Circumcision.

[Father Heathen]

I'm circumcised, and I think there's probably not a very good reason for most of us to be. That said, for myself personally I don't care and don't think of myself as having been harmed by it.

I'm not saying I'm that traumatized or harmed, although there's no way of knowing how sensitivity, etc. may have been negatively impacted. Still, an intimate part of body was removed without my consent for completely arbitrary and nonsensical reasons. This isn't a woe-is-me thread; I just thought it would make for an interesting discussion.

 

[Boris Norris]

Circumcision was practiced in an effort to dull the sexual benefits by religious groups. Others thought it would stop masturbation.
The health thing is a total fallacy.

 

[Heyo]

Circumcision was practiced in an effort to dull the sexual benefits by religious groups. Others thought it would stop masturbation.
The health thing is a total fallacy.

The "health thing" is not a total fallacy. 1. Phimosis is a thing.

Spoiler: Wiki article, NSFW

Phimosis - Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phimosis

2. It is better for hygiene in an environment where daily showering or bathing isn't possible - like in ancient times in a desert/arid land.
The second one is no excuse for today and the first a real medical condition. There was a time when it was thought to be more hygienic anyway to be circumcised. That was medical consensus and I don't think a doctor could be blamed for following best practices of the time.
The consensus has changed and I think today a phimosis is the only valid reason for a circumcision.

 

[Revoltingest]

The "health thing" is not a total fallacy. 1. Phimosis is a thing.

Spoiler: Wiki article, NSFW

Phimosis - Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phimosis

2. It is better for hygiene in an environment where daily showering or bathing isn't possible - like in ancient times in a desert/arid land.
The second one is no excuse for today and the first a real medical condition. There was a time when it was thought to be more hygienic anyway to be circumcised. That was medical consensus and I don't think a doctor could be blamed for following best practices of the time.
The consensus has changed and I think today a phimosis is the only valid reason for a circumcision.

Does that argument even apply in a 1st world country?
It's not an epidemiological argument at all.
I've seen too many arguments that western countries
should circumcise because of 3rd world health problems.
It seems a rationalization to do it for cultural & religious
reasons, eg, some Jews saying that it would be "genocide"
to ban circumcision.

 

[Heyo]

Does that argument even apply in a 1st world country?

I thought I answered that? It is not.

It seems a rationalization to do it for cultural & religious
reasons, eg, some Jews saying that it would be "genocide"
to ban circumcision.

Yes, it is absolutely religious/cultural. And it assumes the consent of a newborn to be part of that culture/religion. I think it would be OK to allow a boy or young man to sue. Then the parents/doctors/Mohel would know if they assumed right - and pay up if they weren't.

 

[dybmh]

I was circumcised as an infant, and of course had no say.
As an adult, I would rather have had it left natural and intact. Am I the victim of mutilation? Why or why not?

From wikipedia: Mutilation or maiming (from the Latin: mutilus) is severe damage to the body that has a ruinous effect on an individual's quality of life.

I'm not saying I'm that traumatized or harmed, although there's no way of knowing how sensitivity, etc. may have been negatively impacted. Still, an intimate part of body was removed without my consent for completely arbitrary and nonsensical reasons.

If you weren't harmed, then it's a no. You weren't mutilated.

This isn't a woe-is-me thread; I just thought it would make for an interesting discussion.

It would be interesting to hear the reason(s) why you were circumsised. Have you asked about it?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Last time we had that topic on, I had a long debate with @Harel13. It wasn't really resolved but it was a good debate.
My position was and is that it is a medical procedure and should only be performed for medical reasons by medical professionals and I'd vote and petition in my country to make that a law. I won't go out of my way to tell people in other countries how they should make their laws.
Bodily integrity is a higher value than millennia old traditions, imo.

I do fully agree.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

From wikipedia: Mutilation or maiming (from the Latin: mutilus) is severe damage to the body that has a ruinous effect on an individual's quality of life.



If you weren't harmed, then it's a no. You weren't mutilated.



It would be interesting to hear the reason(s) why you were circumsised. Have you asked about it?

Lots of nerve endings are needlessly snipped off; useless, needless, pointless and severe pain and suffering are inflicted; and it's all for no good reason and to deny rightful bodily autonomy to infant.
That is mutilation.

 

[dybmh]

Lots of nerve endings are needlessly snipped off; useless, needless, pointless and severe pain and suffering are inflicted; and it's all for no good reason and to deny rightful bodily autonomy to infant.
That is mutilation.

I hear you, but the defintion says "ruinous effect on the individual's quality of life". Ruin is extreme.

There are good reasons. It all depends on the parent's / guardian's intention. Leaving the circumcision until later when a child can fully consent makes it much much more difficult for the child to make their body match their identity. Does that sound familiar? It should. This is the same justification used for gender-affirming care of children. There is a window of opportunity to obtain the optimal result with the least risk and suffering.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

The "health thing" is not a total fallacy. 1. Phimosis is a thing.

Spoiler: Wiki article, NSFW

Phimosis - Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phimosis

Phimosis isn't usually a big health problem.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

It all depends on the parent's / guardian's intention.

Unless it is absolutely medically necessary then it is a vanity body modification performed entirely without consent. It is abuse to subject children to such a thing.

Leaving the circumcision until later when a child can fully consent makes it much much more difficult for the child to make their body match their identity.

Oh well. At least there is consent, which means it wasn't forced, it was freely chosen and isn't abuse.

Does that sound familiar? It should. This is the same justification used for gender-affirming care of children. There is a window of opportunity to obtain the optimal result with the least risk and suffering.

No, it's not. We are consenting and guided by medical professionals. Infants are not asked, give no consent and are forced to go through with something they may not want. It just happens when the parents want it, no exploring why or if its even needed and necessary.
It is not at all comparable as you are trying to make it sound.

 

[Revoltingest]

I thought I answered that? It is not.

Yes, it is absolutely religious/cultural. And it assumes the consent of a newborn to be part of that culture/religion. I think it would be OK to allow a boy or young man to sue. Then the parents/doctors/Mohel would know if they assumed right - and pay up if they weren't.

Understood.

 

[dybmh]

Unless it is absolutely medically necessary then it is a vanity body modification performed entirely without consent. It is abuse to subject children to such a thing.

I'm perfectly fine with vanity. Not mutilation. I think care should be taken with the word abuse though.

From wikipedia: Child abuse (also called child endangerment or child maltreatment) is physical, sexual, and/or psychological maltreatment or neglect of a child or children, especially by a parent or a caregiver. Child abuse may include any act or failure to act by a parent or a caregiver that results in actual or potential harm to a child and can occur in a child's home, or in the organizations, schools, or communities the child interacts with.​

​

Any act that results in potential harm. There is great potential for harm in many choices a parent makes. Including gender affirming care.

Oh well. At least there is consent, which means it wasn't forced, it was freely chosen and isn't abuse.

Consent is not the metric for abuse. It's about harm and potential harm. Weighing risk verses reward. That's why it's not abuse to rush to begin hormone therapy if a child is suicidal even though there are irreversible changes that occur.

Also, I'm not sure that what's happening with gender affirming care can be considered a free choice if the child is suicidal and if psychotherapy is not offered and available. All the choices need to be presented and available for it to be a free choice. And no one who is suicidal is able to consent to long term changes to their body.

No, it's not.

Is there any harm waiting to begin gender affirming care till 16?

We are consenting and guided by medical professionals. Infants are not asked, give no consent and are forced to go through with something they may not want.

That's true. The parent is hoping that the child will agree that it was the right decision when they are older. Ultimately it's about removing barriers for the child.

It just happens when the parents want it, no exploring why or if its even needed and necessary.

That's not a fair assessement. It's about what the child will want in the future. And saying it's not explored is not fair either.

It is not at all comparable as you are trying to make it sound.

OK, then, it should be fine to postpone all permanent body modifications including hormone treatment and especially top-surgery until 16 years of age. The person might want their chest once it developes naturally. They might want to breast feed, but don't know it yet.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Any act that results in potential harm. There is great potential for harm in many choices a parent makes. Including gender affirming care.

Circumcision is cutting off a part of the genitals. That is harnful, painful and it leaves a scar amd it is almost always unnecessary and done entirely without consent.

OK, then, it should be fine to postpone all permanent body modifications including hormone treatment and especially top-surgery until 16 years of age. The person might want their chest once it developes naturally. They might want to breast feed, but don't know it yet.

Are you not understanding the parts of medical necessity and guided by medical professionals?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Also, I'm not sure that what's happening with gender affirming care can be considered a free choice if the child is suicidal and if psychotherapy is not offered and available. All the choices need to be presented and available for it to be a free choice. And no one who is suicidal is able to consent to long term changes to their body.

If there's depression and suicidal ideation then that is a medical crisis.
And, again, this just isn't comparable to circumcision, which is nearly almost always without need, necessity and consent.
And if it isnt your body it isn't your rightful decision or choice to have body modifications performed, especially when they are permanent and irreversible.
One is a lengthy process filled with self reflection, therapy sessions, and requirements for treatment. Circumcision has none of this and is just performed on those who are not informed and are not consenting.

 

[dybmh]

Circumcision is cutting off a part of the genitals. That is harnful, painful and it leaves a scar amd it is almost always unnecessary and done entirely without consent.

It's still not abuse, nor is it multilation. Optional? yes. Cosmetic? yes. In the best interests of the child? Could be. Case by case basis.

Are you not understanding the parts of medical necessity and guided by medical professionals?

My wife and I were guided by a medical professional. When we found out we were having a boy, our peditrician talked to us about circumcision. She approved of our choice to go with an orthodox rabbi. We made sure that any suction to the wound occured indirectly. And the rabbi made a housecall the following day to prevent readhesion, which is the #1 complication post circumcision.

Hormones and Top-surpergy are a medical necessity? That means no other option? Psychotherapy is one of the 4 interventions in the standard of care guidelines published by WPATH. This is much less invasive and reduces the risk for suicide and self-harm. Potentially this is a better option because the gender duality that is associated with body type is actually addressed instead of reinforcing it.

I asked why not wait till the child is 16 for hormones and top surgery? Why do this before before puberty? I think if you can answer that question, it will be apparent that there is a window of opportunity before puberty to get the best result with the least suffering.

 

[dybmh]

If there's depression and suicidal ideation then that is a medical crisis.

The point is risk vs. reward. In the case for a child in crisis, the parent can take a big risk and allow permanent body modifications inspite of potential for harm and lack of consent.

For circumcision the risk is extremely low, the harm is extremely minimal, and the number of people who regret it are extremely minimal. So a parent can also make the choice without consent.

And, again, this just isn't comparable to circumcision, which is nearly almost always without need, necessity and consent.

What's comparble is the window of opportunity to get the best result. Really, nothing is comparable to circumcision. There is no other body part that can be modified so simply, with such minimal risk.

And if it isnt your body it isn't your rightful decision or choice to have body modifications performed, especially when they are permanent and irreversible.

OK, then a parent cannot consent for their child to get begin hormone treatment. They need to be of age. Whatever that means. 14, 16, 18, 21... People complain that their voice is permanently changed after hormone treatment, and it requires massive surgery to maybe change it back. Also, infertility is an issue. A child doesn't ahve the ability to know whether they want to have children or not. No amount of therapy is going to resolve that for a child.

One is a lengthy process filled with self reflection, therapy sessions, and requirements for treatment.

Is this lengthy process required? Which states enforce these therapy sessions?

Circumcision has none of this and is just performed on those who are not informed and are not consenting.

But the risk is so small. Is there a single person anywhere who has commited suicide as a result of their lack of consent to circumcision?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

For circumcision the risk is extremely low, the harm is extremely minimal, and the number of people who regret it are extremely minimal. So a parent can also make the choice without consent.

Rightfully no. It is unnecessary save for rare situations, it is a willful infliction of pain and suffering that serves no necessary purpose or function, amd if there is no necessary reason then it is utterly impossible for the decision to deprive of another of bodily autonomy and consent to be ethical and right.
Trying to compare this to gender dysphoria treatment just isn't comparable. It's something providers just will not do just because a parent says do it. There are no psychological evaluations, no requirements before being operated on, and no requirement for two letters of recommendation from healthcare providers who specialize in gender dysphoria (with the requirement this individual also participate in continued learning activities in regards to gender dysohoria and the trans community).
Just stop doing it because you're about to drive off a cliff.

Is this lengthy process required? Which states enforce these therapy sessions?

It's required by providers. Like surgeons who perform genital surgeries. There websites, as well as the WPATH Standards of Care, require living full time as your identified sex for no less than one year before being eligible for surgery, and that doesn't count the therapy and hormones and other treatments before going full time.
It takes most people several years to finish everything.

OK, then a parent cannot consent for their child to get begin hormone treatment. They need to be of age. Whatever that means. 14, 16, 18, 21... People complain that their voice is permanently changed after hormone treatment, and it requires massive surgery to maybe change it back. Also, infertility is an issue. A child doesn't ahve the ability to know whether they want to have children or not. No amount of therapy is going to resolve that for a child.

Again, the difference is that circumcision is just done, without scrutiny, while a gender transition requires medical guidance and professional evaluations.

 

[Heyo]

It's still not abuse, nor is it multilation. Optional? yes. Cosmetic? yes.

Bodily harm? Yes.

In the best interests of the child? Could be. Case by case basis.



My wife and I were guided by a medical professional. When we found out we were having a boy, our peditrician talked to us about circumcision. She approved of our choice to go with an orthodox rabbi. We made sure that any suction to the wound occured indirectly. And the rabbi made a housecall the following day to prevent readhesion, which is the #1 complication post circumcision.

Hormones and Top-surpergy are a medical necessity? That means no other option? Psychotherapy is one of the 4 interventions in the standard of care guidelines published by WPATH. This is much less invasive and reduces the risk for suicide and self-harm.

What about trying psychotherapy instead of circumcision?

Potentially this is a better option because the gender duality that is associated with body type is actually addressed instead of reinforcing it.

I asked why wait till the child is 16 for hormones and top surgery? Why do this before before puberty? I think if you can answer that question, it will be apparent that there is a window of opportunity before puberty to get the best result with the least suffering.

Because it is commonly accepted that decisions about sex change (or other body modifications) can't be fully understood by a child younger than 16. Puberty blockers are there to afford the child/young adult all possibilities to make the right decision and keep all options open.

 

[Father Heathen]

If you weren't harmed, then it's a no. You weren't mutilated.

What about tattooing an infant? Or removing earlobes because the parents think it looks good?

It would be interesting to hear the reason(s) why you were circumsised. Have you asked about it?

It is/was simply a social/cultural expectation.