foreskin is rich with sensory receptors and is a inner mucosa similar to the inside of our cheeks. It keeps the glans moist and protected from the environment. The inner foreskin is attached to the head of the penis by a membrane called the frenulum. The frenulum is an erogenous zone that is mostly removed by a circumcision procedure.
When a child or baby is circumcised, the foreskin is forcibly removed from the glans which scars and damages the glans. The foreskin is adhered to the glans like a fingernail. When a boy hits puberty the foreskin naturally retracts. In rare cases, phimosis happens which is when the foreskin is unable to retract. Non-surgical solutions to phimosis are stretching the foreskin over a span of time and/or applying steroid creme.
Circumcision is extremely painful for babies and children. Cortisol spikes in babies when they are circumcised. Babies will pass out during the procedure as many circumcisions are done with inadequate anesthetic.
The foreskin is self-cleaning like the vagina. Rinsing in the shower is enough usually for hygiene. Caregivers who retract the foreskin of their children will damage the child's genitals. The only person who should retract the foreskin is the children as it will naturally retract with age. Some boys are unable to retract their foreskin until their late teens or early adulthood.
This information is not foreign to the medical world. Most medical and political professionals have a bias for the circumcision ritual. Circumcision is the same for boys as it is for girls as the objective of circumcision is to harm the sexual function of the child.
Modern circumcision for males is extremely harsh as it removes 60-80% of penile skin. Many men do not have frenulums from the procedure. It is possible to repair some of the damage by using mitosis to restore skin coverage. It is not currently possible to repair tissue that was completely removed. Foregen is a non-profit researching ways to completely repair the damage caused by circumcision.
For men impacted by this and want to do something for themselves
Warning that this topic draws a lot of insane people with genital mutilation fetishes. Any of the comments advocating for circumcision are either men who were circumcised against their will, women who circumcised their children and haven't accepted the truth, or weirdos who want others to suffer.
Thank you so much for writing this up. I really appreciate the detailed post.
I think it's important to point out that this bias is mostly cultural. In many countries where ritual infant circumcision is the exception instead of the norm, medical personnel do not have a bias towards RIC.
Foreskin restoration is legit (even if it may sound crazy like regrowing limbs). I know we collectively dislike Reddit on here, but the subreddit /r/foreskin_restoration has a really supportive and welcoming community and a lot of resources about how to get started (check their wiki).
It would require that a significant portion of the population admit their parents mutilated them as infants.
For some reason, they refuse to admit they were mutilated without their consent.
Some of them have subsequently mutilated their own sons, and admitting that was mutilation is beyond their capacity.
I was circumcised, I don't have a problem with that fact. I understand why people do have a problem with circumcision and I don't have an issue with it being banned.
Don't try to induce mental trauma in me for my past that I'm not bothered by.
I have been physically punished when I did something bad as a kid. I'm not traumatized by that either but I still think it's good that it's illegal nowdays.
I agree. And if people went around claiming you must be traumatized over it and lying to yourself you'd say they're full of shit. If someone was trying to convince you to be traumatized about it you'd tell them to fuck off.
I don't think they're saying people are traumatized. That word has a meaning. They're saying people have issue reconciling the fact that their parents would do something like that to them and also that their parents are generally good people. Many people would rather not even consider that it wasn't the right call, because it makes it easier to hold those two beliefs at the same time. However, people make mistakes. Those aren't contradictory ideas if you can understand that people can be mislead.
Good for you not being bothered by it. But I think it's rather easy to imagine that it can be a traumatizing experience and lead to psychological or physiological injuries. So it's a medical procedure that should only be prescribed by doctors or if you are an adult.
Sure, I'm not arguing against that. I'm arguing against this mentality that everyone who has been circumcised should be carrying trauma over it, or must be carrying trauma but are lying to themselves. Don't say you're fighting on my behalf for something that doesn't bother me in the slightest.
Fair point, not sure somebody is doing it and if so why, but that would be indeed contra productive. If someone does not feel traumatized why would anyone would want to convince them otherwise?
The post I was replying to:
I'm not sure that is exactly how they meant it, but I can see you interpret it that way. An unnecessary, irreversible medical operation was performed on you without your consent, but since you are not bothered by it - good for you.
Babies and children don't have sex. If you want to take this extreme HIV reduction procedure as an adult you're free to do so. Or you can use a condom.
Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you a persons who is refusing to admit.
Thanks for demonstrating my point so effectively.
What? They're not bothered by it how the fuck is that refusing to admit anything? Does that mean if two people get jumped scared in a dark room and one for the rest of their life needs a light on in their room and the other doesn't that they are secretly traumatized? No it doesn't.
Also circumcision happens at birth most of the time so many people (myself included) don't remember it. It should absolutely be illegal but as the other person said don't tell someone what traumas they faced and how they should be effected.
You're a clown
"She doesn't remember being raped, so it's ok'.
Just because you don't remember it, doesn't mean it doesn't effect you. Aside from the obvious physical effects, there are studies that suggest that neonatal stressors and pain (such as say amputating part of the baby's genitals) can have long reaching psychological effects. For example:
https://www.scirp.org/journal/paperinformation?paperid=55727
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7702013/
Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you the problem with the anti-circumcision movement.
There are good arguments to be had for banning circumcision. Refusing to recognize my autonomy, and insisting you know the "secret trauma of strangers" better than they do is not one of them. It makes you sound like an asshole who doesn't know what they are talking about and will cause people to think the whole movement is the same way.
For those arguing to ban circumcision: you need to purge assholes like this from your numbers. They are only doing harm and not helping your cause.
Glad that, as an infant, you exercised your own autonomy, when your parents decided to circumcise you.
If you did exercise your own autonomy as an adult, then fine. That's not what we're talking about.
Your autonomy argument doesn't work when you refuse to recognize my statements that I am not bothered by the fact that it happened to me. It makes you a blatant hypocrite when you say you are concerned about the autonomy of children but ignore my autonomy as an adult.
Children do in fact need someone to speak for them. When you insist on speaking for me when I am fully capable of speaking for myself and telling you not to, then I'm going to tell you to fuck off and won't be very receptive to anything else you have to say.
I have a neutral stance on circumcision. Do what you please. I just wish people like you could try to prove a point without using "mutilation" over and over to make it sound worse than it actually is. It puts an agenda on your point and biases it. There's nothing mutilated about it. It's just altered.
If you consider this to be mutilation then that would also mean you think any gender affirming surgery is also mutilation. And one could much easier argue that converting a penis to a vagina is far more mutilating than just removing some extra skin from a penis.
So if you're trying to convince people to stop circumcision, stop using overly dramatic words and just explain why it's not necessary. Otherwise I'll just roll my eyes at people like you.
No one gets gender reassignment surgery until they can concentyi it as an adult.
False equivalence.
Here's another question along the same lines - my friend when I was a kid developed gynecomastia, commonly known as "breast knots" when he was 14. They're completely harmless, but they made it look like he had boobs. Cute little A cups on this otherwise very boy-presenting person. For some reason, no one thought it was "against God's plan" or "mutilating his body" or "part of the gender agenda" when this 14 year old boy had a purely cosmetic double mastectomy. I wonder why no one batted an eye at a child receiving gender-affirming cosmetic surgery just because he wanted to in this particular case.
I've never understood the American obsession with MGM (male genital mutilation). But it seems that a large percentage of your population has had it done. So from an outsider perspective it seems like it must be a cultural thing to your country. So for laws to exist that ban it (or at least make it harder to authorise) you'd first need a cultural shift, then. Enough political will for laws to be passed.
It really isn't cultural. In the early 1900s, William Kellogg (of Kellogg's) was a puritanical Christian. He hated the idea of masturbation more than anything, so he created Corn Flakes to be a cereal so bland it would kill your libido and prevent you from masturbating. He also was a proponent of circumcision as a means of preventing masturbation because it would make the penis too tight that stroking it would be painful. Americans bought into his propaganda that circumcised penises are "cleaner" and then it just became "well, I'm circumcised, and my son's penis should look like mine!"
No one said that the average American was intelligent.
Sounds pretty cultural to me, something that's persisted for a hundred and twenty years (What's that a quarter of your country's history?) based on an over religious ideal and pushed by a capitalist.
I consider "culture" to have a deeper meaning to a population, at least moreso than "my dick's cut, so my kid's gonna have a cut dick because I'm not aware of basic hygiene practices!"
Change the sex and genitalia in question, and this is basically what drives FGM. It's mostly women who had it done to them that drive the practice forward. That's how traditional practices work in general - you repeating what happened to you with your offspring, often long past the point where the original purpose (if any) has any value.
... well, I for one am very glad he was mistaken in this point.
Personally I find it a lot more disturbing that intersex babies are still assgined a binary gender by a doctor and then get surgery to shape their genitals. The parents are often scaremongered and pressured into consenting and the affected people don't know it was done to them until firmly into adulthood. It's often a sterilising surgery too.
If you are against doctors doing gender changing surgery, please start with the babies? But oh no! Then the argument that there are only two genders falls apart.
What the fuck, I wasn't aware of that. Thanks for sharing
Is it still practice? Even when I studied, long time ago, I thought it was rather consensus that it's gets worse results in the the long run.
It still happens, but I don't believe it's as common as it once was (per capita intersex person, which is also a very small number)
Medical progress is sometimes frustrating slow.
Look at what happened to David Reiner if you really want to be sickened.
I’m pretty sure that I’m intersex myself and had something done to me when I was an infant, but there is no way for me to ever find out. My only evidence is apparently my dong is pretty massive for a trans dude, which is a nice thing to hear from a nurse.
I mean, yeah? Could we maybe agree that medically unnecessary genital surgery should be off the table for infants and small children, regardless of what surgery we're talking about?
Only in the way that polydactyly makes the argument that humans are normally born with 5 fingers on each hand fall apart. It's just that people with atypical numbers of fingers aren't a political hot button of the day.
Cutting a piece of your baby's junk off for no other reason then everyone does it is a really weird thing that I've never been able to wrap my head around.
I'm not religious but I at least can understand if it's for religious reason, there's a point to it, even if I don't agree with/understand the point. But people seem to just do it for no reason aside from it's what people do. It's forced genital mutilation anyway you look at it.
There are medical reasons to remove. If the foreskin isn't cleaned well (challenging for toddlers) it can get infected which prevents it from separating, which is very dangerous.
If your foot isn't cleaned well, it can get infected and potentially cause sepsis, which is very dangerous. Should we be removing children's feet?
No, obviously not. The time for invasive, nonconsentual medical intervention is when it is medically necessary, and circumcision does not fit the bill.
"The CPS does not recommend the routine circumcision of every newborn male."
"It is shown that the foreskin is more sensitive than the uncircumcised glans mucosa, which means that after circumcision genital sensitivity is lost." - Meaning circumcision is quite a damaging procedure, which means the justification for it must be high. And as a preventive measure for which the things being prevented won't happen for a decade and a half or longer, isn't justified.
Newborns should not have their foreskin pulled back for cleaning, as the separation can cause damage. IIRC it's only a bit before puberty that it is safe to gently (not forcibly) pull back the foreskin.
Nah mate. They had to remove mine because is overgrew my gland and was so tight that I would have pee between the foreskin and the gland layong around, and it was impossible to unhook. The alternative would have been to cut it open and have dumbo's ear flapping everytime I'd take my dick out. No partner ever complained, and I don't give à shit about it.
I wouldn't circumsize a kid if it wasn't necessary, but when an operation takes place specifically for medical reasons, it's because there is no other solution. Like when a foot id so gangrenous that you have to remove it or it will propagate the necrosis to the leg.
Are you trolling? Or just finding it very difficult to understand what you are replying to? I'm genuinely asking here.
"Nah mate", to someone saying it has to be a medical necessity... Following it up with "it was a medical necessity in my case", and then arguing the same point of it needing to be a medical necessity... It's just a bit too on-the-nose, that it seems more likely to be intentional, than just... Well, what it looks like
Being necessary for medical reasons is a good reason. Doing it because "it gets dirty" and "it looks better" is not. Unfortunately the latter is the most common reason.
We're (hopefully) obviously not talking about when its necessary. We're arguing against the systemic circumsion of infants. Liken it to an amputation, If we decided to systemically remove every infants pinky finger, and then people are arguing against it, people would probably not say "But babies could get the finger infected! The pinky can break really easily, its safer to remove it"
until puberty starts the foreskin is attached to the penis. Just like how the finger nails are attached. It can't get dirt under there until you pull it back.
Poor hygiene is not a sufficiently good reason to remove
I don't know man. The entire world for most of human history has gone on just fine without circumcision. I'm eternally grateful I was not born in the US and was brought here as a child so I didn't get my foreskin cut.
It's always an interesting conversation with women. Some prefer it, some don't, most don't care. But it is a bit exotic in some areas of the country. Not so much in heavily immigrant areas.
For example California and Florida the vast majority of people are not circumcised. In Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, etc and other states in mostly white America it's close to 90%.
The foreskin is fused to the tip of the penis until around puberty, there is no need to clean it.
circumcision is in the Bible, gender reassignment surgery is not. That's where they're going to hang their hats... on the invisible sky ghost.
Um, ackshually, eunuchs are in the Bible, including Jesus saying that some people "become eunuchs" to get closer to God. So...
"Hey, there are parts of the Bible I like and parts I don't like."
I also want to say, if you read the Bible front to back, it's the story of a people fucking up. The people do terrible things, a hero teaches them to be better, the heroes turn villain (or, rarely, wander off into the sunset when their role is complete), and the institutions rot.
It's not a story of a better people, it's a story of people doing better
You're absolutely right about your point, it all comes down to religion. But the procedure is actually sex reassignment surgery. Gender is the way you interact with the world, sex is the physical characteristics of your body.
Not trying to be pedantic or rude. It's a common mistake and in a lot of casee the terms can be used interchangeably. Just trying to be informative for people scrolling by. :)
i’m going to be pedantic and say that the term “sex reassignment surgery” (SRS) has fallen out of favor and use, and is now most often referred to as “gender reassignment surgery” or GRS, but this is also an inaccurate term for the reason you describe.
The accurate term is “Genital Reconstructive Surgery”.
As someone whose circumcision worked out perfectly fine and can't imagine myself without one, I still think it should be banned for babies and children under 18 for any reason other than medical necessity. Even a slight risk of problems outweighs the 'my dad did it and he turned out fine' or religious tradition arguments.
It should not be banned for adults who voluntarily choose it for themselves though.
In which case it is cosmetic surgery.
One does not Botox an infant.
In some cases it's functional. Not all genitals grow as they're supposed to.
... And that would be the very very very very rare medically necessary intervention.
Stop conflating medically necessary intervention and mutilation.
Some people are born with webbed toes, we don't cut them up because "my dad did it to me and I'm alright".
Too many very for today's society where genetic anomalies and cancerous growths are on the rise.
The problem is it's quite difficult to get circumcision after adulthood
Is that because it is not medically necessary often and there is a lack of expertise, or because of risk aversion in the medical community? If there was suddenly a drive for adult circumcision I would imagine plastic surgeons would be all over it.
I'm guessing lack of expertise since most people who grow up with a foreskin are going to be comfortable with one just like I am comfortable with what I grew up without and the demand is pretty low.
No but in terms of the medical process. It's quite painful and needs a few days rest.
Because transgender (anti)rights have nothing to do with religion; it's simply the transgender people's turn to be thrown under the bus so the conservatives can continue virtue signalling.
On one hand I oppose circumcision, on the other hand I think we’re getting far too comfortable letting politicians ban medical procedures.
My alternative perspective is no surgery on someone too young to request it unless it cannot wait until they’re old enough to do so.
Kids can't get plastic surgery even if they wanted to, but can get circumcised even if nobody asked them? It's just dumb.
Can't cosmetic surgeries can range from things like circumcision, fixing a deviated septum, and something like botox? They're often not seen as "necessary," but they can be recommended to improve quality of life. I think this gets conflated because maybe breast implants do drastically improve someone's quality of life, but doctors (I think) should err on the side of having a patient wait for more permanent procedures. It's still between the doctor and patient, ultimately, but in cases where a kid can't consent there can be valid arguments. I don't think circumcision meets that threshold a majority of the time, and even when it does it can usually wait.
Circumcision is irreversible mutilation of genitals forced by religion. At least Christians just dunk you in water.
Bruh. America cuts 80% of their junk, looky: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevalence_of_circumcision
Pretty fucked up actually, not to mention i bet they charge you between two and ten thousand dollars to do it, too.
Yeah, but it's not forced by religion - it primarily got started in the US because the guy who invented corn flakes though it would keep boys from masturbating because it reduces sensation. He also had a procedure for girls (involving scarring the clit with acid) but that didn't catch on and even if it had would be very illegal now because we actually care about protecting girls.
You do realize that the Torah, the book that gives the penis chopping instructions, is included in the Old Testament, right? This whole non-consensual penis mutilation tradition is definitely a Christian practice, too.
Never knew, TIL.
To be fair, in the new testament, Jesus basically tells the Christians that they don't have to follow all of the old testament, so not all Christian denominations practice it. Still, some sects just ignore the good Jesus stuff, in general. A lot of Christians in the US still have the procedure done to their kids, but it's mainly for cosmetic reasons, nowadays.
no its not for the same reason why christian don't eat kosher meals. Basically that was part of the old contract with god and the new contract does not include circumcision. That's why it was rare in christian communities
Cosmetic or optional surgery should be the choice of the patient
Because one is ordered by their favorite imaginary character in their favorite fairy tale book.
Except its not even, at least for christians. Its actually even considered a sin for catholics. https://catholicism.org/ad-rem-no-283.html
It became popular in the US because it was thought that it would stop people from masturbating. That’s why its an American thing and not a religious vs non religious thing (except for jewish people).
we *should *ban circumcision, it's genital mutilation and children cannot consent
Because the laws are being pushed on a religious basis, not a rational one.
Is circumcision even a religious thing for most Americans?
It’s because originally they thought it would prevent masturbation, which was considered self harm.
Since then it is because of aesthetics and hygiene. Both of which are something that the person should decide as an adult.
I think it’s more inertia than anything.
Circumcision is so weird. Like why are non religious people opting for that so much in the US?
It's a myth that circumcision is a religious practice in the US. It was actually started by a bunch of 19^th^ Century health obsessed, vegetarian, noFap weirdos. It was a health fad to save your body, not your soul.
I mention the vegetarianism to emphasize that these people were progressive, it's just that many of their ideals were garbage.
It is a religious practice for Jews ... I completely agree with your point of it being a "health fad" for non-jews though.
Especially considering that it's bad for sex
I think we should ban circumcision
because we are a stupid, prudish, and vain country. we don't want people to enjoy jerking off too much, nor do we want to reverse the trend of mutilation, which would make the old guard feel like they're the broken ones
This is one of the case where we can talk about the Jewish/Muslim lobby without being a far-right biggot. People want to defend their religious practice, even if they involve chopping off a piece of kids genitalia
Genital mutilation is incredibly sad and people are somehow tricking themselves into being ok with it because they can't get they dick tips back lol
Remember that cult where dudes were required to cut their balls off? It's the same cult.
Genital mutilation is awful but the really hard part is getting buy in to the idea that it's actually genital mutilation. People don't want to be identified as mutilated - men who have been circumcised don't want the thing that happened without their consent to define them.
Exactly. The mainstream male culture is too toxic to admit that yeah some are mutilated and even if it's not a big deal on average these people did have their rights taken away from them and their identity invaded without consent.
Maybe there would be more success with a softer word instead of mutilated but then there's a risk of people pushing this away as "not a big deal".
Seriously not even that hard of an area to rinse. I actually wonder how much sensitivity men lose because it it. Articles keep saying it doesn't reduce sexual satisfaction but I cant walk around with my foreskin pulled back all day. It would dry out and hurt like crazy as soon as I put on clothes. There has to be some loss to men that were mutilated and no one wants to admit they are missing out.
I'm not tricking myself. I am literally indifferent to the fact that it happened. If people want to argue that it's unnecessarily traumatic to children that is a good argument and makes sense. If you want to argue that I am mutilated, traumatized, and tricking myself then you're full of shit.
Proving my point here tbh
Unconsensual body modification is mutilation. Wouldn't you be offended if your parents performed any other permanent irreversible body modification? Clip your toes or ears?
No one is trying to shame you or say that cut dicks are bad but it's extremely unethical to do that to babies. Just think about how messed up that is.
Are you a doctor or any kind of medical expert?
You don't have to be a medical expert to have an opinion on the topic of cutting bits off people.
You probably should be a medical expert if you're going to insist that:
You've confused me with someone else.
I have not.
Op said:
Op was asked if they were a medical expert. You jumped in saying OP doesn't have to be a medical expert to have an opinion. I jumped in saying OP should be a medical expert in order to insist on a medical opinion.
I couldn't possibly tell you because that's not a thing that happens. "Oh, you're not bothered by this thing that happened to you? What if it was a different thing?" Is not a compelling argument.
To be clear, I am in no way arguing for circumcision. What I am saying is don't say you're fighting on my behalf over something I'm not bothered by. Some armchair "expert" insisting I am covering up trauma I don't have is just going to cause me to think the entire movement is a bunch of performative assholes who don't care to actually listen to people who were directly impacted by the thing they are talking about. That is the definition of virtue signaling: You don't actually care about what the people it actually happened to have to say, you need to make sure everyone sees that "you know better" and you're doing this for them.
Now that, is a good argument. Stick with that. Babies are unable to speak for themselves and need people to advocate for them. I don't need someone else to speak for me, I am fully capable of doing that myself.
I'm always on the look out for uncut cocks to help abate the resentment of having my own mutilated.
EDIT: Everyone flooding my inbox misunderstands me. I collect them, and then graft them onto a genetically modified host. It's a part of Project Penesis.
They'll make the Church of Scientology pay taxes before they ban circumcisions.
Oh no please don't do that. Anything but that
If we ban circumcision does that then mean it's okay to keep trans medical procedures banned aswell or that we shouldn't ban neither? I'm not sure the reasoning is sound here. Circumcision without the subject's concent is an obviously barbaric tradition that we will look back with horror one day.
no. trans medical procedures are consentual.
Circumcision is taking a kid and doing something irreversible to them without consent. Trans treatment is taking a kid and preventing irreversible things from happening until they consent.
Maybe it's too early in the morning, but can you explain what you mean by the latter point? I'm under the impression trans treatment is provided for individuals seeking gender affirming care, with parent agreement if the individual is a minor. Your statement sounds like only the parent is consenting...
EDIT: Thanks, EatATaco. So my confusion lies in the equating puberty to hormone therapy. Similar, but not the same.
AntiCommercial-AIlicense(CCBy-NC-SA4.0I think what they are saying is that puberty is irreversible and so trans care delays that until a child consents to going through puberty.
Read it again.
You probably want to carve out medically necessary circumcision (required treatment for some issues). The main answer in the US would be a combination of religion and tradition with some bonus vanity and outdated knowledge (see arguments about cleanliness).
In the US cutting off the foreskin for phimosis or other minor issues is unfortunately very common (probably because "it's no big deal, many had it done") when using lube and careful stretching or just waiting would have been sufficient.
Cutting off the offending part should always be the last option, e.g. in the case of cancer. We don't need an exception that cutting off e.g. a finger should be only done if medically necessary. That's obvious. It should be the same here. Otherwise you're just creating a loop hole.
Isn't Judaism and Islam a minority religion in America?
Christianity
Christianity doesn't proscribe circumcision. If anything it can be interpreted as doing the opposite.
Ask your local church pastor because the culture of circumcision in US did not just grow out of soil.
Wasn't it from Dr Lewis Sayre? That's what Wikipedia says. Although I know John Harvey Kellogg, a seventh day adventist, promoted it. Various seventh day adventists also came up with Young Earth Creationism and King James Onlyism.
You act as if logic and consistency matters to them
I think cosmetic surgery should be limited to adults, yes. Circumcision here is usually cosmetic (someone wants the baby to look like the Dad, I am not kidding, that is the argument I hear the most) so like labiaplasty, I don't think it should be done to people who can't choose it. I don't think intersex babies should be modified either.
Trans care for minors does not involve surgery. But other gender affirming care should be available to those over 13, like sexual health services are, without parental consent. That's the age we legally think kids get some privacy rights so why not this?
Cosmetic surgery encompasses a lot more things than boob jobs. A burn victim getting skin replacement is cosmetic surgery for example.
Sure, that's valid. A burn is an injury and repairing a skin injury is plastic surgery but I guess I didn't think of it as cosmetic.
Mostly I wanted to say that I do think gender care is something like sexual health services, that people we consider children for other purposes are granted the right to access this on their own. Right now in my state those kids can't even get counseling or lab services related to transgender care.
There are times where intersex babies need surgery to prevent complications. For anything else, let them wait until they can decide. Agreed 100%.
The same answer to both:
Religious indoctrination.
In America, it appears to have started being in vogue during WWII as a way for single moms whose husband is overseas to have less to take care of. After a bit of coercion, my parents admitted the hospital did it without even their consent. That does sound a lot like [insert birth state here] in the [insert birth decade here] so I didn't question it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevalence_of_circumcision check it out, scary numbers, america does this to 80% of the willies that pop out in their hospitals.
It's a testament to the dickchopper they use that there aren't more headless penises out there I suppose, but that's the nicest thing I can say about it. The second nicest is just "wtf?"
It only kills a hundred or so babies every year, if you include things like post surgical infection.
But yeah, thanks to the corn flakes guy it's super common in the US instead of just being a Jewish and Muslim thing. And it stays that way out of a combination of social inertia and foreskins being valuable to the biotech and cosmetics industries.
There's actually no mandate for non-Jewish people people to be circumcised in Christianity. It's specifically made clear that it isn't a requirement for "gentiles" in the new testament. But I have a great circumcised cock and I have no complaints. I'm still curious what it would be like naturally though.
oh yeah?
#prove it
I'm not going to post a picture (pics or it didn't happen, I know), but I seriously feel like my circumcised penis is beautiful. It's textbook perfect in size, shape, and appearance.
So I didn't have a choice, but I'm very happy with it.
yeah i want evidence
In my country circumcision is only for medical reasons
Because it's "traditional".
Prepare for all sorts of excuses that appear to be along the lines of "Americans don't know how to wash their cocks".
I would have loved to have the option to keep my hoodie on or not. I have a wicked crooked scar down there too. It doesn't keep me up at night but if I was given the choice I would have said no.
(at the risk of making a truly stupid joke)
You could wear some pants instead of trying to cover it with just a hoodie.
Its hard trying to get that perfect band of skin to show between the bottom of the hoodie and the top of the thigh highs.
Honestly, thigh highs + hoodie + "is there any clothes under that hoodie?" is peak fashion.
Thanks, you've really added value...
But I gotta know, was it a baggy hoodie?
Assuming you’re talking about male circumscission, the short answer is you’re about to be inundated with accusations of antisemitism.
As for female circumcision; it is illegal in the US. The Stop FGM act was signed into federal law in 2020.
To add to that, some Muslims will claim that FGM is religious. That is not correct. It is something that existed culturally prior to the introduction of Islam to those regions of Africa, and was incorporated into their religious practice. It is not, in any way, a necessary part of Islam. Unlike male circumcision, which is required in orthodox Judaism.
No religion should be mutilating babies. EVER.
I'm on the fence. Male circumcision reduces rates of certain STIs, decreases rates of UTIs, and it pretty well eliminates the possibility of phimosis. On the flip side, some men claim that circumcision reduces sensation, although I don't know how anyone other than a person that had a circumcision after being sexually active would know. On the list of things to be upset about that parents frequently do to children, it's pretty far down on my list, well below "spanking" and "gross invasions of privacy".
Interesting that surgically removing a body part without consent isn't as alarming to you as spanking
There are no benefits to spanking for the child, only negatives. There are benefits from male circumcision, and the negatives appear to be alleged rather than proven. (Most men that claim reduced sensation would likely do well to use lube, and stop using a kung-fu death grip.)
Given that circumcision has some limited benefits to the child, and spanking has none at all, yes, it makes sense that it's a lower priority.
It should probably be noted a more important distinction is that the entire purpose of FGM is to remove their ability to feel pleasure - by clipping off the clit - and thereby ensuring she doesn’t go around having sex.
While (male) circumcision isn’t necessarily to do that. (Though when they take too much, it absolutely does. Jewish mohels take far less than surgeons.)
Worth noting "clipping off the clit" is one of the milder less invasive forms of FGM.
Some types of FGM involve cutting off the clit and the labia.
Some involve going full scorched earth and cutting everything off then sewing up the wound leaving a tiny straw hole for pee and menstrual blood.
Then the husband is supposed to cut the scar open with a dagger on the wedding night.
Even before marriage, this creates all kinds of long term health problems and recurrent infections for some women. Of course, not all girls survive the procedure, traditionally the stitching is done using accacia thorns.
Also, in regions where FGM is practiced, it is practiced by Christians and Animists as well as Muslims.
Banning medical procedures is never a good idea. Circumcision can be a necessary measure to improve someone's genital health. Banning circumcision could also result in legal troubles for other surgeries where a scalpel needs to be brought into proximity of a penis.
Compare this, for example, to cases where bans on abortion resulted in doctors unable to carry out obviously necessary steps: https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/16/health/abortion-texas-sepsis/index.html
What could be banned, though, is mutilation of a minor, i.e. no consent and no recommendation for this procedure from a doctor.
Studies have shown that circumcision is typically not necessary. There are definitely extreme cases where the procedure may be required but the cleanliness aspect or for sti protection is make belief.
Yeah, but we are talking about the extreme cases. Even if it only happens once in the history of mankind that a boy's foreskin grows together at the tip and the boy needs to be cut open before he pops like a pee balloon, then you still want that to be legal. You don't want the doctor telling you that she doesn't know, if she's allowed to help the boy, so she won't do it.
We are talking about the non consensual circumcision of infants. Of course if an adult wants one done, they should be allowed to go do it, or if it is actually deemed medically necessary. 99% of these circumcisions are not though in the US. That's what needs to be banned.
There’s a problem with the “if it’s medically necessary” part.
All the states that have banned abortions have some sort of exemption for if it’s necessary to save the mom’s life but patients are still dying because doctors risk prison time if they make that decision and the state disagrees on if it was necessary. So patients clearly needing medically necessary abortions aren’t getting them early when they’re low risk, they’re getting them when they’re close to death and the surgery is high risk.
You’re right that circumcisions usually aren’t necessary. But there are medical benefits to the procedure and it is a valid treatment for some medical conditions like phimosis which can lead to serious infections.
Reducing medically unnecessary circumstances is a problem to fix with education not legislation.
We need to let parents and doctors still make informed medical decisions without the state interfering.
OP's post very much sounds to me like they want to wholesale ban the procedure on the basis that it's usually done without consent. Which is why I responded with what I wrote.
As the other commenter said, "medically necessary" is tricky wording, but aside from that, I did write essentially the same in my last sentence.
Same reason they want to ban trans medical procedures. "Family values"
It's tradition, so supporting it means supporting the status quo. Change is scary, and throwing shade at the past means throwing shade at all the people who've been harmful things all their lives. Can't have that, then they'd be to blame for not doing better (even though most probably didn't know better nor had good resources to know better).
The first problem is using logic. These bans are to hurt trans people to score political points. Nothing more.
Proving they are logically unsound does nothing for the base that eats this up. They just want to hurt those that scare and confuse them, that's all.
Why are you allowed Viagra, minoxidil, testosterone supplements, lifts in your shoes, girdles, hair plugs, tanning booths, calf implants, guns, camo/armor, ozempic and all the other gender affirming care that many conservatives and theocratic nutjobs enjoy to help pretend they're big, strong men and not the withering impotent cowards that they actually are?
Sometimes people have a medical reason for circumcision. My buddy had it done in his late 20's because it was difficult enough to keep clean that it was causing problems.
Also I might be out of the loop, where are trans medical procedures banned?
https://www.statista.com/chart/29297/bills-ban-transgender-care-us-states
:( I'm not surprised but I'm disappointed
because (and I recognize the irony) some people actually need it for health reasons.
Those are rare exceptions and it should only be done after puberty AND if it can't be resolved conservatively AND the person consents to the surgery. That's something else entirely than doing it to children.
Great job, you just killed me. Yes, I've had the procedure done at the age of 3(ish, can't remember too well) because otherwise I couldn't pee, period.
This is the obvious exception
From someone who is trans and circumcized without consent at birth.
From my personal experience it's religions way of controlling people, they believe mutilation of kids genitalia is good if stops them from doing whatever there religion dictates that's bad (like pleasure of sex and masterbation)
When blocking people from having transgender surgery is against there beliefs because it gives people control over there life's and body which most religions strictly enforce through gaslighting and manipulation.
This is all from my personal experiences with religion and being trans.
Because Jeesssuuuusssssss
I am not pro circumcision, but as someone who worked in peds urology before, a parent of a new son really should take a moment to ensure they are actually going to be able to keep the kid's penis clean, because phimosis and balanitis and later childhood circumcision are pretty awful. Betnovate cream can resolve a lot of it but making that decision later in life when you're at the point of excessive scarring and infection because you weren't honest with yourself about your ability to keep you kid clean is a bad way to end up. If you honestly are squicked out by penis hygiene as a parent just go ahead and circ them in infancy so you don't put them through hell later. That is way worse.
I’ve noticed this problem before. I’m cut, and my parents weren’t even capable of acknowledging that sex exists, much less telling me how to clean my dick or what I would need to do to keep things retractable. Later in life, my wife and I were sexually active with a friend who is uncut, and we both noticed that he could not fully retract his foreskin and he didn’t even know he was supposed to be able to. He didn’t believe me at first when I, as a circumcised man, was delicately trying to inform him that he had a medical issue. It looked painful sometimes.
Puritanism and embarrassment about sex has not only crippled conversations about birth control and safety, it has also left many generations of men completely uninformed about a major organ in their body.
That said, I have struggled with a lack of sensation, and my friend was extremely sensitive. I have wondered if it was the difference in circumcision. I would not circumcise my son if I had one.
You were right to tell him! And yes I'm sure being circed leads to desensitization.
But honestly parents like this should just be honest and say they aren't going to be able to handle it. Later childhood circumcision is a pretty awful thing to endure. I don't wish for circumcision for anyone but I also don't want some poor kid in pain because of thoughtless parents.
Agreed. Between the two of us, I’d rather have my little doubts about what my dick should have felt rather than his present problem of a very tight foreskin. That said, I think we both would have preferred the third option of having parents who properly prepared us to take care of our bodies.
I've never understood this line of reasoning. You think that a baby ISN'T in pain when you circumsize him? I'm pretty sure he's in just as much pain as if he would have experienced it later on in life.
That's not what I'm saying. I think being circed is terrible but it's a lot worse dealing with it later in life. I've seen kids end up in ER with phimosis it's so bad. If you are not going to clean your child, be realistic is all I'm saying.
Do you know just how small a newborn's penis is? There is one widely publicized case where a newborn had his entire penis BURNED OFF because the doctor fucked up. (it's a really horrible story where they tried to convince the child he was actually a girl. He later killed himself.)
It may not be pleasant for an older child but the surgery would be easier since the child is much bigger now.
Yes I read that book. I'm just saying the pain of late circ is pretty awful in my experience compared to a newborn. They don't use the cautery method they used for that baby anymore.
I had a friend who had a circumsion in his teens, and the way he speaks about it, it sounds like he got PTSD from the ordeal. This dude is one of the toughest people I have met in my life and he said it was the most painful thing he had ever endured.
I mention this, because it kind of adds to both of your points. Yes, circumcisions are extremely painful, and it is messed up to do to a baby who can't consent, in most cases. At the same time, I have never met anyone who has PTSD from being circumsized as a baby. If the procedure is inevitable for a person, its probably better to do it to them as a baby, because the trauma from it will be forgotten.
That being said, the procedure should be much rarer than it is now, at least in the US. It should only be done for medical reasons, not cosmetic ones.
The vast vast vast vast majority of men in the world are uncut and fine.
It also kills about a hundred babies a year.
And yeah, that kid's story is super fucked up if it's the one I'm thinking. After they burned his dick off, Dr. Money proposed raising and treating him as a girl in line with his theories about gender identity and gender roles (he's actually the guy who coined the term "gender role"). Which went to all kinds of fucked up places like simulated sexual roleplay with his brother to reinforce the feminine role. He eventually transitioned back to being a man once he was an adult, and later killed himself. The case gets referenced by right wingers pretty often as an example of "trans ideology" being dangerous and about grooming.
The pain of entities we see as under ourselves is not real, don't ya know
actually it's from a long held belief (that is SO wrong) that newborns don't feel pain. In fact they used to operate on newborns WITHOUT anesthesia.
And they wondered why the infant mortality rate was so high from those surgeries...
I don't see why this is an actually moment, that was part of my point
It's most definitely the difference in circumcision. You've effectively developed calluses on the head of your penis while mine and others stay nice and sheathed until ready for use.
Thanks, doctor. /s
Soap on dick is hard.
Can it be stopped? Yes
Should it be stopped? Yes
Will it be stopped? No.
Wait it's in the bible to get cut? I thought it was only a Jewish thing.
The First Testament in the Christian Bible (the entire first half) is the Torah, or Jewish Bible.
Most call it the Old Testament, and not quite. The Old Testament is a superset of the Torah. But contains many books that aren’t part of the Torah.
Sorry my atheist mind didn't know this. Thanks for the info
Tl;Dr: The Old Testament is included for history and context. Part of the thing Jesus does is free them from having to follow the old laws, which is why pastors quoting Leviticus to justify ostracizing gay people (or anything else) are full of shit.
I think it's probably not a great procedure, but at the same time, I, maybe weirdly, don't give a shit at all, for the most part. I don't really care because it was done to me at such a young age that there's not really any way I could possibly remember it, and so I don't really harbor any residual feelings about it. There's also not really a comparison to be had, here, since I can't really get my foreskin back, so there's not like, an A and B test that you can run on a person to be like "oh yeah does this feel better or does this feel better" type of thing.
You know, on the plus side, my dick looks, like, normal, to me, so that's neat. That would probably be the case if my penis were uncircumcised, too, but the uncircumcised penis looks kinda gross to me on a purely aesthetic level, I don't like the reciprocating skin, looks weird, looks like a pig in a blanket type of thing. Probably a result also of, I think probably a good majority of porn, at least in america, featuring circumcised dicks. Or, a majority of porn I've looked at, anyways.
So overall, I don't really care. I don't know why people kind of would care generally. I think it's probably not a good procedure, certainly, and I think it's kind of weird that we do it and that it's so common, and basically, seems to be pretty much unjustifiable, but I also haven't received a comprehensive or compelling argument against it, other than "the sex is better", which, you know, again, not really any way of A B testing that, for me. On an individual basis, it doesn't matter. It would only really matter, I would think, if you were kind of, hyper-insecure about the fact that you've been circumcised.
Just kind of extrapolating from what I understand, which is obviously not a lot, as I'm sure some sap will enlighten me to, it also doesn't strike me as being a surgery that's probably going to do that much damage. Mostly cosmetic, mostly just a flesh wound.
Still don't think it should be done, probably, but the overwhelming amount of people mad about it kind of indicates to me that there's something else going on about it. I think, probably, this is a pretty common edgy antitheist type of stance to have. The stance itself isn't really edgy, but it is sort of a common stance for edgy antitheists to have, is what I mean. I also use antitheist here instead of atheist, because I consider most atheists to not give a shit about god, while most antitheists I would consider to have a kind of brainrot inflicted by traumatic religious upbringings, or just kind of by ambiently having, predominantly christians (but this can also be applied to islam, or really whatever religion), be shitty to them. Which is fair, since christians are pretty shitty a good amount of the time, perhaps a majority, even.
Certainly though it does give me pause, especially when you get, as I've heard it, enlightened atheist types, that try to kind of argue that religion is the fault of, say, some major wars in history, the crusades, black death, whatever. That seems to me like blaming the wind, or stones. It's a deterministic element that just kind of arose out of humanity's latent need to explain the natural world around them, I would think most materialist (presumably) atheists would be able to understand that, but I think we've maybe become so swamped in this kind of post-history scientific materialist perspective as the default that we've kind of forgotten how weird everything is at face value, and how weird being conscious is. But I could go on that rant for hours, so.
Because some medical experts deem it a valid and valued preventative remedy for severe phimosis. While I don't concur, my grandfather developed a case late in life that necessitated surgical remediation.
Strange that in other parts of the world that's not the case. Almost as if American medical experts are swayed by their cultural bias.
Go on
My doctor concurs as do I.
Is he your doctor?
My own pediatrician as a child was a combat physician in Vietnam and he apparently told my parents that there is no question as to whether it should be done, having seen what he's seen in the jungle.
This whole "just keep it clean" assumes daily access to fresh water and soap, and that's just not guaranteed.
Our family physician was in agreement more recently when I had kids. I am a pretty skeptical person especially when it comes to religion, and the decision was obvious. A lifetime of cleanliness in the most sensitive area of the body is an easy decision.
Wash your dick. Are circumcised men not washing their dicks?
I can't speak for all curcumcised men but I wash mine
And I wash for the rest.
Preventing religious people from circumcising their kids would violate their religious liberties in the US.
Mostly though, nobody cares.
Unless you're talking about "female circumcision" which is a totally different and way more horrific thing.
Both are kinda horrific.
Not even on the same scale. Female circumcision is the complete removal of the clitoris and large portions of the labia. It is usually done to teens, carried out via acid, and without anesthesia.
A circumcised dick at least still works fine, and you don't remember it if it's done when you're an infant.
Still horrific. Stop enabling child mutilation.
there are several different levels of female genital mutilation, one of which removes the clitoral hood and is quite similar to a male circumcision. both are fucked
Your liberty ends where another person's starts. They shouldn't be able to violate their kid's body autonomy with their own religious beliefs. If the child grows up and makes the decision themselves they should be able to get cut at that point.
Because the people fighting for one usually aren't concerned with the other. I'm sure you'll find that support for gender affirming care and support for circumcision fall along party lines.
Sperm is life, protect sperm from being desecrated and thrown up everywhere.
Just because something is banned doesn't mean we should ban other things to make it "fair".
As another poster noted, not all parents are great. Not all parents want to do the work of cleaning their babies. Circumcision might be the best option for them. Maybe the baby doesn't even have proper parents to care for them. Maybe circumcision is needed for medical purposes. There's a million reasons we shouldn't speculate into, as it's none of our business.
Everyone on both sides of the argument should stop hyper focusing on people's genitals. Let people make their own decisions. We don't need the government saying what we can and can't do. Whenever the government intervenes, they inevitably fuck things up. Live and let live. Don't want to get circumcised or don't want your kid to? Then don't. But don't force people to do something because you believe it in. It doesn't make anyone any better than the people they are arguing against, even if their intentions are good.
As a final note, I do support everyone's right to modify their body however they see fit, including gender affirming care. If a parent makes a decision on their baby's behalf, then that is the parents decision, and no law should be able to dictate otherwise.
I'm open to having my mind changed, but this just seems like the pendulum swinging too far in the other direction.
Well...this seems sensible. It's a personal decision so it's everyone's right...
Oh, I see. Except the baby.
Lmao right? What a ridiculous thing to say.
Should parents not have the right to make decisions on behalf of their own children, until they develop the faculties to make their own decisions?
A baby isn't aware that it may need to be circumcised for any reason.
What's the correct response here? Like I said, I'm open to other ideas, but babies cannot make decisions for themselves.
Not if it implies cutting off parts of their body for no medically accepted reason.
If he has a medical issue and circumcision is the solution, sure. If it's for the common bulshit reasons, hell no, why is that even a question?
Sure, sure, fair enough. But who gets to dictate if the reason is valid. You? Me? The government? I don't think any of those is an acceptable answer. To me, the answer is the parents, and their medical practitioner. It shouldn't be anyone else's business.
Medical decisions are decided by a medical doctor. This is not hard.
.... Right. So we agree.
The long and short of my argument is that the government shouldn't have a say in any of it. Banning circumcision and banning gender affirming care are both stupid decisions. Anyone advocating for government intervention in personal matters is no better than all the bible thumpers injecting their religious beliefs into social policy. It's a slippery slope when we vote to give the government power, as they seldom relinquish it. Just because the government exerts its power enforcing something you fundamentally believe in doesn't mean it's correct. The pendulum swings both ways, and just because it benefits your cause now does not mean it always will.
Furthermore, whatever you decide is a "common bullshit reason", can be used against you and others down the road.
Anyway, I feel like I'm spinning my tires here. Vote on these things however you like, but if you or someone you love ever needs some sort of procedure that has been banned for a "common bullshit reason" in the eyes of whoever is deciding the policy, you will reap what you sow.
What the heck is going on here.
I've been circumcised as a child, as far as I know it was a medical necessary. I never had any Problem with my genitals. I have never even heard about people having such strong opinions about this topic.
It was just like, that some children having tympanostomy tube and some don't. Is this such a big topic in the USA, or just in this post?
It didn't start as a christian thing in America, it started to reduce masturbation as proposed by the guy who invented corn flakes. Making it even dumber than first proposed.
Because there are cases when you need it for health reasons. Sure this are not the majority of the circumcisions realized if we account for all the babies who receive it, but is still is a legit medical procedure. You can't completely ban something useful just because is misused.
I got a late stage circumcision (I was 10). Cut is better.
Because not everyone wants to look like an anteater?
You can ho hum all you want but circumcising me was 100% the right choice.
Was it your choice though?
There are plenty of medical choices that we make for children to make their lives easier/better, e.g. vaccines
how does cosmetic surgery make your child's life easier/better?
Calling it cosmetic is a fallacy. Do you think parents like wiping pee out of the foreskin after every time their uncircumcised infant boy pees? Do you think 100% of parents do it consistently? Do you think boys deserve the inevitable irritation when it is not done?
What is the worse move, ethically: one procedure to eliminate that problem forever, or condemning your child to years of irritated foreskin until they're able to pull it up?
Do you think parents also enjoy wiping baby butts and cleaning up vomit and other bodily functions of babies? It's part of infant care and millions of people are able to accomplish this with no reason to surgically remove part of their babies body.
So let's make it harder for them?
if you weren't circumcised as a child you would go get it done today?
That's a false equivalence. Doing it in adulthood inevitably includes a level of trauma that is avoided by having it done in infancy.
I cannot say for sure I would, as the prospect of doing it in adulthood would be intimidating.
Taking care of it in infancy is a kindness, to avoid putting men in that dilemma.
There's no dilemma at all. Every consenting person who wants cosmetic surgery should be allowed to have it, and no one who can't consent to cosmetic surgery should have it forced upon them.
Calling it cosmetic is a fallacy. Do you think parents like wiping pee out of the foreskin after every time their uncircumcised infant boy pees? Do you think 100% of parents do it consistently? Do you think boys deserve the inevitable irritation when it is not done?
What is the worse move, ethically: one procedure to eliminate that problem forever, or condemning your child to years of irritated foreskin until they're able to pull it up?
you know that the entire rest of the world is full of baby boys with foreskins and parents who clean them, right? is your argument really gonna be "it's inconvenient for parents to clean their kids so lets just cut off a part of their body"?
You are just assuming that all parents are 1. Still alive, and 2. Knowledgeable, capable and willing to do a thing multiple times every day, all of which could be avoided with one simple procedure that won't be remembered anyway. Sounds pretty flimsy.
You think those other countries have 100% adherence? Of course not. Why make kids suffer for having absent/unaware/unable/unwilling parents?
Why do you believe there is no trauma to the infant, because they cant remember it? They still experience all of the pain, and they dont even know why it happened to them
ETA: infants and toddlers who experience physical and/or sexual abuse often dont remember the experience(s), but still suffer the effects of their trauma in adulthood. Remembering the event is not a requirement for being traumatized
What about the trauma of having a constantly irritated foreskin for the first couple years of life? You know how pee is corrosive? You think parents vigilantly clean the foreskin of pee immediately after every time their boy pees? It doesn't happen. Leaving foreskin on causes greater discomfort when you look at the boy's whole youth, compared to one quick act.
Girls experience similar discomfort when they arent cleaned well, as the labia can trap pee and toilet paper. You wanna start advocating that girls have their labia minora removed, or do you wanna recognize how flawed your argument is?
Edit: also, this isnt a problem in other countries lol, an epidemic of boys running around with pee-encrusted penises. They’re taught how to clean themselves, it really isn’t that difficult or complicated.
Seeing your other comments, if you are to remain faithful to your argument then you must advocate for female circumcision as well, since not all girls have parents, or parents who are willing to keep them clean every day. The labia can trap a lot of bacteria and can get very irritated if not thoroughly cleaned. This is high level female genital mutilation, but hey, at least they won’t remember the pain of irritated labia, right?
Even worse, this trapped bacteria is part of why girls have higher risk of UTI, which, if left untreated, can progress to a kidney infection, sepsis, and death! So let me know how fervently you support female genital mutilation with your newfound knowledge.
You are making it abundantly clear that you have no interest in arguing in good faith. Taking my concerns to farther extremes than I stated is an ad hominem fallacy.
Cutting foreskin versus turning a dick inside out are two very different things.
Yeah, one’s done without anesthetic to babies to make sure their dicks look like their dads’, and one’s done to adults with their fully informed consent
Huh? One completely changes a person's anatomy, while the other slightly changes the look. These things are not comparable, and to do so is idiotic.
It does not just change the look.
Real answer? Society doesn't care about problems that only effect men.
I challenge you to name some problems that only effect men that werent caused by us men in the first place
Prostate cancer?
Hey, I like your cat picture! Yes, prostate cancer is one, but with 14000 urologists in the USA alone we cant say society doesnt care about it
Yours too! I was just being facetious and taking your challenge literally (I agree with you). Cheers!
Testosterone deficiency.
Nope, women can also experience that.
Yea, both my brother and father had prostate cancer - we haven't invested money into treating either one which is why... neither of them died to it?
Fuck off with that incel bullshit.
Hot take: I have never regretted being circumcized and never met anyone who regretted being circumcized so banning it doesn't make sense for that reason alone. Some parents pierce their children's ears without their consent, some give them frenectomies, pull teeth, reshape heads, bind feet, or do a variety of other "elective" procedures so I'm not sure why circumcision has so much hate.
I know we have never met (and after having read your previous post i am quite okay with that), but I hate the fact i am circumcised. I have severe loss of feeling from it. My father said he regretted it the instant it was done and would have never agreed to it if he knew the way i was going to scream.
I personally cannot regret being circumcised, as i had nothing to do with it other than being born with a foreskin.
Google is right there buddy. Just google "people regretting being circumsized" before spearding this cult shit lol
That dude just listed a bunch of horrendous mutilations and went "if that's ok then...".
Critical thinking fail there.
Can find anything on the internet.
Especially groups of angsty men, who, for some reason are obsessed with the idea that they are victims of something.
Definitely a hot take to say because other people mutilate their children without their consent that we should be okay with this mutilation.
Also weird that people seem to take it as a personal attack that people want to ban pointless procedures because they had it done to them.
Peak "If it was good enough for me, it's good enough for my kids" energy right there.
If we find people who regret it, do we then need to ban it? Is there a certain threshold of regretful people we need to meet?
Do you expect a lot of people to regret something that happened to them before they were capable of forming memories?