I think banning circumcision runs you into many of the same problems that are encountered with banning abortion or gender transition. Or tattoos and ear piercings, for that matter. Or drinking.
You can scare physicians/professionals into refusing to perform it. But then you deal with all the amateurs and their consequences.
I think the point is that it’s not a great comparison because the main argument against circumcision is that it’s permanent and babies can’t consent to it, I don’t think many people try to say that no one should ever be allowed to get a circumcision.
Parents make a whole host of medical decisions for their kids that they don’t formally consent to
Just pounding on consent gets you in the same circle as the anti-vaxers
Frankly I somewhat sympathize with those people because physical/medical autonomy is a topic that deserves respect. The only reason ignoring their choices is justified is because vaccines vault over a high bar of being important for public health and avoiding the clear and significant harm of disease. Also because that’s again choices parents are making on behalf of their children in defiance of what is medically justifiable.
I see a desire to make false equivalency between two very different procedures, because they both have “circumcision” in the name.
They aren’t equivalent, but the difference is severity of harm, not the type of harm. Both procedures are intended and have the effect of inhibiting normal sexual function. If you want to only argue against FGM and draw the line at supporting a circumcision ban, that’s fine because the former is especially horrible and deserves special attention, I just think most arguments for this position are a little bit incoherent.
Hmm, since prepuce (foreskin) is a hairless, highly-sensitive cutaneous fold covering and protecting the glans, why is it okay to remove one, but not the other? Or, since they derive from the same zygotic tissue and are homologous, why is it not okay to excise the clitoral hood?
I keep asking these questions, and nobody ever has a good answer, and the only difference that I can divine is that one is okay because it’s done to boys.
Really can’t be overstated how different “female circumcision” is from the male version.
Like comparing ear piercings to ear cropping.
Saying they’re the same is bad but comparing circumcision to ear piercing is even worse. Piercings heal, that foreskin is gone forever.
Speak for yourself. My dad gave me mine on my 18th birthday and i planted it in the garden.
You sprout some wood?
So do you think the mild forms of FGM should be allowed because those are pretty comparable to the male one? Personally I think both should be banned.
I think banning circumcision runs you into many of the same problems that are encountered with banning abortion or gender transition. Or tattoos and ear piercings, for that matter. Or drinking.
You can scare physicians/professionals into refusing to perform it. But then you deal with all the amateurs and their consequences.
Gender transition and abortion are also illegal to do without consent
They’re illegal to do with consent.
I think the point is that it’s not a great comparison because the main argument against circumcision is that it’s permanent and babies can’t consent to it, I don’t think many people try to say that no one should ever be allowed to get a circumcision.
Parents make a whole host of medical decisions for their kids that they don’t formally consent to.
Just pounding on consent gets you in the same circle as the anti-vaxers
I see a desire to make false equivalency between two very different procedures, because they both have “circumcision” in the name.
Frankly I somewhat sympathize with those people because physical/medical autonomy is a topic that deserves respect. The only reason ignoring their choices is justified is because vaccines vault over a high bar of being important for public health and avoiding the clear and significant harm of disease. Also because that’s again choices parents are making on behalf of their children in defiance of what is medically justifiable.
They aren’t equivalent, but the difference is severity of harm, not the type of harm. Both procedures are intended and have the effect of inhibiting normal sexual function. If you want to only argue against FGM and draw the line at supporting a circumcision ban, that’s fine because the former is especially horrible and deserves special attention, I just think most arguments for this position are a little bit incoherent.
Depends where, they are legal with consent in most western countries.
They should both be banned
Please elaborate on how Type IIa (by World Health Organization standards) differs so greatly. e: Also, why comparison is even relevant here.
:-/
Hmm, since prepuce (foreskin) is a hairless, highly-sensitive cutaneous fold covering and protecting the glans, why is it okay to remove one, but not the other? Or, since they derive from the same zygotic tissue and are homologous, why is it not okay to excise the clitoral hood?
I keep asking these questions, and nobody ever has a good answer, and the only difference that I can divine is that one is okay because it’s done to boys.
I don’t think it is good, but idk if it should be banned. A lot of guys seem ok with it?
If it should be banned, there needs to be a public education push about why.
Guys are okay with what? Removing foreskin, or removing the clitoral hood?
Neither. OK with the fact that their own foreskin was removed. I’m not one of them.