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.
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.
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?
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.
Most medical and political professionals have a bias for the circumcision ritual.
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 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.
If you consider this to be mutilation then that would also mean you think any gender affirming surgery is also mutilation.
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.
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
... 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
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.
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.
If the foreskin isn’t cleaned well (challenging for toddlers)
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.
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%.
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.
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.
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.
they always have been thrown under the bus not just this time around.
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.
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).
Yeah but Kellogg suggested circumcision as a punishment for when you were caught masturbating. Plus the recovery time would keep you from offending again in the short term.
Muslims aswell.
Does such an order actually exist or do they pull it out of their ass in some convenient interpretation?
Probably the latter. Prepuces are actually a sign of the pact of the god with the Hebrews. Specifically.
we *should *ban circumcision, it's genital mutilation and children cannot consent
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 19th 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
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
Americans do it regardless of religion
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
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".
tricking themselves into being ok with it because they can't get they dick tips back lol
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.
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.
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.
They'll make the Church of Scientology pay taxes before they ban circumcisions.
Oh no please don't do that. Anything but that
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.
I 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.
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?"
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.
I have a great circumcised cock
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
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.
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".
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.
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.)
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.
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
:( I'm not surprised but I'm disappointed
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?
Because Jeesssuuuusssssss
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.
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.
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.
Can it be stopped? Yes
Should it be stopped? Yes
Will it be stopped? No.
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.
Soap on dick is hard.
States could but I don’t see anyone pressing for it. People would just claim a religious exemption if they wanted to do it.
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.
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.
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.
I think it’s probably not a good procedure
So why use a knife on a baby penis? This alone trumps any other argument to me. If there is no medical reason to make an open wound on a baby's genitals, then why are y'all doing it?
Edit: somewhere in your wall of text i found that you in fact 'don’t think it should be done, probably' so i guess we already agree. My point still stands that if there is no clear reason for it, it is very weird and disturbing to me that it is done so often.
I knew a guy who had circumcision done by choice as a young adult. He said the difference was amazing. He was astounded how much more sensitive it was with the scar tissue and how much better sex was after that.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
Oh boy. You're about to learn a lot.
A circumcision isn't necessary when there's nothing medically wrong with you. It's literally mutilation when it's done for religious or appearance reasons. Spoiler! These are the two most common reasons why this procedure takes place. You didn't consent.
When you're born, the foreskin is fused to the glans (penis head). A foreskin's purpose is protecting the glans and keeping it moist. A circumcised penis is scientifically proven to have reduced sensitivity because the glans are exposed all the time.
This procedure usually happens when the baby is 24 to 48 hours old. There are over ~100 deaths a year from circumcision. If an infection occurs, this can easily get out of hand and cause the loss of all or parts of the penis... on a new born baby mind you. Complications later in life may include, but not limited to: pain or discomfort with an erection, erectile dysfunction, or abnormal shape or size of an erection.
Because a new born penis is incredibly small, the slightest mistake can lead to disaster. In some cases, can mentally fuck someone up. Unfortunately, I am personally affected by a botched procedure. Too much skin was taken off and the urethral opening was torn.
It's an unnecessary procedure that can fuck up your otherwise healthy at birth child for the rest of their life. All for some religious reason or because parents "don't like it" - every male is born with it. It's there for a reason.
What. In the 24/48 Hours after Birth is really early.
Mine was done when I was, like 5 or 6. I can clearly remember being put under general anesthesia. And peeing hurt for like 3 days.
But after that? No problem ever. How can there even be a medical reason in the 24/48 Hours after Birth?
EDIT: Mine was done because my foreskin was way too tight. Damn, Now I feel really sorry for you, bro. I thought everyone get this done (if it gets done at all) at the age of 5 to 7. But doing this on a Newborn seems really weird. I wish you and your junk all the best.
I have never even heard about people having such strong opinions about this topic.
You're seriously pretending that you've never heard of people having strong opinions on genital mutilation, or that you don't understanding why?
Or are you pretending that circumcision isn't genital mutilation?
Because the western medical procedure to correct phimosis is very different from having your prepuce ritually removed.
Opening up the prepuce enough for it to be able to slide over the glans and removing the whole prepuce are rather different.
But the most ridiculous thing is you pretending you're not aware of the controversy of snipping your kids genitals because of convictions/culture
Maybe because there are not many Jews (or other Religions who do this "ritualy") in Germany the only way I ever heard about this was as a medical procedure. So yes. I never even thought about this being something controversial, like I never would think that getting tympanostomy tubes are controversial. If you want to get mad at me for living in a World where this is not an issue then go on. But isn't a World where this is not issue your end goal?
Sperm is life, protect sperm from being desecrated and thrown up everywhere.
and is not a christian thing except in dumbfuck america
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.
