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.
Sperm is life, protect sperm from being desecrated and thrown up everywhere.
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.
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.
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?
Then the argument that there are only two genders falls apart.
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.
They’ll make the Church of Scientology pay taxes before they ban circumcisions.
Oh no please don’t do that. Anything but that
deleted by creator
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.
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”.
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
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”.
In my country circumcision is only for medical reasons
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?
where are trans medical procedures banned?
https://www.statista.com/chart/29297/bills-ban-transgender-care-us-states
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.
I do support everyone’s right to modify their body however they see fit, including gender affirming care
Well…this seems sensible. It’s a personal decision so it’s everyone’s right…
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
deleted by creator
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Still horrific. Stop enabling child mutilation.
because (and I recognize the irony) some people actually need it for health reasons.
This is the obvious exception
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.
Those are rare exceptions and it should only be done after puberty
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.
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.
