Circumcision: Double Standard?

[Orussia]

Your position is quite ironic given the title of the thread. While female genital mutilation has well documented medical differences with male circumcision and generally has a higher impact, they are both medical procedures that remove part of the genitalia. I found the resulting argument rather amusing in light of that and the thread title.

How is my position ironic when I have said over and over, in this thread, that circumcision and FGM are mutilations and that, unless medically necessary, they shouldn't be carried out?

I believe what Velk is speaking of your comment

Is circumcision mutilation? Yes. Is it comparable to FGM? No.

and

However, because of the life long problems females who are circumcised experience, I would say that FGM is worse than male circumcision.

imply that your own opinion, as is normal for humans, is biased towards the feeling that FGM is a bigger issue than circumcision.

Both of them involve sharp objects going places I'd rather they don't, and for damn sure both of them made me wince hard enough to drop my tea.

[Imperializt Russia]

It's actually better to do it in the first few days after birth when you can't really feel or remember any pain. Contrary to what all the leftist doctors who say it's wrong, there are benefits to the procedure, for males. It reduces risk of cancer in that area. It used to actually be recommended for medical purposes rather than religious ones.

Radium products used to be recommended for medical purposes, as did lead ones.

Look how that turned out.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

How is my position ironic when I have said over and over, in this thread, that circumcision and FGM are mutilations and that, unless medically necessary, they shouldn't be carried out?

I'm not commenting on the overall thread, just the small argument following Eisarn's post. Gim immediately pointing out differences between the two was rather hilarious.

Eh, ridiculous lines of argument make their way into every thread.

In any case, FGM and circumcision are both mutilations of the genitalia. But I do think that one needs to be careful when saying that one is not so different from the other when the truth is otherwise.

Although there is evidence of certain issues that can follow circumcision in males, most of the issues are rare and circumcisions are done in sterile settings. FGM is rather more barbaric and can and often carries life-long consequences, rather severe ones too. Clarifying this point isn't double standard, it's just fact.

[Divitaen]

Ok fair enough but what I meant was an individual too young to register consent.

There's an argument for that, yes. Usually, both procedures are performed on minors who cannot really give informed consent.

I've said it before, they're both mutilations. However, because of the life long problems females who are circumcised experience, I would say that FGM is worse than male circumcision.

Although I do believe the fundamental objection to both is that it is a violation of the child's basic dignity. The outcomes are only additional problems and complications that befall the children involved. In the same way as performing gender reassignment surgery on an intersex infant is not medically harmful but clearly unethical just because the procedure is being done on someone who cannot consent to it and is thus inherently immoral.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

How is my position ironic when I have said over and over, in this thread, that circumcision and FGM are mutilations and that, unless medically necessary, they shouldn't be carried out?

I believe what Velk is speaking of your comment

Is circumcision mutilation? Yes. Is it comparable to FGM? No.

and

However, because of the life long problems females who are circumcised experience, I would say that FGM is worse than male circumcision.

imply that your own opinion, as is normal for humans, is biased towards the feeling that FGM is a bigger issue than circumcision.

Both of them involve sharp objects going places I'd rather they don't, and for damn sure both of them made me wince hard enough to drop my tea.

I advice you read what FGM involves before you think my opinion on the subject is biased. I wouldn't circumcise a son of mine, unless medically necessary.

And I may add that almost always (i'm sure there could be exceptions) FGM is not performed for any medically necessary reason. FGM is almost exclusively done for religious reasons which are very discriminatory of the female.

[Grand Pooba]

It's actually better to do it in the first few days after birth when you can't really feel or remember any pain. Contrary to what all the leftist doctors who say it's wrong, there are benefits to the procedure, for males. It reduces risk of cancer in that area. It used to actually be recommended for medical purposes rather than religious ones.

Radium products used to be recommended for medical purposes, as did lead ones.

Look how that turned out.

True, but this procedure has been proven to reduce cancer risk (for certain cancers). It also is not a damaging procedure like fgm is. It is a very common Western procedure done in the first week after birth that only takes a few minutes. If you do it as an adult.......Well, there's part of the old testament in the Bible that says that a whole town of grown men in Canaan had the procedure done and they were in pain 3 days later. So, yeah, if you're gonna have it done, do it as a newborn!

[Imperializt Russia]

Radium products used to be recommended for medical purposes, as did lead ones.

Look how that turned out.

True, but this procedure has been proven to reduce cancer risk (for certain cancers). It also is not a damaging procedure like fgm is. It is a very common Western procedure done in the first week after birth that only takes a few minutes. If you do it as an adult.......Well, there's part of the old testament in the Bible that says that a whole town of grown men in Canaan had the procedure done and they were in pain 3 days later. So, yeah, if you're gonna have it done, do it as a newborn!

It won't have been proven to reduce cancer risk, reduced cancer incidence will have been noted in men who have undergone circumcision.
The terminology is important.

Also, try sticking to one account.

[AiliailiA]

Well since you linked back to this, Ostro, let's clear up that we're not talking about castration.

Male castration is the amputation of the testicles, which would make it biologically impossible for the male to reproduce and would also remove the main source of sex hormones.

The female equivalent would be removal of the ovaries.

Neither of those are what we're talking about are they?

If people bring up FGM, and say circumcision isn't as bad as it, I feel obliged to point out they are being disingenuous because then the ARE talking about it then.

FGM is not castration. Circumcision is not castration. Nothing we're talking about here is CASTRATION.

I say castration and mean it as in, removal of the sexual organ. In womens case, the clitoris.

I'm done politely correcting your use of a word. If you can't be bothered checking in a dictionary yourself, then go on talking nonsense for all I care.

[Orussia]

I advice you read what FGM involves before you think my opinion on the subject is biased. I wouldn't circumcise a son of mine, unless medically necessary.

To think that I would comment on a subject without doing background reading? Oh, how you wound me.
And yes, by choosing to support one side more than another is the very definition of biased.

EDIT: Didn't see this until after I posted.

And I may add that almost always (i'm sure there could be exceptions) FGM is not performed for any medically necessary reason. FGM is almost exclusively done for religious reasons which are very discriminatory of the female.

Just like how circumcision was almost exclusively done for religious reasons?

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

I advice you read what FGM involves before you think my opinion on the subject is biased. I wouldn't circumcise a son of mine, unless medically necessary.

To think that I would comment on a subject without doing background reading? Oh, how you wound me.
And yes, by choosing to support one side more than another is the very definition of biased.

Again, I am not seeing how is it that I am supporting one side more than the other. By saying FGM and circumcision aren't comparable? Well, they aren't, other than both being mutilations.

[Camicon]

It's actually better to do it in the first few days after birth when you can't really feel or remember any pain. Contrary to what all the leftist doctors who say it's wrong, there are benefits to the procedure, for males. It reduces risk of cancer in that area. It used to actually be recommended for medical purposes rather than religious ones.

Firstly, no, there are not documented health benefits that can be generalized to the world at large. The one study, headed by the WHO, was carried out in sub-Saharan Africa. The populations in the study, and the conditions those populations were in, are not generalizable. You cannot point to those results and say "see, babies in America would benefit from circumcision".

Secondly, the whole "it reduces cancer risk" is the most asinine, ass-backwards argument you can possibly make. You know why it lowers the risk of cancer? Because it amputates the material that could potentially become cancerous. That's like pre-empting colon cancer by taking out chunks of your lower intestine. Do you understand how fucking stupid that is? And that's not even touching on the fact that the circumcision kills more children each year than men are diagnosed with cancer of the foreskin. Circumcision is more likely to kill the child, than that child is to ever be diagnosed with penile cancer.

Also, those babies can feel all the pain of circumcision. Simply because they don't remember it as adults does not make that OK.

More and more developed nations are actually recommending against circumcision, unless it is medically necessary; and as per usual, the good ol' US of A is foremost among those desperately trying to keep progress from occurring.

To think that I would comment on a subject without doing background reading? Oh, how you wound me.
And yes, by choosing to support one side more than another is the very definition of biased.

Again, I am not seeing how is it that I am supporting one side more than the other. By saying FGM and circumcision aren't comparable? Well, they aren't, other than both being mutilations.

Except that certain kinds of FGM are comparable to circumcision. Directly so, actually. Type Ia is the female equivalent of male circumcision. And there are other ritualistic practices, under Type IV, that are less damaging to the genitals than even that is.

[Terisu]

Yeah. It's a double standard. I know this is a real firey issue for some people, but circumcision is pretty terrible across the board. It's bad for women, it's bad for men, it's bad for interactions between men and women. I don't see how otherwise enlightened people can think it's okay to cut off the foreskin but it's suddenly evil and wrong to preform the equivalent procedure on a male. Should it be done for religious reasons? No. Jews and Muslims shouldn't get to do it just because they say it's their rule, it should be the choice of the person whether or not they want the procedure. Does one allow "honour killings" or pogroms for religious reasons? So why should we allow non-consensual reductive surgeries?

[Imperializt Russia]

Yeah. It's a double standard. I know this is a real firey issue for some people, but circumcision is pretty terrible across the board. It's bad for women, it's bad for men, it's bad for interactions between men and women. I don't see how otherwise enlightened people can think it's okay to cut off the foreskin but it's suddenly evil and wrong to preform the equivalent procedure on a male. Should it be done for religious reasons? No. Jews and Muslims shouldn't get to do it just because they say it's their rule, it should be the choice of the person whether or not they want the procedure. Does one allow "honour killings" or pogroms for religious reasons? So why should we allow non-consensual reductive surgeries?

>equates killings and mass killings to what is functionally a minor cosmetic procedure
>uhhhh

[Hauptskalreich]

Personally, I don't care. My wife cared, so our boys are circumcised. I suggested circumcising one twin and leaving the other uncircumcised so we could tell them apart, but I was overruled.

Nice

[Infected Mushroom]

All types of circumcision, unless its for medical reasons, should be illegal. That is all.

Leave the reproductive organs of newborn infants... alone. Please.

[Brickistan]

Circumcision should be banned,It's mutilation without consent.

Mutilation, as defined by the dictionary:

the infliction of serious damage on something.

Circumcision does not usually do serious damage (I imagine it can, if inproperly done). It's actually rather beneficial, but it's up to you to get it. I'm sure if someone got it at such a young age that they couldn't consent they wouldn't be complaining.

Infants die from it. I'd say that's some serious damage.

And the benefits are pretty much nonexistent.

[Alyakia]

Contrary to what all the leftist doctors who say it's wrong, there are benefits to the procedure, for males.

you're embarrassing yourself. seriously. leftist doctors? what the fuck are you even talking about? did you just see people complaining about something and assume they must be leftists? do you anything other than the daily medical journal of my own anus that it is a cabal of leftist doctors (trust me, making an argument against circumcision using right-wing philosophy is really easy) that are against circumcision?

It used to actually be recommended for medical purposes rather than religious ones

you're right. it used to be done in the desert to help with martial sanitation. then it was used to try and prevent masturbation. the rest of the benefits are just an after the fact justification for which cultures that do not practice circumcision for some reason seem to have more trouble finding evidence for and even the AMA says the benefits are not enough to recommend circumcision as a default procedure.

i'm going to bet you are neither a puritan or desert soldier from around the time when jesus was kicking about and hygiene was a bit different what it is now.

[Alyakia]

property rights are inviolable and are the fundamental right from which other rights and freedoms derive
tthe body is the base example of this, for everyone owns hemselves
an entirely medically unnecessary procedure is a violation of a child's property rights (literally taking their penile property), which cannot be overruled at such a light whim by a parent

congratulations, we now have an anarcho-capitalist argument against circumcision.

[Ifreann]

It's actually better to do it in the first few days after birth when you can't really feel or remember any pain. Contrary to what all the leftist doctors who say it's wrong, there are benefits to the procedure, for males. It reduces risk of cancer in that area. It used to actually be recommended for medical purposes rather than religious ones.

Radium products used to be recommended for medical purposes, as did lead ones.

Look how that turned out.

[Oil exporting People]

In the United States of America, the most common surgical procedure preformed on men is circumcision, and lots of studies conclude that male circumcision are beneficial, as in accord to the CDC & AAP, or the Center for Disease Control and the American Association/Academy of Pediatrics....While at the same time has no health benefits whatsoever.

You just debated yourself, and left me rather confused in the process.

Is male circumcision right, or not?

As a guy who did have his circumcision botched, I still don't see anything wrong with it. More or less, you basically are just getting a bit of skin removed.

I'd make an exception about circumcision for Jews, a sort of grandfather clause due to their religion, but otherwise it ought to be absolutely illegal to have your kids circumcised.

A lot of Christians get circumcised nowadays, and that is part of the reason why my parents had me get mine when I was born. Should we not be allowed to get them as well for our children? Even disregarding that, I find it very ironic it is perfectly acceptable to have Transsexual surgery but circumcision is some great evil.

[Fartsniffage]

Even disregarding that, I find it very ironic it is perfectly acceptable to have Transsexual surgery but circumcision is some great evil.

Apples and oranges...

[New Benian Republic]

Yes it is i think you should have to wait and ask your child when they are able to make an informed decision.

[Ifreann]

In the United States of America, the most common surgical procedure preformed on men is circumcision, and lots of studies conclude that male circumcision are beneficial, as in accord to the CDC & AAP, or the Center for Disease Control and the American Association/Academy of Pediatrics....While at the same time has no health benefits whatsoever.

You just debated yourself, and left me rather confused in the process.

Is male circumcision right, or not?

As a guy who did have his circumcision botched, I still don't see anything wrong with it. More or less, you basically are just getting a bit of skin removed.

I'd make an exception about circumcision for Jews, a sort of grandfather clause due to their religion, but otherwise it ought to be absolutely illegal to have your kids circumcised.

A lot of Christians get circumcised nowadays, and that is part of the reason why my parents had me get mine when I was born. Should we not be allowed to get them as well for our children? Even disregarding that, I find it very ironic it is perfectly acceptable to have Transsexual surgery but circumcision is some great evil.

There's a very big difference between someone choosing for themselves to have surgery and someone having the choice made for them.

[The Krogan]

Mehhhh didn't hurt me none.

[New Benian Republic]

Mehhhh didn't hurt me none.

But should people be allowed to decide for themselves?