frankly your disgust comes off a bit conceited. Genital mutilation, or the mutilation of genitals, is never ok. as someone who claims to 'oppose' circumcision, how can you look in the mirror and see anything but an ugly face hypocrite? some people are so 'open minded' their brains really do fall out

as per your Brazilian girl, i'm sure she would love for you to tell her it was "elective surgery", bitch-fuck-holeintheass

you also said that you are lazy, which i am inclined to agree with. anyone who can quote laws strictly dictating these disgusting procedures not be administered to anyone under 18 and at the same time intentionally over looks the fact that the woman in question is 16, is a lazy piece of shit and hope you dead

@MilkmanDan

Please watch the video and interview. There is no way a kid can get anywhere near hormonal treatment, let alone grs, before going through a battery of psychiatrists and doctors over a period of many, many years. Do you think a "dumbass" with mixed ideas about their identity could possibly slip through?

As for calling this "genital mutilation", @CaptainPlanet, I am frankly disgusted at your flippant use of the term. You know what would've been genital mutilation? When a young Tim Petras tried to cut off her penis out of frustration of being in the wrong body. As a strong opponent of genital mutilation (including male circumcision performed on minors), I am doubly insulted, as would surely be Kim. Calling grs "genital mutilation" is akin to calling this "facial mutilation": technically true, connotatively false.

@bmacs27

Talking about consent makes it seem the parents were the ones who pushed this on her, instead of vice-versa. I doubt that's what you meant, but I just thought I'd clarify. Like I mentioned above, gender identity isn't solely a question of sexuality, and it is defined long before puberty. Moreover, the hormonal treatment - which is reversible at any time - spanned at least four psychiatrist-followed years. I'm pretty sure if there had been the slightest inkling of a doubt during that period the shrinks would have picked up on it and vetoed the surgical procedure. Also, please notice that her grs was not "pre-pubescent": seriously, how many kids hit puberty at 16? Moreover, while the hormone treatment is reversible, male puberty is not (cf my above comments).

As for data, there surely is (too lazy to look now), showing that those who come to the idea of grs because of confused sexual identity or problems linked to abuse are kindly redirected during the long psychiatric process. I happen to know a psychiatrist who specialises in transsexualism (in CH you are required by law to see one minimum 1 year before being considered for hormonal treatment, 2 years for grs, in addition to being over 18), and she told me that cases of perceived transsexualism due to childhood abuse and/or confused sexual identity (notably repressed homosexuality) are not rare. There are instances of hormone use, namely in Brazil, for simply lucrative purposes ("dick-girl" prostitution), which I am obviously against if pressured upon the person (sadly the case sometimes).

http://www.cynical-c.com/2011/08/25/how-much-does-a-circumcision-cost-at-mass-general/

I'm actually a tad speechless >> ^hpqp:

Ya Rly. And guess who was one of it's main proponents in the US? Yep, Mr. I-hate-pleasure Kellogs.
>> ^lampishthing:
No way. Really?>> ^hpqp:
Circumcision also became widespread in the US for this reason.

Ya Rly. And guess who was one of it's main proponents in the US? Yep, Mr. I-hate-pleasure Kellogs.
>> ^lampishthing:

No way. Really?>> ^hpqp:
Circumcision also became widespread in the US for this reason.

No way. Really?>> ^hpqp:

Circumcision also became widespread in the US for this reason.

Circumcision also became widespread in the US for this reason.

I dont buy the argument that it had any practical health benefits in the bronze age or anywhen else. It was a massive way to show god whose side you were on by cutting a lump of your(or someone elses) penis off. Performing surgery circa 6,000BC on a newborn (or adult) with a sharpened stone is not going to increase anyones chances of survival. Look at the African tribes that carry out the same ritual today, the families have to wait to see which of the young men even survived the surgery, nevermind the ensuing infections.

If it was a detriment to survival we wouldnt have one, other mammals wouldnt have them, they are there for a reason and has been said for decades about circumcision "Its a cure searching for a disease". The latest attempt to find a disease is the AIDS/STD studies in Africa, none of the findings of which have been borne out in further studies.

I have yet to hear of a boy dying because he didnt have a circumcision, but I have heard (locally) of a baby boy who died as a result of a circumcision, an african immigrant whose mother was following her religious/tribal custom while living in Ireland for example.

I was loling when I first did some reading about this stuff online, so much hysteria about foreskins from people who dont even know what a normal penis looks like flaccid or erect, about how much special maintenance they require etc. (none), propaganda as far as I'm concerned.

My 2 cents

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I don't think it's the right thing to do now - but maybe in biblical times when hygiene was a real issue, it was a way to give a male offspring a head start against the many ailments that were around at the time. I don't think it's a practice that was just pulled out of a hat- it has some practical background, just like dietary laws. >> ^hpqp:

@dag and @lucky760
Don't be fooled by the studies saying circumcision prevents the transmission of HIV etc. Several factors render those studies' results doubtful and/or moot. For one, many of them concern 3rd world countries where simple hygiene is still an issue (e.g. Kenya). The odds ratios are very low. I would also add (with reserves though) that cultural bias may play a role in some of those studies (look at the names).
Most doctors and doctor associations disprove of neonatal circumcision btw: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_analysis_of_circumcision.
But even if circumcision were proven to drastically reduce the transmission of STDs and/or penile cancer, I would still be against it. How many kids have sex when they're babies? Can't they be given the choice when they reach their teens? As for penile cancer, it tends to develop in old age (60 and on), so plenty of time for a "preventive" chop if one chooses to do so to one's own body.

@dag and @lucky760

Don't be fooled by the studies saying circumcision prevents the transmission of HIV etc. Several factors render those studies' results doubtful and/or moot. For one, many of them concern 3rd world countries where simple hygiene is still an issue (e.g. Kenya). The odds ratios are very low. I would also add (with reserves though) that cultural bias may play a role in some of those studies (look at the names).

Most doctors and doctor associations disprove of neonatal circumcision btw: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medical_analysis_of_circumcision.

But even if circumcision were proven to drastically reduce the transmission of STDs and/or penile cancer, I would still be against it. How many kids have sex when they're babies? Can't they be given the choice when they reach their teens? As for penile cancer, it tends to develop in old age (60 and on), so plenty of time for a "preventive" chop if one chooses to do so to one's own body.

No vote from me because rather than just being informative, the video strongly pushes an anti-circumcision agenda, spouts lies about how wonderfully more sensitive the foreskin is intact, and ignores all the common complications of non-circumcision.

I've heard from countless people like a few members above who had sex before and (long) after having an adult circumcision who almost 100% of the time state there's no discernible difference in sensation whatsoever.

Furthermore, most of the time adult circumcision performed due to a lot of common complications of the foreskin. E.g., the foreskin doesn't stretch upon erection so it feels like it's tearing, the foreskin dries and attaches itself to the head of the penis, etc.

What's more is there are a lot of recent studies indicating that the transmission of HIV and the proliferation of HPV into penile cancer are vastly more likely in an uncircumcised man.

I merely stated my opinion on what I view as an easy moral dilemma. No need to call me names. You seem to base your argument on freedom. That's exactly what I do too: The freedom of males to make their own choices regarding cosmetic surgery on their genitals. It seems to me you value the freedom of the parents higher. I can see where you're coming from, but to me the individual concerned always weighs heavier in such moral arguments.

Let it be known that I don't want a ban on circumcition per se. If someone wants to make that decision for themselves when he comes of age, for religious reasons or otherwise, I have no problem with it. My problem is when someone else (in this case parents) removes irreversibly the opportunity to choose yourself.
>> ^VoodooV:

Fortunately for the rest of the world, you don't get to judge, oh arbiter of what is good and bad. This reinforces why I'm an independent. Both left and right have their lunatic fringe. and arbitrating circumcision is definitely lunatic.
and xxovercast, I never said YOU were pro-ban. nice try though. This perfectly demonstrates the hypocrisy of both left and right. pro-choice for certain things....not so much other things. You don't get to cherry pick what choices you approve of and which ones you don't. It's all ok or none of it is.
As I have repeatedly stated, Unless you can show that the majority of those who have had circumcision without consent are under some sort of significant duress or their lives are significantly been infringed upon. You've got nothing.

My comments on this discussion can be found here.

As for what circumcision in the US is about:

Religious tradition
Peer pressure
Making bucks





NOT healthcare or prevention.

>> ^Ornthoron:

You are right, there are many decisions parents make that will affect a person for life. Some are good and some are bad. I am for those that are good and against those that are bad. For instance, I am also opposed to parents sending their kids to religious schools that teach the kids only one narrow way to look at the world, because I believe they will suffer for it later in life.
For some decisions it is easy to separate between what's bad for the child long-term and what's good. In other cases it is not so clear cut (no pun intended). It is not easy being a parent, and everyone will make wrong decisions once in a while.
However, when it comes to male (and female) circumcision, where there are miniscule to none positive effects and some very real negative effects, the decision should be easy. We don't allow parents to perform any other type of plastic surgery on infants, so why should this be allowed? Many other religious views can be overruled by the state if it's in the best interest of a person too young to make decisions for themselves.
>> ^VoodooV:
There are thousands of PERMANENT decisions a parent makes for their child without their consent that cannot be undone. where is your outrage for the parents choosing which pre-school to send their kids to? which doctor to go to? Do you feed them this formula or that formula. Do we set up a play date with little this group of kids or that group of kids. To breast feed or not to breast feed.


Fortunately for the rest of the world, you don't get to judge, oh arbiter of what is good and bad. This reinforces why I'm an independent. Both left and right have their lunatic fringe. and arbitrating circumcision is definitely lunatic.

and xxovercast, I never said YOU were pro-ban. nice try though. This perfectly demonstrates the hypocrisy of both left and right. pro-choice for certain things....not so much other things. You don't get to cherry pick what choices you approve of and which ones you don't. It's all ok or none of it is.

As I have repeatedly stated, Unless you can show that the majority of those who have had circumcision without consent are under some sort of significant duress or their lives are significantly been infringed upon. You've got nothing.

>> ^VoodooV:

you just demonstrated why a ban is stupid and unnecessary. If circumcision is declining on it's own. Why is it necessary to ban it?
You haven't made ANY case for why gov't should get involved, quite the opposite in fact. You haven't refuted ANY of my arguments. It simply not being necessary is not reason enough to ban it. You simply have NOT made your case....at all. This is a perfect example of less is more when it comes to laws.
If you don't like it, you have the freedom to not do it...allow others the same freedom, thank you.


Because I don't want a ban, stupid. You made the assumption from the start that I did when I never said anything of the sort.