this post was submitted on 27 Feb 2024
5 points (100.0% liked)

No Stupid Questions

40105 readers
909 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here. This includes using AI responses and summaries.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

Was just talking at dinner with family, and it seems a logical action to ban circumcision, as in most cases, doesn't have consent, and is a major (genitals are important) body modification. Can we ban it at the state level? Just a thought.

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Personally I find it a lot more disturbing that intersex babies are still assgined a binary gender by a doctor and then get surgery to shape their genitals. The parents are often scaremongered and pressured into consenting and the affected people don't know it was done to them until firmly into adulthood. It's often a sterilising surgery too.

If you are against doctors doing gender changing surgery, please start with the babies? But oh no! Then the argument that there are only two genders falls apart.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Look at what happened to David Reiner if you really want to be sickened.

I’m pretty sure that I’m intersex myself and had something done to me when I was an infant, but there is no way for me to ever find out. My only evidence is apparently my dong is pretty massive for a trans dude, which is a nice thing to hear from a nurse.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There is a lot of misinformation in this post. Here's a snippet of my research about the anatomy of the penis and the damage of circumcision causes.

The foreskin has specialized nerve endings called Meissner's Corpsucles located at the tip in an area called the ridged band. It is connected to the penis by the extension of the shaft skin in areas called the outer foreskin and the inner foreskin. The inner foreskin is rich with sensory receptors and is a inner mucosa similar to the inside of our cheeks. It keeps the glans moist and protected from the environment. The inner foreskin is attached to the head of the penis by a membrane called the frenulum. The frenulum is an erogenous zone that is mostly removed by a circumcision procedure.

When a child or baby is circumcised, the foreskin is forcibly removed from the glans which scars and damages the glans. The foreskin is adhered to the glans like a fingernail. When a boy hits puberty the foreskin naturally retracts. In rare cases, phimosis happens which is when the foreskin is unable to retract. Non-surgical solutions to phimosis are stretching the foreskin over a span of time and/or applying steroid creme.

Circumcision is extremely painful for babies and children. Cortisol spikes in babies when they are circumcised. Babies will pass out during the procedure as many circumcisions are done with inadequate anesthetic.

The foreskin is self-cleaning like the vagina. Rinsing in the shower is enough usually for hygiene. Caregivers who retract the foreskin of their children will damage the child's genitals. The only person who should retract the foreskin is the children as it will naturally retract with age. Some boys are unable to retract their foreskin until their late teens or early adulthood.

This information is not foreign to the medical world. Most medical and political professionals have a bias for the circumcision ritual. Circumcision is the same for boys as it is for girls as the objective of circumcision is to harm the sexual function of the child.

Modern circumcision for males is extremely harsh as it removes 60-80% of penile skin. Many men do not have frenulums from the procedure. It is possible to repair some of the damage by using mitosis to restore skin coverage. It is not currently possible to repair tissue that was completely removed. Foregen is a non-profit researching ways to completely repair the damage caused by circumcision.

For men impacted by this and want to do something for themselves

  • Look into foreskin restoration
  • Donate to foregen

Warning that this topic draws a lot of insane people with genital mutilation fetishes. Any of the comments advocating for circumcision are either men who were circumcised against their will, women who circumcised their children and haven't accepted the truth, or weirdos who want others to suffer.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Thank you so much for writing this up. I really appreciate the detailed post.

Most medical and political professionals have a bias for the circumcision ritual.

I think it's important to point out that this bias is mostly cultural. In many countries where ritual infant circumcision is the exception instead of the norm, medical personnel do not have a bias towards RIC.

Foreskin restoration is legit (even if it may sound crazy like regrowing limbs). I know we collectively dislike Reddit on here, but the subreddit /r/foreskin_restoration has a really supportive and welcoming community and a lot of resources about how to get started (check their wiki).

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It would require that a significant portion of the population admit their parents mutilated them as infants.

For some reason, they refuse to admit they were mutilated without their consent.

Some of them have subsequently mutilated their own sons, and admitting that was mutilation is beyond their capacity.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

I was circumcised, I don't have a problem with that fact. I understand why people do have a problem with circumcision and I don't have an issue with it being banned.

Don't try to induce mental trauma in me for my past that I'm not bothered by.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

I have been physically punished when I did something bad as a kid. I'm not traumatized by that either but I still think it's good that it's illegal nowdays.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you a persons who is refusing to admit.

Thanks for demonstrating my point so effectively.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Ladies and gentlemen, I present to you the problem with the anti-circumcision movement.

There are good arguments to be had for banning circumcision. Refusing to recognize my autonomy, and insisting you know the "secret trauma of strangers" better than they do is not one of them. It makes you sound like an asshole who doesn't know what they are talking about and will cause people to think the whole movement is the same way.

For those arguing to ban circumcision: you need to purge assholes like this from your numbers. They are only doing harm and not helping your cause.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Refusing to recognize my autonomy

Glad that, as an infant, you exercised your own autonomy, when your parents decided to circumcise you.

If you did exercise your own autonomy as an adult, then fine. That's not what we're talking about.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

As someone whose circumcision worked out perfectly fine and can't imagine myself without one, I still think it should be banned for babies and children under 18 for any reason other than medical necessity. Even a slight risk of problems outweighs the 'my dad did it and he turned out fine' or religious tradition arguments.

It should not be banned for adults who voluntarily choose it for themselves though.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

In which case it is cosmetic surgery.

One does not Botox an infant.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

I've never understood the American obsession with MGM (male genital mutilation). But it seems that a large percentage of your population has had it done. So from an outsider perspective it seems like it must be a cultural thing to your country. So for laws to exist that ban it (or at least make it harder to authorise) you'd first need a cultural shift, then. Enough political will for laws to be passed.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

circumcision is in the Bible, gender reassignment surgery is not. That's where they're going to hang their hats... on the invisible sky ghost.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Um, ackshually, eunuchs are in the Bible, including Jesus saying that some people "become eunuchs" to get closer to God. So...

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

I also want to say, if you read the Bible front to back, it's the story of a people fucking up. The people do terrible things, a hero teaches them to be better, the heroes turn villain (or, rarely, wander off into the sunset when their role is complete), and the institutions rot.

It's not a story of a better people, it's a story of people doing better

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Here's another question along the same lines - my friend when I was a kid developed gynecomastia, commonly known as "breast knots" when he was 14. They're completely harmless, but they made it look like he had boobs. Cute little A cups on this otherwise very boy-presenting person. For some reason, no one thought it was "against God's plan" or "mutilating his body" or "part of the gender agenda" when this 14 year old boy had a purely cosmetic double mastectomy. I wonder why no one batted an eye at a child receiving gender-affirming cosmetic surgery just because he wanted to in this particular case.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (3 children)

Circumcisions should be banned because they are mutilating children's genitals without consent. At least trans medical procedures have consent.

I think it's just religious people being hypocrites again. Hard to convince delusional people of facts when they make up what they believe based on the circumstances. The decisions of religious cults shouldn't have more power than the decisions of individual people. Completely crazy what this country is devolving into

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (15 children)

There is scientific evidence that circumcision results in the area being cleaner and easier to maintain. I'm not denying it is child mutilation, but you also shouldn't just sweep it under the rug as religious bullshittery.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 1 year ago

And if you shave your head, you don't have to brush your hair.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Honestly such a weak argument. Having helped my uncircumcised son learn to keep himself clean, I can probably say this myth needs to be laid to rest already. It's just not true.

load more comments (12 replies)
[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Then we shall ban dentists too. They never had my consent to touch my teeth.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

Did they remove your perfectly healthy canines because a bronze-age book said dogs are unclean? If not, get the fuck out of here with your infant penis mutilation apologetics.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

How many healthy and functional teeth have you had inconsensually removed from your skull by a dentist?

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Cutting a piece of your baby's junk off for no other reason then everyone does it is a really weird thing that I've never been able to wrap my head around.

I'm not religious but I at least can understand if it's for religious reason, there's a point to it, even if I don't agree with/understand the point. But people seem to just do it for no reason aside from it's what people do. It's forced genital mutilation anyway you look at it.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (5 children)

There are medical reasons to remove. If the foreskin isn't cleaned well (challenging for toddlers) it can get infected which prevents it from separating, which is very dangerous.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Poor hygiene is not a sufficiently good reason to remove

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

I don't know man. The entire world for most of human history has gone on just fine without circumcision. I'm eternally grateful I was not born in the US and was brought here as a child so I didn't get my foreskin cut.

It's always an interesting conversation with women. Some prefer it, some don't, most don't care. But it is a bit exotic in some areas of the country. Not so much in heavily immigrant areas.

For example California and Florida the vast majority of people are not circumcised. In Virginia, Ohio, Indiana, etc and other states in mostly white America it's close to 90%.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

until puberty starts the foreskin is attached to the penis. Just like how the finger nails are attached. It can't get dirt under there until you pull it back.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

The foreskin is fused to the tip of the penis until around puberty, there is no need to clean it.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

If your foot isn't cleaned well, it can get infected and potentially cause sepsis, which is very dangerous. Should we be removing children's feet?

No, obviously not. The time for invasive, nonconsentual medical intervention is when it is medically necessary, and circumcision does not fit the bill.

"The CPS does not recommend the routine circumcision of every newborn male."

"It is shown that the foreskin is more sensitive than the uncircumcised glans mucosa, which means that after circumcision genital sensitivity is lost." - Meaning circumcision is quite a damaging procedure, which means the justification for it must be high. And as a preventive measure for which the things being prevented won't happen for a decade and a half or longer, isn't justified.

If the foreskin isn’t cleaned well (challenging for toddlers)

Newborns should not have their foreskin pulled back for cleaning, as the separation can cause damage. IIRC it's only a bit before puberty that it is safe to gently (not forcibly) pull back the foreskin.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Banning medical procedures is never a good idea. Circumcision can be a necessary measure to improve someone's genital health. Banning circumcision could also result in legal troubles for other surgeries where a scalpel needs to be brought into proximity of a penis.

Compare this, for example, to cases where bans on abortion resulted in doctors unable to carry out obviously necessary steps: https://www.cnn.com/2022/11/16/health/abortion-texas-sepsis/index.html

What could be banned, though, is mutilation of a minor, i.e. no consent and no recommendation for this procedure from a doctor.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Because transgender (anti)rights have nothing to do with religion; it's simply the transgender people's turn to be thrown under the bus so the conservatives can continue virtue signalling.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Because one is ordered by their favorite imaginary character in their favorite fairy tale book.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Does such an order actually exist or do they pull it out of their ass in some convenient interpretation?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 1 year ago

Probably the latter. Prepuces are actually a sign of the pact of the god with the Hebrews. Specifically.

load more comments
view more: next ›