American Academy of Pediatrics softens its stance on FGM

gaijinguy wrote:

Malganis wrote:

Penguin wrote:

Harley Quinn hyenaholic wrote:

Now they just have to ban Male Genitalia Mutilation, aka circumcising at birth.

Die in a fire.

Seriously, why the vehemence on your part?

Right back atcha. Seriously, it's not like it's something you'll ever ever have to worry about.

It will be if she has a boy child. Plus, for her its a moral infringement. Not sure why penguin went all DIAF on Harley for the remark.

gaijinguy wrote:

Malganis wrote:

Penguin wrote:

Harley Quinn hyenaholic wrote:

Now they just have to ban Male Genitalia Mutilation, aka circumcising at birth.

Die in a fire.

Seriously, why the vehemence on your part?

Right back atcha. Seriously, it's not like it's something you'll ever ever have to worry about.

Lemme break this down, then I'm done.

1. My boyfriend, who I love, is circumcised. He may have some problems resulting from that.

Furthermore, any partner I will have, if, say, Darth and I happen to break up, is likely to be circumcised. So it's entirely possible that I could end up with someone who has some pretty bad problems resulting from being cut... anything from feeling almost nothing during vaginal or oral sex (which some men have attested to) to painful erections (which is thankfully less likely, since younger men who are cut tend to be more loosely circ'd, but is not out of the realm of possibility by any means).

Seriously, do you think I enjoy knowing that?

2. Having watched a video of a 'routine infant circ' that was placed online not as an example of how fucking horrible it is, but as a training exercise for doctors, I was A) horrified that this is being done to anyone, and B) absolutely sickened to think that this was done to the person I love. Sickened, to think that someone who's already had so much shit piled on him throughout his life actually had the shit-piling start almost from the moment he was born, all because the doctor insisted it was 'necessary' for some vague, never-explained 'reason'.

Again, do you think I enjoy knowing that that happened to him? Do you think I enjoy knowing that, whatever injury or trauma he suffered from it, it could have been much worse -- he could have ended up like the guy who wrote in to Dan Savage who had lost his entire glans, or he could be like Shane Peterson, who lost almost all of his shaft skin and suffered from agonizing erections for years, or he could have lost his entire penis, or he could have ended up dead.

It's like, for fuck's sake, how much of your fucking body are you allowed to keep by some fuckwad who just does it to you because, for no real medical rationale?

3. Women and girls have only been legally protected in America against genital mutilation for a few years. Like I said, FGM was practiced in America even up until the mid-20th century... that's well attested to. Intersexual people have had to put up with being altered without their consent or any thought given for their future sexual sensitivity for decades, as well.

Also, I'm loving the assumption that I should only be concerned about issues that directly affect me or my biological sex.

gaijinguy wrote:

Malganis wrote:

Penguin wrote:

Harley Quinn hyenaholic wrote:

Now they just have to ban Male Genitalia Mutilation, aka circumcising at birth.

Die in a fire.

Seriously, why the vehemence on your part?

Right back atcha. Seriously, it's not like it's something you'll ever ever have to worry about.

That, and the day I need Harley to white knight for my gender is the day I need a hole in my head.

Saying that female genital mutilation is exactly the same kind of thing as male circumcision is not only incredibly misleading, it defeats the purpose of any kind of activism you might want to do about it.

That's exactly the line that people who are for FGM use to promote FGM.

The two acts would only be equivalent if male circumsision was wacking off the entire penis and if male circumcision normally resulted in a male who was unable to have orgasms.

FGM is often removing the entire clitoris, and even if only part is removed the clitoris is already so tiny that whatever is left is not likely to function very well, like leaving a one-inch stump penis would be to a male.

I'm not saying male circumsion is good. I'm just saying your particular way of making your point tends to convince the general public of the opposite stance instead. You're comparing a motorcycle crash with a train crash.

I wouldn't say they're equivilent, but you don't need to rely on rankings to think both should be banned. I wouldnt say "lesser of the two evils" applies here.

MY GENITALIAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

How about we ban doctors from nonconsensually cutting on any and every genitalia ever? I mean, who is it benefiting? I think anyone of any genital configuration can figure out one way or another any sort of genital cutting they don't give an OK to is pretty fucked up and ought to be banned. And instead of nipping at each other for "white knighting" when one "doesn't belong" to one group or another, shut the fuck up and realise the bigger picture and clearer goal here.

Everyone's effected by involuntary genital cutting.
Vagina-bearers, penis-wielders, and every ambiguous genital configuration in between.

As one piece of writing I read said, "Whose genitalia is this, anyway?"





Oh wait, sorry, I'm getting in the way of you all arguing amongst yourselves.
I'll step off.

but seriously what about the jews

Oh Dongs you intact male

I'm with Ver on this one.

Notanoni wrote:

(stuff)I'm not saying male circumsion is good. I'm just saying your particular way of making your point tends to convince the general public of the opposite stance instead. You're comparing a motorcycle crash with a train crash.

Please point out exactly where I said they're exactly culturally comparable and damaging to the same degree. All I've said is why I think male circ is wrong, and that FGM, as well as alteration of intersex babies and children to fit them into gender norms, are not such strangers to American society and medical practice as most people would like to think.

BTW, there are degrees of FGM and not all of them result in total clitoral removal and not all of them involve infibulation or sewing up of the vagina. Even the most severe forms do not always result in an inability to orgasm. That's NOT me trying to minimize the horror of the tradition or the extreme damage it does, just a fact. The human body is incredibly resilient; enough to try to overcome nerve removal and damage whenever it can.

However, just because someone of whatever gender who has had involuntary genital alteration, damage, or removal can still be aroused and can still orgasm does not whitewash, morally negate the damage and violation done, or mean that what was done was justified or 'okay'. There's still the basic issue of bodily integrity - that any alteration of the body should be made by that individual, with full knowledge of the procedure's possible consequences.

Jesus wrote:

I wouldn't say they're equivilent, but you don't need to rely on
rankings to think both should be banned. I wouldnt say "lesser of the
two evils" applies here.

Verandering wrote:

How about we ban doctors from nonconsensually cutting on any and every
genitalia ever? I mean, who is it benefiting? I think anyone of any
genital configuration can figure out one way or another any sort of
genital cutting they don't give an OK to is pretty fucked up and ought
to be banned. And instead of nipping at each other for "white
knighting" when one "doesn't belong" to one group or another, shut the
fuck up and realise the bigger picture and clearer goal here.

Everyone's effected by involuntary genital cutting.

Vagina-bearers, penis-wielders, and every ambiguous genital configuration in between.

THANK YOU, both of you, so much, for saying what I've been trying to say for two pages. I love you both right now in a Platonic way.

SirDixonDongs wrote:

but seriously what about the jews

Okay, I'll go out on a limb here and say that I still think it's wrong. Yes, even then. Religious freedom in America is very broad, and y'all know I'm a huge libertarian when it comes to making choices for yourself and your own body, but when it comes to American law, we tend to be less comfortable with life-endangering choices made for others when they can't resist. Case in point being Jehovah's Witnesses and other sects that don't go to doctors making the choice to not seek medical treatment for their kids that might save that kid's life.

And no, the vast majority of circs in America are not religious in nature and not all Jews circumcise. Quite a few prominent intactivists are of Jewish descent, in fact.

idk mang i wouldn't want my dick lookin like no shar pei

SirDixonDongs wrote:

idk mang i wouldn't want my dick lookin like no shar pei

And that's totally cool. I don't care if someone punches a hole in his foreskin, circumcises himself, peels off his shaft skin in a strip, subincises himself, or splits his balls so that there's a separate sack for each nut (no shit, a guy in Germany did ALL OF THAT himself - it's absolutely fascinating to read about). All I care about is that that person have the opportunity to make that choice for himself or herself, of his/her own will.

In fact, when it comes to making laws banning genital cutting, I'm kinda nervous about them being passed, because it can boomerang back on consensual adult extreme-modifications in a way that is very restrictive, such as banning castrations and nullo operations.

Malganis wrote:

SirDixonDongs wrote:

idk mang i wouldn't want my dick lookin like no shar pei

And that's totally cool. I don't care if someone punches a hole in his foreskin, circumcises himself, peels off his shaft skin in a strip, subincises himself, or splits his balls so that there's a separate sack for each nut (no shit, a guy in Germany did ALL OF THAT himself - it's absolutely fascinating to read about). All I care about is that that person have the opportunity to make that choice for himself or herself, of his/her own will.

In fact, when it comes to making laws banning genital cutting, I'm kinda nervous about them being passed, because it can boomerang back on consensual adult extreme-modifications in a way that is very restrictive, such as banning castrations and nullo operations.

And sometimes there's a medical need for genital surgery (cancer, anyone?). Aside from that, I agree that genital alteration should be the choice of the person being altered.

Malganis wrote:

Notanoni wrote:

(stuff)I'm not saying male circumsion is good. I'm just saying your particular way of making your point tends to convince the general public of the opposite stance instead. You're comparing a motorcycle crash with a train crash.

Please point out exactly where I said they're exactly culturally comparable and damaging to the same degree. All I've said is why I think male circ is wrong, and that FGM, as well as alteration of intersex babies and children to fit them into gender norms, are not such strangers to American society and medical practice as most people would like to think.

Ways you made it sound very much like you're saying they're the same thing to the same degree:

(1) By claiming that both are extremely horrible crimes that need to be outlawed immediately.

(2) By the language and attitude you use.

(3) By sounding as if you are perhaps even more upset about male circumcision than you are about FMG.

Malganis wrote:

BTW, there are degrees of FGM and not all of them result in total clitoral removal and not all of them involve infibulation or sewing up of the vagina. Even the most severe forms do not always result in an inability to orgasm. That's NOT me trying to minimize the horror of the tradition or the extreme damage it does, just a fact.

I am fully aware of this, don't talk down to me by pretending I don't know the facts. Let's keep this on the level of opinion, okay? Inability to orgasm is an extremely common side effect of FGM. Inability to orgasm is an extremely rare side effect of male circumcision. For the case against male circumcision, people have to bring out the rare, worst-case scenarios. For the case against FGM, people can easily point to seriously decreased quality of life in 80% or more of all cases.

Malganis wrote:

The human body is incredibly resilient; enough to try to overcome nerve removal and damage whenever it can.

And how does that make it better? Really, you're supporting your position in the wrong way. Once again, I want to point out the issue you've sidestepped:

You are against both FGM and male circumcision, however the way you state your position has an uncanny resemblance to the rhetoric of people who are for both practices. If you continue to support your position in such a way, you're not going to convert anyone else to your point of view and you might even push some people (mostly the average uninformed, undecided nitwit) into the opposite point of view. You'll either be preaching to the choir, agreeing with those who already agree with you, or failing to make an impression on those who don't.

The way you are going about stating your position is completely counter-productive to your purpose.

It is the equivalent of an extreme feminist standing on a street corner burning bras (and yes I know that is a myth so don't turn that into another lecture about me not knowing the facts) and chanting about how all men are rapists. If you already agree, you'll approve. If you don't, you'll be turned away from anything that hypothetical hard-core feminist says.

Malganis wrote:

However, just because someone of whatever gender who has had involuntary genital alteration, damage, or removal can still be aroused and can still orgasm does not whitewash, morally negate the damage and violation done, or mean that what was done was justified or 'okay'. There's still the basic issue of bodily integrity - that any alteration of the body should be made by that individual, with full knowledge of the procedure's possible consequences.

No, it's just your excuse to rant however you please, regardless of how much damage it does to your cause. You are taking two related issues, that when categorized together, tend to make the general public think "Oh, if FMG and male circumcision are both horrible, horrible mutilations that need to be outlawed, then FMG can't be that bad."

You do not want the general public to think that. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

If you don't see the problem in that, then you are part of the problem that you claim to be trying to solve.

I'm not saying you are wrong. I am saying you are counter-productive. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Remember, "female circumcision" is what people call FMG, even the most extreme forms of FMG, when they want it to be legal and accepted. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

And remember that people who rant about male circumcision in the style you do are exactly the sort of people supporters of FMG like to point out to the public, to get people believe that FMG and male circumcision are roughly equivalent and thus FMG is not that bad, and that anyone who wants to outlaw either is an extremist. Why would you want to create resources for those who oppose you?

If you want to live in your own little fantasy world where everyone agrees with you, and where the way you state your cause will have no negative effects ever, fine, just don't bring your shit out in public and shit all over your own cause, because other people care about your cause and would rather not have your rants helping the other side.

if I ever have a son, I would have him circumsized because I saw the problems my dad had because he wasn't. And if you're going to do it, it's best to do it when they're a baby because my dad was almost 50 when he had to have it done.

karmyn31 wrote:

if I ever have a son, I would have him circumsized because I saw the problems my dad had because he wasn't. And if you're going to do it, it's best to do it when they're a baby because my dad was almost 50 when he had to have it done.

wat

isn't that kind of like saying "my dad got appendicitis and had to have an operation, so i'm gonna get my kids' appendixes removed when they're young"? or something? i mean it could be genetic but really?

If I ever have a son, I'm naming him either Buachaill or Junior and giving him no other names. My daughter will be named Liathróid. That should ruin their lives nicely.

Don't some cases of phimosis require circumcision?

Cyberwulf wrote:

If I ever have a son, I'm naming him either
Buachaill or Junior and giving him no other names. My daughter will be
named Liathróid. That should ruin their lives nicely.

Wouldn't it be funnier if you made their middle names the phonetic
spelling of their first names?

Cyberwulf wrote:

Buachaill

Which, given the nature of Irish, is probably pronounced 'Bill'. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Sutremaine wrote:

Cyberwulf wrote:

Buachaill

Which, given the nature of Irish, is probably pronounced 'Bill'. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

It's pronounced "Boo-kill" and means "boy". Given the popularity of "Colleen" (ahaha you named your daughter "Girl") I'm surprised some version of it hasn't surfaced in the US or Australia yet.

Cyberwulf wrote:

Sutremaine wrote:

Cyberwulf wrote:

Buachaill

Which, given the nature of Irish, is probably pronounced 'Bill'. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

It's pronounced "Boo-kill" and means "boy". Given the popularity of "Colleen" (ahaha you named your daughter "Girl") I'm surprised some version of it hasn't surfaced in the US or Australia yet.

Is that what that means? I personally never liked the name. It makes me think "collie".

Lapin wrote:

Is that what that means?

Yep. It's the anglicised form of "cailín", which means "girl".

Seule wrote:

karmyn31 wrote:

if I ever have a son, I would have him circumsized because I saw the problems my dad had because he wasn't. And if you're going to do it, it's best to do it when they're a baby because my dad was almost 50 when he had to have it done.

wat

isn't that kind of like saying "my dad got appendicitis and had to have an operation, so i'm gonna get my kids' appendixes removed when they're young"? or something? i mean it could be genetic but really?

Major uninary problems and sexual problems are a lot different than appendicitis.
Besides, why would it bother you what I choose to have done to my possible future child? That's between me and my possible future mate.

karmyn31 wrote:

Seule wrote:

karmyn31 wrote:

if I ever have a son, I would have him circumsized because I saw the problems my dad had because he wasn't. And if you're going to do it, it's best to do it when they're a baby because my dad was almost 50 when he had to have it done.

wat

isn't that kind of like saying "my dad got appendicitis and had to have an operation, so i'm gonna get my kids' appendixes removed when they're young"? or something? i mean it could be genetic but really?

Major uninary problems and sexual problems are a lot different than appendicitis.
Besides, why would it bother you what I choose to have done to my possible future child? That's between me and my possible future mate.

...And your future child.

Who, it appears, won't get any say in the matter.

karmyn31 wrote:

Major uninary problems and sexual problems are a lot different than appendicitis.

I'm unclear as to how.

Edit: Ooooh, even better comparision, since I'm bored. My brother has chronic toenail issues. They continue to ingrow and be infected. One if which we had to remove when he was young and the other is flaring up now. Makes it hard to wear shoes, involves extensive care, and interferes with his dancing (salsa. Very footwork intensive. Hard to do with swollen, infected toes) So, by your logic, i should remove the toenails from my future kids feet to avoid this problem.

karmyn31 wrote:

Besides, why would it bother you what I choose to have done to my possible future child? That's between me and my possible future mate.

If we all thought that, we wouldn't even HAVE this thread. Hell, we wouldn't even have this cultural debate.

I'm not belittling what your (father? I'm editing I cant see back in the post) went through with his penis. but you have to understand how your logic sounds to someone against the practice.