Primitive Communism wrote:Galloism wrote:Given it's specifically allowed or banned based solely on the sex of the child, I don't see how it's NOT quite specifically sexism to say "hey, this child has bodily autonomy rights because of their sex, but this child does not because of their sex".
Primarily because children don't have bodily autonomy rights at all. Children, in fact, have less rights than any other demographic and essentially constitute a slave caste.
But that's another discussion for another time.
This isn't actually true. It's true their bodily autonomy rights rest in the care of a guardian, who must exercise due caution and care in exercising them.
You can't just amputate a child's foot for no reason, for example. We say they have rights, and that's child abuse.
You also can't amputate their labia. But you CAN amputate their foreskin. Even though it's essentially the same structure and the only difference is sex.
Yet it wasn't women who circumcised those babies, nor was it women who manufactured those creams, nor was it women who sold those creams, nor was it women who advertised said creams to women, nor was it women who decided they needed these creams because it wasn't women who decided the beauty standards that men held them to.
This is textbook "missing the forest for the trees".
Women can be doctors just as men can, and can mutilate babies just as men can. They can also work in factories just as men can. They can also sell creams just as men can. They can also advertise creams just as men can. They are in fact the ones who decide they need these creams.
The fact that you think women can't work or make their own decisions because of their sex is *deeply* misogynistic and hateful towards women.