Mandatory Circumcision for All Boys? petititon

[Nero]

That video changed the way I think about it. Doesn't seem like a big deal, except the kid is wailing in agony and the minutes slowly crawl by as you're watching. And when you think about it, how could some scissor-like thingies and knives on your genitals *not* be agony? I guess the kid doesn't remember it, but...ouch.

[finewine]

There's a significant difference in function, sensitivity, ability to control, etcetera, and it is considered to affect the man's size into adulthood, negatively.

To be clear, I am firmly opposed to circumcision also but on this specific point, my personal experience and, ahem, "feedback"  does not agree.  And to clarify, I'm not at all debating the veracity of your experiences...just stating that my own falsifies it.

Firstly, I don't know what function you think would have a significant difference. Percy points at the porcelain just fine, can stand and watch me shave and do all the primary functional things an uncut lingham can do.

As for sensitivity, yes that's indeed true due to the "hardening" of the glans surface but that can actually enhance ability to control by helping one last a little longer.  Without meaning to sound immodest, I frequently outlast my female companions (a nice problem to have, frankly).  On the size front, it's hard to say as I don't routinely do a side by side erect comparison ... no complaints so far but maybe they were just protecting my ego, hehe!

Finally, though, while the sensitivity issue is true and has a physiological explanation, I have yet to hear any such explanation for the other claimed effects.

Again, I do totally align with you in opposition to the practice of circumcision.  There is no justification for it.

[Alex_C]

Really? All this time I thought the foreskin/hood stayed the same size through HRT.

Nevermind then.

Um dude, it all GROWS. We're talking size of a lentil to size of a lima bean, and generally on from there, and the foreskin grows correspondingly. I don't want to get graphic here but there are pictures and videos out there on the net.

I'd long been interested in this issue (dad was uncut bro was cut) but with my new growth, I found myself going to sites about male anatomy to understand some of what was going on with me.

Nature put the foreskin there for a purpose and I think it's best not to mess with it.

[JonasCarminis]

If you've never had it done then what do you know about the effect it has?  It's no different than men giving opinions on PMS or abortions -- they can't possibly know and neither can you.

What's more is that more often the lasting effect is the other way around -- kids who don't get circumsized are often teased by their peers about it.  Now that can be blamed on society's standard for circumcision being the norm, but the fact is that I don't know a single guy who has been 'traumatized' by this 'barbaric' procedure.  Kids are more likely to be 'traumatized' by getting a bad haircut.

I am however open-minded... if there's someone here who HAS been circumcised and feels it had a negative effect then that's a different story and I'd be interested to know more.

as FTMs, we all have foreskins.  (unless subjected to female "circumcision")  This automatically makes our opinions "valid".  though i think our opinions would have been valid anyway because were human beings.

[Nimetön]

as FTMs, we all have foreskins.  (unless subjected to female "circumcision")  This automatically makes our opinions "valid".  though i think our opinions would have been valid anyway because were human beings.

By a very similar argument, the most devout of religious adherents, who also have sexes, genitalia, hormones, and are also human beings, have a "valid" opinions with regard to your transition and your sexual behavior.

Locus standi is a very serious issue, and it lies at the heart of any attempt to proscribe private acts, and religious practices, by means of legislation.  I'd recommend providing a somewhat more rigorous foundation than this, lest you unwittingly argue against your own interests.

- N

[Kayden]

If you've never had it done then what do you know about the effect it has?  It's no different than men giving opinions on PMS or abortions -- they can't possibly know and neither can you.

What's more is that more often the lasting effect is the other way around -- kids who don't get circumsized are often teased by their peers about it.  Now that can be blamed on society's standard for circumcision being the norm, but the fact is that I don't know a single guy who has been 'traumatized' by this 'barbaric' procedure.  Kids are more likely to be 'traumatized' by getting a bad haircut.

I am however open-minded... if there's someone here who HAS been circumcised and feels it had a negative effect then that's a different story and I'd be interested to know more.

You can't change norms by continuing to conform to them.  And just because a child can't remember something, doesn't mean it doesn't have an effect on them.

Also, despite the fact that we don't know from REAL LIFE EXPERIENCE what it is actually like to go through circumcision, doesn't mean that we can't have sympathy for those who go through it.  I also doesn't mean we can't be educated about what it does.  How does medical or psychological research progress?  All the psychologists publishing studies on bipolar disorder or OCD haven't had the disorders and haven't gone through the treatments.  Sometimes they don't even actually conduct the studies, they just analyze the data.

Kids who have gay parents are often teased about it, but it's not actually worse for them than having straight parents.  You didn't say this, but the effect your words have on me is that you'd rather keep circumcision around because kids will be less likely to get teased?  Or am I miss understanding?

Whether or not we can prove people are traumatized, there are other negative effects that have been repeatedly pointed out.  If circumcision is less common, people won't be stigmatized for it.  Just like, if having gay parents isn't looked negatively upon because everyone is properly educated about the "effects", their children won't be teased as much.  Just like, if people are educated about transpeople and how gender works in conjunction or separate from sex, we will be less likely to be shunned and left unprotected.

Obviously, having skin on your penis vs. not isn't as dire of a situation as being transgender, but the point was made that there might be lasting effects from being teased about it, and I just wanted to make a point that it's not a fixed problem.  It can change.

By a very similar argument, the most devout of religious adherents, who also have sexes, genitalia, hormones, and are also human beings, have a "valid" opinions with regard to your transition and your sexual behavior.

Locus standi is a very serious issue, and it lies at the heart of any attempt to proscribe private acts, and religious practices, by means of legislation.  I'd recommend providing a somewhat more rigorous foundation than this, lest you unwittingly argue against your own interests.

- N

By the same token, I hope some cispeople have opinions on transgender issues.  We need allies to help make non-discrimination policies that include gender identity.

[JonasCarminis]

By a very similar argument, the most devout of religious adherents, who also have sexes, genitalia, hormones, and are also human beings, have a "valid" opinions with regard to your transition and your sexual behavior...

im not quite sure what this has to do with anything, but yes, im sure they have opinions on my transition and sexual behavior.  care to enlighten me?

[Alex_C]

I think they're saying my arguement "Nature made the penis that way for a reason" arguement may not be a good one.

I'll make instead the argument that it's not medically necessary and it's non-consensual.

[JonasCarminis]

i never made an argument either way though, which is why i was confused about his/her reply.

[placeholdername]

You can't change norms by continuing to conform to them.  And just because a child can't remember something, doesn't mean it doesn't have an effect on them.

Also, despite the fact that we don't know from REAL LIFE EXPERIENCE what it is actually like to go through circumcision, doesn't mean that we can't have sympathy for those who go through it.  I also doesn't mean we can't be educated about what it does.  How does medical or psychological research progress?  All the psychologists publishing studies on bipolar disorder or OCD haven't had the disorders and haven't gone through the treatments.  Sometimes they don't even actually conduct the studies, they just analyze the data.

Kids who have gay parents are often teased about it, but it's not actually worse for them than having straight parents.  You didn't say this, but the effect your words have on me is that you'd rather keep circumcision around because kids will be less likely to get teased?  Or am I miss understanding?

Whether or not we can prove people are traumatized, there are other negative effects that have been repeatedly pointed out.  If circumcision is less common, people won't be stigmatized for it.  Just like, if having gay parents isn't looked negatively upon because everyone is properly educated about the "effects", their children won't be teased as much.  Just like, if people are educated about transpeople and how gender works in conjunction or separate from sex, we will be less likely to be shunned and left unprotected.

Obviously, having skin on your penis vs. not isn't as dire of a situation as being transgender, but the point was made that there might be lasting effects from being teased about it, and I just wanted to make a point that it's not a fixed problem.  It can change.

By the same token, I hope some cispeople have opinions on transgender issues.  We need allies to help make non-discrimination policies that include gender identity.

I was responding to the people who were saying 'look how barbaric that is! it must cause long-lasting trauma to those people!'.  As someone who has been circumcised I find it a bit offensive for people to judge whether or not i am traumatized based on an experience they can't have.  It seems a little unbalanced when it's the people who haven't had it done that are railing against it, while I have yet to find someone who has had it done that feels it was traumatizing (not that there aren't any).

There's also a huge difference between male circumcision which has legitimate pro's and con's and both sides, vs female circumcision which (to my limited knowledge) involves cutting off whole organs and is primarily done to enforce a male-dominated social structure.  Now you might think, isn't that hypocritical of me? but my outlook is this: the only reason I have any knowledge of it is from the countless accounts by women who have suffered through that, and I support *them* in their fight to stop that practice.  But I can't say that I would *necessarily* believe it to be traumatizing without their accounts because how could I possibly know?  I mean I think it would be fairly traumatizing to get my tongue pierced but plenty of people do that and seem perfectly fine.

Personally, I'm not for or against male circumcision -- I don't know what I would do if I had a son (would prefer girls), but if the mother/father and I decided for circumcision, we'd definitely have it done with local anesthetic.  But to be honest, that would just be to ease my own conscience -- I didn't have it done with anesthetic and I can't remember the experience whatsoever, nor do I have any irrational fears about sharp things near there or any other evidence of 'trauma'.

[finewine]

I was responding to the people who were saying 'look how barbaric that is! it must cause long-lasting trauma to those people!'.  As someone who has been circumcised I find it a bit offensive for people to judge whether or not i am traumatized based on an experience they can't have.  It seems a little unbalanced when it's the people who haven't had it done that are railing against it, while I have yet to find someone who has had it done that feels it was traumatizing (not that there aren't any).
[...]

I understand the sentiment, as a fellow roundhead...but it's not unsual for folks to assert a position as a generalized belief without qualifying it with exceptions etc..  While I do think some could use a little more thought in how they articulate their opinions, I don't take them personally unless it was clearly intended as such (and conversely, we don't want to communicate like lawyers in some tangled forum-esque legalese!)

So yes, I do completely agree that folks shouldn't assert subjective experience that they cannot access as fact...but I welcome opinion sharing (and I know you weren't suggesting otherwise).  It would be hypocritical of me to try and deny them, as I often sling my opinion in on plenty of topics here that I haven't personally experienced (as a non-transitioning cis-gendered person who happens to be an SO). 

[Kayden]

I think, as I understand it, we are arguing that people shouldn't be lead to believe circumcision is beneficial.  I think that if you DO have religious beliefs that require it, I'm not going to stand it your way.  However, if you have a preference to be cut and that is the only reason you want it for your kid, save that talk for puberty or something.

However, people still take part in it "just because" due to the fact that's "how it's done" even when they have no real reason.  Since we have no evidence for trauma and we do know there are benefits for NOT circumcising, I think people need to be more educated about options and doctors need to stop pushing for it.  Patients are generally asked their religious preferences went entering a hospital (at least in the US) so the doctor's should know to offer circumcision or the parents should know to ask for it.

OH AND anesthesia.  Please.  My boyfriend was watching the video of that baby and I couldn't even listen to it for 5 seconds without being sick to my stomach.  I wasn't even looking at it.  I don't know how doctors can assume that is from fear and not pain, since babies have no innate fear of surgical instruments.  True, they are away from their mother, but the crying was much worse during the procedure than before the baby was actually cut.  Being traumatized or not, it's not right to cause them that much pain when it can reasonably be avoided to a degree.

[placeholdername]

Minor point -- I'm not sure if this is a myth or not but I do remember from somewhere that getting it done later in life is actually more painful than if you have it done when you're an infant.  I don't know how people would gauge the relative pain exactly, though.

[Miniar]

Minor point -- I'm not sure if this is a myth or not but I do remember from somewhere that getting it done later in life is actually more painful than if you have it done when you're an infant.  I don't know how people would gauge the relative pain exactly, though.

In all probability it's more about being able to remember the pain or not.
_

On the subject of "you can't comment on the trauma factor of an experience without having experienced it"..
I find that suggestion illogical, if not offensive.

Not possessing a foreskin doesn't mean I can't hear the amount of pain in the infant.

Mind you, I think it doesn't cause lasting trauma to the psyche because it's forgotten. None of us remember anything from the first few months of life. But that doesn't mean that the experience itself isn't traumatic when it happens.

"Trauma" is a part of life and a significant part of growing up, but unnecessarily inflicting copious amounts of pain on an infant for (mostly) an aesthetic reason will always appear immoral to me.

[Kayden]

Minor point -- I'm not sure if this is a myth or not but I do remember from somewhere that getting it done later in life is actually more painful than if you have it done when you're an infant.  I don't know how people would gauge the relative pain exactly, though.

Well, your skin is naturally able to be pulled back to the place they will cut it to when you in puberty.  When you're an infant, it is unable to do this.  They have to ... ug.  I can't describe it without getting squicked.

Anyway, I know it's a common myth that infants "don't feel pain during circumcision," so what you said that may well be rooted in myth as well.

[finewine]

A pal of mine had it done at 19 (same reason I did, just that it was done much later).

It was done under anaesthetic and he said it was most uncomfortable post-op but not agonizing.  He also remarked on the impressive (if temporary) swelling

[placeholdername]

In all probability it's more about being able to remember the pain or not.
_

On the subject of "you can't comment on the trauma factor of an experience without having experienced it"..
I find that suggestion illogical, if not offensive.

Not possessing a foreskin doesn't mean I can't hear the amount of pain in the infant.

Mind you, I think it doesn't cause lasting trauma to the psyche because it's forgotten. None of us remember anything from the first few months of life. But that doesn't mean that the experience itself isn't traumatic when it happens.

"Trauma" is a part of life and a significant part of growing up, but unnecessarily inflicting copious amounts of pain on an infant for (mostly) an aesthetic reason will always appear immoral to me.

I want to be clear that I don't think it 'doesn't cause pain' (elaborated on below).  But I think you do have to ask yourself, if the infant won't remember having any experience of the pain, then when we try to alleviate/or prevent this pain, who's interest are we really acting in?  It's not a far step from arguing against the pain of circumcision to a parent wanting to spare their child the 'pain' of being born gay/trans/etc, if they had the choice.

A lot of issue is made about how the child-to-be-circumcised is unable to give consent and so forth, but I think we should at least be honest about who is really most served by stopping circumcision -- the child who likely won't remember a thing, or the people who aren't the parents of said child and are really just trying to ease their own consciences?

It's a complicated issue -- "Circumcision is traumatic and wrong" is not the answer.

Anyway, I know it's a common myth that infants "don't feel pain during circumcision," so what you said that may well be rooted in myth as well.

I mean, I think that's crazy talk, that they don't feel pain during it,  but there's also the factor that puberty causes numerous changes in that area of the body -- I mean there's a point were the nerves that get stimulated during sex wake up and they're not active before then.  It wouldn't seem illogical to me that there's a legitimate difference in the subjective pain from circumcision pre-puberty vs post-puberty, but it's just speculation on my part based on something half-remembered.

[finewine]

I don't think the pain aspect is the fundamental point either.  To my mind, it's more about whether there is any rational necessity or not...and that's the extent of my opposition to the practice.

Some do take a more "militant" stand against male circumcision and, where we talking about female circumcision (or, more accurately, genital mutilation) then I'd be right up there with them.

However, accidents not-withstanding, the "mutilation" of the male organ seems comparatively mild and far from the debilitating intervention it's claimed to be.  So yes, I'm opposed and would, for example, vote against it.  I won't, however, be marching on parliament over it.

[Miniar]

I want to be clear that I don't think it 'doesn't cause pain' (elaborated on below).  But I think you do have to ask yourself, if the infant won't remember having any experience of the pain, then when we try to alleviate/or prevent this pain, who's interest are we really acting in?

I'm not sure I understand what you're saying here correctly.
Every time I read it I see "what the child doesn't remember doesn't harm the child".
Surely you don't mean that. That would mean that as long as the child doesn't remember it, inflicting any kind of pain or abuse on the child is "okay".
Surely you don't mean to imply that an infant screaming in pain is "no biggie cause he'll just forget".
Where do you draw the line? How much damage can be done to an infant without it mattering just cause he/she won't remember?
It brings up images of Peter Connelly (put his name into youtube and watch the video for details) to my mind. An infant that was beaten, treated like a ragdoll, used to train a rottweiler to kill, had his spine snapped and eventually punched until he died all by his stepfather. If the boy had lived he would almost certainly had grown up to forget his ordeal, does that mean that the suffering he lived through was unimportant?

And what about intersexed infants?

The logic eludes me.
Wanting to prevent a child from going through an extreme amount of pain for no good reason what so ever, regardless of whether or not the child actually remembers it in 10 years time, is, to me, about sparing the child the pain. It's not about sparing the parents the indignity of having knowingly allowed their child to be tortured, but about not allowing the torture to start with.

It's not a far step from arguing against the pain of circumcision to a parent wanting to spare their child the 'pain' of being born gay/trans/etc, if they had the choice.

It is a far step.
One is a cosmetic alteration of a bodypart, one that inflicts extreme amounts of physical pain and is done without anaesthesia, and is perfectly avoidable.
The other is not. Being gay/trans/etc is not a choice, circumcision is. Being gay/trans/etc is not something that is done to you (let alone without permission), circumcision is. Being gay/trans/etc is not cosmetic, circumcision is.
See what I'm getting at?
There's quite a leap between telling people "no, you may not consciously choose to inflict extreme damage and pain on your children's genitalia" and suggesting that parents somehow prevent children from growing up to be themselves.
Honestly, the suggestion seems absolutely preposterous.

A lot of issue is made about how the child-to-be-circumcised is unable to give consent and so forth, but I think we should at least be honest about who is really most served by stopping circumcision -- the child who likely won't remember a thing, or the people who aren't the parents of said child and are really just trying to ease their own consciences?

Again.
How much harm is "okay" to do to an infant under the rule of "they won't remember it"?
At what point does "Do Not Harm Your Child!" stop being about the parents and start being about the child to you?

I just got to ask.

Cause I really can't understand the logic behind this reasoning.

[Kayden]

I want to be clear that I don't think it 'doesn't cause pain' (elaborated on below).  But I think you do have to ask yourself, if the infant won't remember having any experience of the pain, then when we try to alleviate/or prevent this pain, who's interest are we really acting in?

Huh.  I didn't remember some of the traumatic things that happened to me in adolescence in an abusive situation.  However, I'm very sure, even before I did recover the memories that they did, in fact, impact me.  I'm not saying that not remembering something as an infant is entirely congruent, but especially after Miniar's example, I really don't want this "If you don't remember it, it won't hurt you" crap to keep going.  It's utter bullsh*t.

I don't see how NOT circumcising the child is acting against their interests.  Most people that aren't circumcised don't choose to be later.  If they ELECT to have that surgery, they aren't going to be traumatized by it.  I wasn't traumatized by my double mastectomy because I wanted it.  Someone who had it because they had cancer and absolutely loved having breasts might indeed be traumatized by the same surgery.  I don't think finewine's friend was traumatized by their circumcision, despite the discomfort.

It's not a far step from arguing against the pain of circumcision to a parent wanting to spare their child the 'pain' of being born gay/trans/etc, if they had the choice.

I fail to see congruence.  Aside from Miniar's point of circumcision being elective and gender and orientation NOT being elective, I don't like the implication that being gay needs to be avoided.  I don't want to get into trans details because at this point that requires medicine and surgery and is far longer of a debate.  However, having a non-heterosexual orientation is not something that needs to be fixed (which I don't think you're debating, as you're here). As I have stated before in this thread, if people had a general acceptance of it (which will hopefully continue to become more and more prevalent) then there won't NEED to be a wish for a parent to save their child the pain of being born that way.

A lot of issue is made about how the child-to-be-circumcised is unable to give consent and so forth, but I think we should at least be honest about who is really most served by stopping circumcision -- the child who likely won't remember a thing, or the people who aren't the parents of said child and are really just trying to ease their own consciences?

What about the people who aren't the parents of said child who HAVE been circumcised and wish they hadn't been?  I know we aren't part of that population, but there are people that are part of this discussion in other spheres that fit this description.

Also, at this age, the child hasn't even reached an age where they can give "assent," where the parent gives consent and the child agrees that they want to do it.  Without at least religion poking in and giving SOMEWHAT of a reason, I don't see how doctor's can advocate for something that SERVES NO MEDICAL PURPOSE, COSTS MONEY, and CAUSES PAIN.  If you don't believe it is necessary for your beliefs, why have your child circumcised at all.  I don't want to get in a religious debate, which is why I'm still including religion as a reason to have your child circumcised.

I mean, I think that's crazy talk, that they don't feel pain during it,  but there's also the factor that puberty causes numerous changes in that area of the body -- I mean there's a point were the nerves that get stimulated during sex wake up and they're not active before then.  It wouldn't seem illogical to me that there's a legitimate difference in the subjective pain from circumcision pre-puberty vs post-puberty, but it's just speculation on my part based on something half-remembered.

I know for a fact that prepubescent children can have orgasms.  I'm talking like 3 year olds that masturbate here.  It's well enough known, it was even part of an episode of House once.  So obviously you can be sexually stimulated before puberty.  If a biologically male person got kicked in the goods at age 5 he'd still go down just as though he were 18.  Not the same bit of anatomy as we're talking about for circumcision, but related to your argument.