Infant circumcision is proof people don't actually give a fuck about informed consent. You can perform genital alteration surgery on all the baby boys you want and nobody bats an eye. For every minor that receives transgender treatment, thousands of children have a functional part of their sex organ permanently removed with zero ability to object.
And calling the actual problem gets derision and hatred. Or on HN, -1s
The problem is Judeo-christian ideas of circumcision. Its 100% archaic male infant torture cause some bronze-age book says so.
Consent has never been for those under 18. They're just slaves of their parental owners. (No seriously, look at how laws are crafted in the USA. They are effectively slaves unless a judge deems it elsewise.)
I used to feel the same way about prisoners, but there are plenty of arguments that they’re not slaves. The one that convinced me was that you can’t buy a prisoner, for example. Ditto for children (most of the time).
The trouble about laws involving children is that you’re up against every parent who has a child. By default they’ll err on protection, because our biology says that’s the safest thing to do. But as you say, that’s not always the best approach.
Male circumcision is an interesting one. The correct thing to do isn’t to say "here’s an example of something screwed up" as a way to justify something else; instead, ban the screwed up thing.
Personally, I hope it’ll be banned one day. I once asked my dad whether I was circumcised. He laughed and said haven’t you looked? I still have no idea whether I am. Now I’d rather not know.
> The one that convinced me was that you can’t buy a prisoner, for example
So slavery has taken MANY forms throughout history - the form most people are familiar with is american chattel slavery “a form of slavery where individuals are treated as personal property and can be bought, sold, or owned indefinitely”. There are lots of other forms of slavery many that don’t including purchasing humans, and the US prison labour system is slavery beyond the shadow of a doubt.
Why beyond the shadow of a doubt? Because the 13th amendment abolished slavery and involuntary servitude, except as punishment for a crime.
Also, since the US prison system allows prison labour to be sold to private corporations, you can actually buy a prisoner’s forced labour.
13th amendment explicitly permits slavery as a punishment for a crime. And, you can definitely buy time manufacturing with prison labor.
Now, you're probably confusing chattel slavery as the only form of slavery, of which you buy and sell humans as property. There are other types, now predominantly slavery by the state (as punishment of a crime).
As for children, it definitely looks like a slave-owner type arrangement.
I have absolutely no clue about circumcision in the bible. But if it's in there WHY would it be, there's probably a reason that they figured out overtime and the benefits. There is an abundance of literature and well formed research to indicate the benefits of circumcision. It's not at all unlikely that people 1000s of years ago figured that out too, especially during a time when there were far fewer hygiene options.
The most impactful benefit of circumcision is the lower cervical cancer incidence. As evidenced by the lower rates in the US despite the much poorer healthcare than in European countries, particularly the Nordics that choose not to embrace science and advocate for circumcision.
Lobotomies were also once considered solid science, but our views change over time. That people did it millennia ago isn’t really a persuasive point.
Would you mind citing some of the research supporting that it’s a good idea to take a knife to a baby’s penis? (Sometimes it feels like the word "circumcision" is a nice way to sidestep the implications.)
It seems strange to blame infant penises for higher cancer rates, but if there’s science to support the claim, it shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand.
On the other hand, perhaps a higher cancer rate would be worth it. The question is, how much higher?
> What are the absolute medical indications for circumcision?
> Medical indications […] occur in 1.5% and 1% of boys respectively.
That is, the overwhelming majority (>98%) of circumcisions in the US are not done for medical reasons. As the article states,
> Nearly all circumcisions are carried out for cultural or religious reasons.
Lastly, this:
> The most impactful benefit of circumcision is the lower cervical cancer incidence.
Is an illogical argument for circumcision as it is being discussed here, at birth.
> It seems strange to blame infant penises for higher cancer rates, but if there’s science to support the claim, it shouldn’t be dismissed out of hand.
… the claim is absurd. There's no science to support it.
The argument as raised above stands: why is circumcision — done at birth and without the consent of the patient — permissible, but puberty blockers — done far closer to adulthood and with the consent of the patient — are impermissible?
>The argument as raised above stands: why is circumcision — done at birth and without the consent of the patient — permissible,
Because we make a lot of medical decisions for children and this one is extremely minor with wide raining results.
The same paper you linked showed multiple pathologies that are significantly reduced by circumcision including penile cancer and HIV. That paper also cuts off at 1999. More recent studies show even greater effects.
> the claim is absurd. There's no science to support it.
No it's not, compare the rate of cervical cancer in countries with and without circumcision. It's considerably higher in countries where the majority of males are uncircumcised, even when those countries have higher vaccination rates and better overall health care.
If that is the reasoning behind allowing infant circumcision, then there should be no argument against puberty blockers. It is proven to be beneficial to a person's quality of life if they suffer from gender dysphoria.
I'm not sure what my personal opinion is on the topic, since I'm principally against infant circumcision. But I have less problems with puberty blockers, since it can still be reversed once a person is old enough to give consent.
Not sure about them, but for me, that’s correct. Solid research should be the foundation we make decisions on.
I used to have a problem with that idea too, until someone pointed out that puberty is an irreversible process with major consequences. The fact that everyone goes through it is a bit irrelevant; if it was happening to someone over 18, puberty blockers wouldn’t even be controversial.
As a parent, what to do? I look at my 2yo daughter and wonder if I’ll have to support her in a decision like that one day, or go against her wishes just because she’s 11. If there’s research indicating that delaying puberty doesn’t have major long term harm, then I’m more likely to endorse puberty blockers.
I made an off hand comment here that has got a lot of great response while I slept. I do wonder though if I'd have mentioned a handful of other issues whether the trans one would still have been the one to stir most controversy.
The fact is trans people are a tiny minority who are abused for political gain. I don't have hard numbers but it's probably not an exaggeration to say that to grant or withhold puberty blockers is probably no more common than a smorgasbord of other agonising medical decisions you may have to make.
Personally I don't like the idea of puberty blockers but if my 7 year old decided tomorrow that she was a boy, and lived that as authentically as they were able for years, then I think long and hard about it.
It is impossible to pause puberty or any other biological process. You cannot delay and restart something that is biologically time-bound. By giving a child puberty blockers you permanently prevent them from becoming an adult. They will never develop any of the features required for having children, they will never experience the brain developments that help with reasoning and empathy.
There are no studies on this Bec doing such studies is considered grossly unethical and evil, same as studying brain lobotomies in infants. As such we have no science on this, there are just people who have decided one thing and are performing live experiments without any controls. However, it should be noted that until very recently there was no significant incidence of unexplained child suicide, there was no significant incidence of unexplained teenage suicide, nor was there a significant incidence of unexplained young adult suicide. This is 100% social contagion, exacerbated by evil greedy pharmaceutical orgs who have latched on to small childhood insecurities and used them to build a multi-billion dollar industry mutilating and disfiguring healthy people.
Puberty blockers have been used on children to manage early puberty. The meds don't know if you're trans or not, so it's only reasonable to assume giving them to trans kids would have similar outcomes.
> If that is the reasoning behind allowing infant circumcision, then there should be no argument against puberty blockers.
That sword cuts both ways: if the reasoning for banning infant male circumcision is "they can always do it as an adult", then that's a perfectly good reason for doing it with puberty blockers too.
I've always been against infant circumcision. Why would I extend that exception to be broader? I'd rather narrow the number of things we can do to children, not expand them.
The outcome of transitioning after puberty versus before is meaningfully different. Not to mention the mental distress of going through puberty with gender dysphoria.
> The most impactful benefit of circumcision is the lower cervical cancer incidence. As evidenced by the lower rates in the US despite the much poorer healthcare than in European countries, particularly the Nordics that choose not to embrace science and advocate for circumcision.
Interesting, I would like to see that evidence. Specially when compared with the vaccination against HPV. Because, as far as I'm aware, that's by far the best way to prevent cervical cancer.
The lower HPV incidence rate is due to the fact that the skin on a circumcised penis is thickened due to the constant abrasion. Basically your penis gets covered with a callus. This thicker skin provides an improved barrier compared to the thin and moist skin inside an intact foreskin. But a thicker skin merely lowers the HPV infection rate, as evidenced by plantar warts on people's feet, which are also caused by HPV.
Luckily, as you've said, we already have HPV vaccines, so maybe it's time to stop cutting off pieces from little boys' penises?
That's not really accurate, the foreskin is an ideal area for pathogen development. Almost all STDS are reduced in circumcised populations as well as UTI.
If you want to cut off your foreskin, do it as an adult. Some other procedures to consider for additional health benefits:
- You can also decide to cauterize the nailbeds on your toes to get lifelong protection against ingrown toenails.
- You can preemptively put metal crowns over all your teeth to protect them from tooth decay - metals are stronger than enamel!
- You can also remove all your body hair with laser treatments, to get protection from ingrown hairs - those can get badly infected!
- You can also tattoo your blood type on your chest, like they did in the SS, to save precious time in case you need blood transfusion while unconscious.
You can do all of these things to yourself, as an adult with informed consent. But don't do it to infants.
> Infant circumcision is proof people don't actually give a fuck about informed consent. You can perform genital alteration surgery on all the baby boys you want and nobody bats an eye.
Right, and my argument is "We should stop things like that" while your argument is "we should do more things like that".
