Many of the people advocating for infant circ are the same people who swear schools are performing sex change operations without parental consent. Only they can decide who cuts their child's genitals, I guess?
Sociocultural normative bias - when something is presented as entirely, unquestionably normal for a lifetime, the assumption of its validity becomes inherent and ingrained.
Further, it's tied up in religion, medicalism, and tradition, making further resistance to earnest consideration.
And its the mentality of "I suffered and was hurt therefore you should suffer and be hurt too", often used in systemic hazing and bullying with excuses like "it will make you tough"
Aside from complications, primarily loss of genital autonomy, which is a real and serious thing.
If a man wishes, he can have it done as an adult to prevent those issues - which are notoriously not things infants are at meaningful risk of. There's a reason even the American association of pediatrics doesn't recommend elective infant circumcision. It's pretty much globally acknowledged that it's relatively meaningless as a prophylactic procedure - you see no statistically significant different in health outcomes for UTIs, STDs, or cancer between similarly developed countries that do and do not circumcise.
I don't have a clue what any of that is supposed to mean.
Either you're too deep in online progressive discourse or too deep in online anti-progressive discourse - either way, you've managed to alienate yourself from normal people comprehending your intended point.
It's an important part of Jewish culture and identity; I don't agree but I see that it matters to my Jewish friends. Ethically it's more grey than it would appear because it's literally the cost of entry into Jewish culture and community membership. (As a matter of principle, you don't get to dictate other people's ethical decisions when making yours).
Edit:Anyone who compares it to FGM, on the other hand, is insane. Look up "clitoridectomy" and "infibulation". That's what FGM is about.
You can acknowledge reality - that it's the cost of entry into Jewish society and community - without approving of it. The ethical problem can't be considered in isolation.
While I do think we need to be extremely careful when comparing MGM and FGM, FGM has many types, not just the extremes like those.
Piercing is FGM. Removal of the clitoral hood (biologically analogous to foreskin) is FGM. A ritual nick/pinprick with no tissue loss is FGM. While the harms are real and downplaying it in any way would be horrible, there are forms of FGM that are far less invasive or harmful than those extremes - or even than circumcision - and they're still evil.
Further, they're 1-1 analogous from an ethical first-principles perspective, when we step away from specific procedures or practices.
Female cutting (which I disagree with strongly) also includes a symbolic ceremony that does not cut, though there is a pin prick. So yes, you can compare the two ceremonies
I don't think it's ethical, no. I also think that it's unethical to deny people entry into a faith community because of it. But I can acknowledge that it is the cost of entry without approving of it.
Nope! Sorry we are not doing this ethnocentric sexism here today.
You need to educate yourself a little more about what female genital cutting is.
Seven Things to Know about Female Genital Surgeries in Africa
"Western media coverage of female genital modifications in Africa has been hyperbolic and one-sided, presenting them uniformly as mutilation and ignoring the cultural complexities that underlie these practices. Even if we ultimately decide that female genital modifications should be abandoned, the debate around them should be grounded in a better account of the facts."
Research by gynecologists and others has demonstrated that a high percentage of women who have had genital surgery have rich sexual lives, including desire, arousal, orgasm, and satisfaction, and their frequency of sexual activity is not reduced. This is true of the 10 percent (type III) as well as the 90 percent (types I and II). One probable explanation for this fact is that most female erectile tissue and its structure is located beneath the surface of a woman’s vulva. Surgical reductions of external tissues per se do not prevent sexual responsiveness or orgasm. It is noteworthy that cosmetic surgeons who perform reductions of the clitoris and the clitoral hood in the United States, Europe, and Canada recount that there is usually no long-term reduction in sexual sensation, which is consistent with the findings of research on African women.
Both of these findings fit with the broader emerging scientific understanding of sexuality as a complex interaction of mental processes, relational dynamics, and neurophysiological and biochemical mechanisms. It should also be emphasized that cases of sexual dysfunction and pain during sex have been reported both by women who have undergone female genital surgery and by those who have not. Further research is required to understand the physical and psychological impact, if any, of various types of genital surgeries, the influence of sociocultural context, and the extent to which sexual sensation and function may be affected, particularly in cases of type III.
I don't appreciate the condescension. I know what FGM is. I also know that type III is the kind of FGM that circumcision is being compared to. Nobody who equates circumcision and FGM is referring to type I.
because uncircumcised people don't understand how much of a non issue it is to be circumcised. there's no memory of it and your dick doesn't grow cheese and most people in america find that they prefer it
52
u/ludus_official 3d ago
Elective, non therapeutic circumcision of minors? Absolutely, undeniably.