Circumcision.

[dybmh]

Thinking isn't good enough.

Oh come one, it is too good enough.

That's what they do. A parent just cannot say do it and have the child started on hormones. It definitely requires the child's input.

A child's input is not consent. What age are we talking about? Is there any age requirement?

From the links you brought, it's not for hormone treatment. So again, infertility, permanent voice changes.

Although it is good to see that at least there is a psychologist signing off for top surgery. But there's no requirements for how much therapy is needed, how long is the assessment, what is involved. There is no waiting period.

You have to be show to be shown that a provider just will not do a gender change on an infant because the parent wants it?
Sounds like this myth in circulation years ago about a man hating lesbian who gave birth to a son and wanted him changed.

It's not just because a parent wants it. It's do they do all the things you claimed they did. Therapy, a long process to help the child understand. That does not appear to be requried at all.

Vaginoplasty / Vulvoplasty

Gender affirmation surgery for a transfeminine person is sometimes called bottom surgery. Learn about three surgical options and which one is best for you

healthcare.utah.edu

Transgender Surgeries & Gender Affirmation | Mount Sinai - New York

Learn more about the full range of transgender surgeries performed by the expert surgeons at the Center for Transgender Medicine and Surgery.

www.mountsinai.org

The WPATH require the same time as Utah site.

This is not hormone therapy. The WPATH actually says that delaying hormone treatment is not a "neutral" position. They admit that there are irrersible changes from hormones for F>>M people. But there is no guideline requiring a lengthy process. These are "broad guidelines". This has no teeth when it comes to irreversible body changes from hormones.

That's how it typically works in healthcare.

Do you think that the lengthy therapy and counseling is required to be ethical? Also, the age for consent they recommend is 16, but it's not required, and even parental consent is recommended but not required.

Circumcision’s Psychological Damage

The CDC’s new recommendations for genital cutting of boys of all ages ignored the research on psychological harm. We review the evidence.

www.psychologytoday.com

View of Social and psychological effects of circumcision: A narrative review

janh.candle.or.id

OK, no real numbers of mental distress among adults. Children 4 to 6 months of age show a stronger facial expression response to being vaccinated though. And there's research showing that children who are circumcised, as opposed to infants, is an issue. And there's reasons why they can't figure out how many adults are actually regretting their circumcision.

So the question was, can you show me numbers? and the answer is "no".

It is not ok to skip consent, and the going in circles has been your trying to extensively downplay the role of medical guidance and consent involved in a gender transition.

It doesn't appear to be required for hormone therapy which has actual, real, measurable irreversible consequences. And you seem fine with the parent making this choice in spite of the child's ability to consent to infertility.

Why not take some time to actually learn about these things rather than speeding towards a cliff with your assumptions?

A child cannot consent to infertility. IOW, consent for this is skipped in favor of a risk/reward asessement. That is exactly what is happening with circumcision.

Actually it's widely been bumped up to 18 these days, with heavy restrictions for a period of time. But we don't really train or teach people how to drive that much, we don't have a more experienced drivers providing guidance as we learn, and it's nostly figuring it out on our own.
Again, just not comparable.

The idea is that a child cannot be expected to understand long term consequences for their choices.

 

[Heyo]

Thinking isn't good enough.

That's what they do. A parent just cannot say do it and have the child started on hormones. It definitely requires the child's input.

You have to be show to be shown that a provider just will not do a gender change on an infant because the parent wants it?
Sounds like this myth in circulation years ago about a man hating lesbian who gave birth to a son and wanted him changed.

Vaginoplasty / Vulvoplasty

Gender affirmation surgery for a transfeminine person is sometimes called bottom surgery. Learn about three surgical options and which one is best for you

healthcare.utah.edu

Transgender Surgeries & Gender Affirmation | Mount Sinai - New York

Learn more about the full range of transgender surgeries performed by the expert surgeons at the Center for Transgender Medicine and Surgery.

www.mountsinai.org

The WPATH require the same time as Utah site.

That's how it typically works in healthcare.

Circumcision’s Psychological Damage

The CDC’s new recommendations for genital cutting of boys of all ages ignored the research on psychological harm. We review the evidence.

www.psychologytoday.com

View of Social and psychological effects of circumcision: A narrative review

janh.candle.or.id

It is not ok to skip consent, and the going in circles has been your trying to extensively downplay the role of medical guidance and consent involved in a gender transition.


Why not take some time to actually learn about these things rather than speeding towards a cliff with your assumptions?

Actually it's widely been bumped up to 18 these days, with heavy restrictions for a period of time. But we don't really train or teach people how to drive that much, we don't have a more experienced drivers providing guidance as we learn, and it's nostly figuring it out on our own.
Again, just not comparable.

:informative:

 

[Heyo]

Or bodily benefit. Case by case basis.

I meant that as a legal term. If there were no special exception, circumcision would fall under "bodily harm/battery/assault" laws.

Because the window of opportunity for the optimal result occurs before psychotherapy is possible.



Sorry, i was typing too fast. I missed a word. the question should have been:

I asked why NOT wait till the child is 16 for hormones and top surgery?

Basically your answer matches my understanding of what should happen, but isn't happening here in the US. And the reason it's NOT happening is because there is a window of opportunity to begin the hormone treatment and to do the top-surgery before 16. So a fuller consent is compromised in favor of the more ideal result.

I think we can skip the fronted arguments for and against health as you don't care about that anyway.
Our real dispute is about values. You reject what western culture is build upon for the last 300 years, things like liberty, equality or empathy.
You don't have empathy as you argue for an unnecessarily painful procedure. You intentionally chose such a painful procedure even though there were an option to not do it at all or do it under anesthesia.
I guess you are against equality though you didn't state it directly. But you don't argue for circumcision for girls, do you?
You are against liberty as consent doesn't mean anything to you. Parents know best and can decide what they want.

Am I wrong in my assessment?

If so, I guess we may convince you that circumcision (especially ritual) is wrong by all western morals.
If not, we will agree that morality is always subjective and yours aren't ours.

 

[Gargovic Malkav]

I wonder if a ban on circumcision is going to do more harm than good.
I think such a ban would be very patronizing towards many families' choices in how they should raise their children.
And I think it's rather dramatic to equal something like this to abuse.

 

[Heyo]

I wonder if a ban on circumcision is going to do more harm than good.
I think such a ban would be very patronizing towards many families' choices in how they should raise their children.
And I think it's rather dramatic to equal something like this to abuse.

We already removed child labor, child soldiers and corporal punishment from parenting options. We should be able to leave the Bronze Age in respect to bodily autonomy.

 

[Gargovic Malkav]

We already removed child labor, child soldiers and corporal punishment from parenting options. We should be able to leave the Bronze Age in respect to bodily autonomy.

It's exactly that way of thinking I'm so wary of:
The way of thinking where people with different cultural norms are regarded as savages, who have to be taught (with or without consent) how to live like civilized people.
And where the civilized uphold their own as some objective standard.
It all sounds too familiar to me.

I understand the line needs to be drawn somewhere, but I do feel that when it comes to topics like this, I feel that the righteous are becoming increasingly judgmental and petty, slowly turning them into the self-righteous.

 

[Mock Turtle]

It's exactly that way of thinking I'm so wary of:
The way of thinking where people with different cultural norms are regarded as savages, who have to be taught (with or without consent) how to live like civilized people.
And where the civilized uphold their own as some objective standard.
It all sounds too familiar to me.

I understand the line needs to be drawn somewhere, but I do feel that when it comes to topics like this, I feel that the righteous are becoming increasingly judgmental and petty, slowly turning them into the self-righteous.

From another perspective though, it seems the religious are the ones being self-righteous. I think for many it is the assumption that having a religious belief entitles one to donate this to a child as if it was truth - but the variety of such beliefs tells against this - and hence just seen as being arrogance.

 

[Kathryn]

As a woman, I don't care one way or the other, for the record. But I did not have my two sons circumcised because 1) their dad wasn't circumcised and never had an issue or problem with not being circumcised, and 2) it seemed to be cruel and painful to do it with no anesthesia.

 

[Heyo]

It's exactly that way of thinking I'm so wary of:
The way of thinking where people with different cultural norms are regarded as savages, who have to be taught (with or without consent) how to live like civilized people.

It is not people with different cultural norms but the same cultural norms we have overcome, sometimes after a long struggle and for good reasons. It is not that they have developed in a different direction, they haven't developed at all. Their cultural norms are still the same they were 2500 years ago.

And where the civilized uphold their own as some objective standard.

I don't believe in objective morality. I can't force someone to have the same moral standards as me. I can explain why my are "better" i.e. more conducive to a peaceful and prosperous community. I can also expect (and enforce) that people hold to the laws of the land (which are roughly influenced by our moral ideas). I can't expect or enforce them to hold my standards if they are living somewhere with different standards. (But I can have an opinion about it all.)

 

[dybmh]

I meant that as a legal term. If there were no special exception, circumcision would fall under "bodily harm/battery/assault" laws.

Those definitions depend on harm. No harm, no assault. It's still a case by case basis.

I think we can skip the fronted arguments for and against health as you don't care about that anyway.
Our real dispute is about values. You reject what western culture is build upon for the last 300 years, things like liberty, equality or empathy.
You don't have empathy as you argue for an unnecessarily painful procedure. You intentionally chose such a painful procedure even though there were an option to not do it at all or do it under anesthesia.
I guess you are against equality though you didn't state it directly. But you don't argue for circumcision for girls, do you?
You are against liberty as consent doesn't mean anything to you. Parents know best and can decide what they want.

Am I wrong in my assessment?

You're wrong on a few points. But you're right on others. For example, it was cruel for me to avoid anesthesia in favor of a ritual circumcision. But, the rabbis do the best work, and ritual circumcision gets the best results. Regarding empathy, that's all based on what my child would have wanted me to do. I would not have wanted to go through circumcision as an adult. My son didn't want to go through it as an adult. I empathize with those religious people who struggle because their parents didn't have their them circumcised. Also, I have stated in another thread, that if there was an exact parallel ( which I don't think there is ) for girls I would not oppose it. Why should I? Regarding liberty, it's a case by case basis with raising kids. As a parent, I make choices, I make rules, I do my best. The child doesn't consent to a lot of things.

If so, I guess we may convince you that circumcision (especially ritual) is wrong by all western morals.

It's only wrong if the the odds are neutral or opposed that the child would have wanted the procedure to occur. If the odds are likely the child would have approved, then the parent did the right thing.

If I have six fingers, and the right time to remove it is while I'm an infant. It's not immoral for the parent to make that choice. If the best results are rendered without anesthesia, it's not immoral to make that choice. All of this is conditional on whether or not the parent fully beleives that the child would want the finger removed.

If not, we will agree that morality is always subjective and yours aren't ours.

Not always subjective, but at this time, yes subjective. I'm not someone who uses the objective morality argument as a proof for God.

Edit: Regarding my cruelty in avoiding the anesthesia... actually, ritual circumcision is so much faster and better than medical circumcision with anesthisia. Comparing the procedures, ritual circumcision is much better. Giving the anesthesia is itself very painful.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I wonder if a ban on circumcision is going to do more harm than good.
I think such a ban would be very patronizing towards many families' choices in how they should raise their children.
And I think it's rather dramatic to equal something like this to abuse.

Heaven forbid those parents should have their personal autonomy is compromised.

Personal autonomy is too important for us to stand in the way of these parents denying personal autonomy to their children.

 

[Mock Turtle]

Further to any previous comments, my views are not really that important apart from the fact that I see this as being about ultimate rights, and this issue has never really affected me and never would have. I tend to see the rights of individuals, and children in this case, as trumping the rights of others, their parents usually, as to deciding what to do with regards any such issue. Especially when this is a religious belief rather than much else. And, given this is a medical procedure, we can actually protect children from such procedures when we might not do so for other things such as ear-piercing and similar, often cited but being more whataboutism.

Perhaps those so supportive of circumcision for religious reasons fear the slippery slope, as to religious education being next in line for the chop. Given that for some of us, the rights of the child are more important than the rights of the parent to inflict their beliefs (whatever, and variable depending upon where one is born so often) on their children, but where if such was not the case - and where we did let children have a more open and flat playing field education - then perhaps religions would decline in popularity. So perhaps some see bans on circumcision for religious reasons as being a dangerous road to be on. Even if this is rather arrogant of any parent (my view) - to assume that their child will follow the same religion as them, and the procedure is nothing much really, but is.

When the religious get to understand that things have moved on and you can't just pick and choose over rights, then perhaps things will change - and where, even if we have been slow as to children's rights, they do deserve much the same as adults as to most rights. But of course this will never be a popular position with many parents - given so many do see their children as their property and/or investments and so they will be the ones deciding their child's future - even if they can't guarantee this.

The God's mistake thing (as to foreskins), even where there will be excuses given as to the later necessity for the removal, could apply to the nipples of males (another mistake), which mostly have no real purpose but do indicate our evolved nature, and might be more a sign as to trans changes being just as normal - given the basis is there for all to see. So some of the religious might be quite prepared to have circumcisions done but be wholly against trans procedures. How convenient. And as to the medical reasons - why not just promote healthy approaches to keeping one's bits clean - far cheaper and easier to do.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Perhaps those so supportive of circumcision for religious reasons fear the slippery slope, as to religious education being next in line for the chop. Given that for some of us, the rights of the child are more important than the rights of the parent to inflict their beliefs (whatever, and variable depending upon where one is born so often) on their children, but where if such was not the case - and where we did let children have a more open and flat playing field education - then perhaps religions would decline in popularity. So perhaps some see bans on circumcision for religious reasons as being a dangerous road to be on. Even if this is rather arrogant of any parent (my view) - to assume that their child will follow the same religion as them, and the procedure is nothing much really, but is.

I think the slippery slope can go just as easily in the other direction: if we decide that it's okay to deny that baby - and the adult the baby will become - the right to free exercise of their religious beliefs according to their own conscience, what basis do we have to argue that our own right to free exercise should be defended?

 

[Mock Turtle]

I think the slippery slope can go just as easily in the other direction: if we decide that it's okay to deny that baby - and the adult the baby will become - the right to free exercise of their religious beliefs according to their own conscience, what basis do we have to argue that our own right to free exercise should be defended?

I'm not sure where I implied that anyone should be denied a religious education, but perhaps many might be thinking that their particular one would not be given preferential treatment - as is often the case now. But I'm probably not alone in preferring a more rounded religious education than the singular one so often offered or dictated as to what many children do get currently. Not that this will happen though - but still rather different from physically abusing young children, when later in life they may defect from such a belief, if they even grow up with it.

 

[Heyo]

Those definitions depend on harm. No harm, no assault. It's still a case by case basis.

When I kick you in the balls there are fewer signs of harm than with a circumcision which can be easily identified.
So me kicking you in the balls is not assault? You wouldn't sue me?

It's only wrong if the the odds are neutral or opposed that the child would have wanted the procedure to occur. If the odds are likely the child would have approved, then the parent did the right thing.

Do you want to gamble on those odds? Then you should accept my proposal of a law that would allow an adult to sue a Mohel (or doctor) for damages if he decides that he didn't want the procedure be done.
Deal?

If I have six fingers, and the right time to remove it is while I'm an infant. It's not immoral for the parent to make that choice. If the best results are rendered without anesthesia, it's not immoral to make that choice. All of this is conditional on whether or not the parent fully beleives that the child would want the finger removed.

Do you think of a foreskin as something like an atavism, a thing that shouldn't be there?

Not always subjective, but at this time, yes subjective. I'm not someone who uses the objective morality argument as a proof for God.

Edit: Regarding my cruelty in avoiding the anesthesia... actually, ritual circumcision is so much faster and better than medical circumcision with anesthisia. Comparing the procedures, ritual circumcision is much better. Giving the anesthesia is itself very painful.

You're flaunting.
You only have to think about anesthesia after you decided that you want to cut of a piece of your sons dick.
We haven't yet decided why it is necessary to do it in the first place.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Edit: Regarding my cruelty in avoiding the anesthesia... actually, ritual circumcision is so much faster and better than medical circumcision with anesthisia. Comparing the procedures, ritual circumcision is much better. Giving the anesthesia is itself very painful.

Even less painful: not doing cosmetic surgery on a baby at all.

 

[Gargovic Malkav]

From another perspective though, it seems the religious are the ones being self-righteous. I think for many it is the assumption that having a religious belief entitles one to donate this to a child as if it was truth - but the variety of such beliefs tells against this - and hence just seen as being arrogance.

I think it is normal for a parent to feel entitled to make certain decisions for their children when they're young, religious or not.
The "non-religious" are not above that imo.
And of course many religious parents include religion in the way they raise their children, because religion isn't just some social club to them, it's a way of living they believe is best for people.
It would be bad and dishonest of them to forsake that when their heart says it's wrong.

And yes, children may question or disagree on decisions their parents make, especially when they reach puberty.
I don't see that as a reason to discard religious values for such a family just because the non-religious don't see the usefulness of it.

 

[Gargovic Malkav]

It is not people with different cultural norms but the same cultural norms we have overcome, sometimes after a long struggle and for good reasons. It is not that they have developed in a different direction, they haven't developed at all. Their cultural norms are still the same they were 2500 years ago.

In that light, some have evolved, others have stuck to the old ways, therefore their respective norms diverged and are no longer the same.

I don't believe in objective morality. I can't force someone to have the same moral standards as me. I can explain why my are "better" i.e. more conducive to a peaceful and prosperous community. I can also expect (and enforce) that people hold to the laws of the land (which are roughly influenced by our moral ideas). I can't expect or enforce them to hold my standards if they are living somewhere with different standards. (But I can have an opinion about it all.)

It's a painful irony how most people seem to desire harmony and peace, but often feel compelled to compete and fight each other when they realize they have very different ideas on how to achieve it..

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I think it is normal for a parent to feel entitled to make certain decisions for their children when they're young, religious or not.
The "non-religious" are not above that imo.
And of course many religious parents include religion in the way they raise their children, because religion isn't just some social club to them, it's a way of living they believe is best for people.
It would be bad and dishonest of them to forsake that when their heart says it's wrong.

Parents are stewards of their children, not their owners. Children don't have any fewer rights than adults; it's just that their parents have been entrusted to exercise those rights on the child's behalf while the child is too young to exercise them competently for themselves. This stewardship is predicated on the idea that the parent has the child's best interests at heart.

There can be a range of valid parenting approaches. For instance, it's not like there's only one choice about what to feed your child that's "proper parenting" and all other choices are wrong.

... but when a parent engages in religious indoctrination that's intended to subvert and undermine the religious freedom of the adult who the child will become, it's clear that the parent isn't just being as good a steward as they can; they're taking improper advantage of their position to usurp the child's rights, not exercise them.

And yes, children may question or disagree on decisions their parents make, especially when they reach puberty.
I don't see that as a reason to discard religious values for such a family just because the non-religious don't see the usefulness of it.

It's not just a matter of "not seeing the usefulness of it"; it's that there's an inherent hypocrisy in a parent imposing their religion on their child.

The whole idea of religious freedom is rooted in the idea that people should be free to follow the dictates of their beliefs and conscience. It's incoherent and absurd to say that granting this right and freedom generally could ever justify a parent trying to rob their child of the very same right and freedom.

This is very much a "your right to swing your fists ends at the tip of someone else's nose" issue.

 

[Mock Turtle]

I think it is normal for a parent to feel entitled to make certain decisions for their children when they're young, religious or not.
The "non-religious" are not above that imo.
And of course many religious parents include religion in the way they raise their children, because religion isn't just some social club to them, it's a way of living they believe is best for people.
It would be bad and dishonest of them to forsake that when their heart says it's wrong.

And yes, children may question or disagree on decisions their parents make, especially when they reach puberty.
I don't see that as a reason to discard religious values for such a family just because the non-religious don't see the usefulness of it.

I'm not really against this, but more wanting less of it in schools (as being of one denomination or another) and where a more diverse approach to this area would probably benefit all, even if the religion came into their lives at home and where there is not much we can do about that or should. All parents are arrogant in many ways as to how they bring up their children, and wanting the best for them, but I think many do rather ignore the basics as to rights when thinking about their own children.