I want to live in a world where “stop cutting bits of babies dicks off” doesn’t require any further explanation.
“No, actually, its you who needs to justify cutting bits of babies dicks off. Not the other way round. Unless its hair, nails or connected to the mum, the default position is actually not to cut bits of the baby off.”
Because it serves a genuine function, because the process poses an unnecessary risk, because there is no way to know how big the penis is going to get when the kid grows up, and that is part of the reason for the foreskin, to have a ton of give so it doesn’t happen like it did to my ex. He got circumcised as a newborn, and by the time he finished puberty, his penis grew far more than the leftover foreskin, so he wasn’t even able to have full erections without a tremendous amount of pain and sometimes, even tearing.
vocabulary.com: “When a person or an object has been altered or damaged in a permanent way, that’s a mutilation.”
it can desensitize the penis and cause health issues and/or sexual dysfunction (arguably its intended consequence). forced body alteration is mutilation
If you chop someone’s leg off without consent for no good reason, that’s mutilation. If you amputate it with consent for legitimate medical reasons that’s a medical procedure.
This 100% reads to me as an anti-trans post. Maybe that’s not your intent, but that’s the way it reads. Esp. since anyone under 18 con not legally give consent to anything.
It’s not because young trans people can consent to transitioning. Consenting to sex is not the same thing as consenting to medical procedures. Would you forcibly hold down a 12 year old to give them a vaccine despite them refusing and resisting? If not, then clearly you recognise that under 18s have a degree of bodily autonomy and have to consent to the medical procedures they receive once they are mentally capable of understanding and expressing a choice on those procedures.
It would be pro-trans given the habit of surgical mutilation of intersex infants, which causes a lot of problems down the line for trans intersex people seeking transition surgery that would essentially reverse the mutilation they experienced as infants when they couldn’t consent.
If they meant it in an anti-trans way then they would be factually wrong insofar as transition procedures are, by definition, consensual. The non-consensual procedures (which may be the same procedures) are done to “correct” children’s (usually, though some cis adults opt to have them done) sexes towards the one they were assigned.
Would you forcibly hold down a 12 year old to give them a vaccine despite them refusing and resisting?
That can and does happen. Do you think that children enjoy getting shots? Children generally do not have bodily autonomy, no. Parents can refuse certain non-critical medical care for their children, even if the child wants that care. The state can force a child to receive certain medical care, even if the child doesn’t want it. Whether it’s morally right or not to deny a minor bodily autonomy is a different question, but as a matter of law, they do not generally have bodily autonomy.
Well I guess the laws where I live are quite different to where you live. I don’t have the statistics but I imagine that a non-insignificant number of countries set the age of medical consent to a reasonable age at which people understand and have their own preferences as to the medical care they receive.
Do you think that children enjoy getting shots?
I said 12. 12 year olds can refuse vaccines (and those who do are not physically forced to, that sounds insane to me), in my experience at school when vaccines were offered at that age almost everyone opted to have them though.
Mutilating the bodies of people too young or otherwise unable to give consent.
I want to live in a world where “stop cutting bits of babies dicks off” doesn’t require any further explanation.
“No, actually, its you who needs to justify cutting bits of babies dicks off. Not the other way round. Unless its hair, nails or connected to the mum, the default position is actually not to cut bits of the baby off.”
Oh lmao I was way off, I was like “damn I’m surprised to see an anti abortion post at +9 -0 on lemmy, wtf?!”
I didn’t realize until I read your post lol.
So im asking this question as a person who has had to have an adult circumcision, I get the consent part, but why is this considered mutilation?
Again, im genuinely ignorant of the subject beyond medical requirements
Because it serves a genuine function, because the process poses an unnecessary risk, because there is no way to know how big the penis is going to get when the kid grows up, and that is part of the reason for the foreskin, to have a ton of give so it doesn’t happen like it did to my ex. He got circumcised as a newborn, and by the time he finished puberty, his penis grew far more than the leftover foreskin, so he wasn’t even able to have full erections without a tremendous amount of pain and sometimes, even tearing.
This is a complicated way to flex with a big dick. But thanks for the insight. Didn’t know about this specific problem circumcision has.
vocabulary.com: “When a person or an object has been altered or damaged in a permanent way, that’s a mutilation.”
it can desensitize the penis and cause health issues and/or sexual dysfunction (arguably its intended consequence). forced body alteration is mutilation
If you chop someone’s leg off without consent for no good reason, that’s mutilation. If you amputate it with consent for legitimate medical reasons that’s a medical procedure.
This 100% reads to me as an anti-trans post. Maybe that’s not your intent, but that’s the way it reads. Esp. since anyone under 18 con not legally give consent to anything.
I read it as an anti-circumcision post. You ckuld be right, though.
It’s not because young trans people can consent to transitioning. Consenting to sex is not the same thing as consenting to medical procedures. Would you forcibly hold down a 12 year old to give them a vaccine despite them refusing and resisting? If not, then clearly you recognise that under 18s have a degree of bodily autonomy and have to consent to the medical procedures they receive once they are mentally capable of understanding and expressing a choice on those procedures.
It would be pro-trans given the habit of surgical mutilation of intersex infants, which causes a lot of problems down the line for trans intersex people seeking transition surgery that would essentially reverse the mutilation they experienced as infants when they couldn’t consent.
If they meant it in an anti-trans way then they would be factually wrong insofar as transition procedures are, by definition, consensual. The non-consensual procedures (which may be the same procedures) are done to “correct” children’s (usually, though some cis adults opt to have them done) sexes towards the one they were assigned.
That can and does happen. Do you think that children enjoy getting shots? Children generally do not have bodily autonomy, no. Parents can refuse certain non-critical medical care for their children, even if the child wants that care. The state can force a child to receive certain medical care, even if the child doesn’t want it. Whether it’s morally right or not to deny a minor bodily autonomy is a different question, but as a matter of law, they do not generally have bodily autonomy.
Well I guess the laws where I live are quite different to where you live. I don’t have the statistics but I imagine that a non-insignificant number of countries set the age of medical consent to a reasonable age at which people understand and have their own preferences as to the medical care they receive.
I said 12. 12 year olds can refuse vaccines (and those who do are not physically forced to, that sounds insane to me), in my experience at school when vaccines were offered at that age almost everyone opted to have them though.