If we can ban trans medical procedures, why haven't we banned circumcision?
If we can ban trans medical procedures, why haven't we banned circumcision?
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.
You're viewing a single thread.
Just because something is banned doesn't mean we should ban other things to make it "fair".
As another poster noted, not all parents are great. Not all parents want to do the work of cleaning their babies. Circumcision might be the best option for them. Maybe the baby doesn't even have proper parents to care for them. Maybe circumcision is needed for medical purposes. There's a million reasons we shouldn't speculate into, as it's none of our business.
Everyone on both sides of the argument should stop hyper focusing on people's genitals. Let people make their own decisions. We don't need the government saying what we can and can't do. Whenever the government intervenes, they inevitably fuck things up. Live and let live. Don't want to get circumcised or don't want your kid to? Then don't. But don't force people to do something because you believe it in. It doesn't make anyone any better than the people they are arguing against, even if their intentions are good.
As a final note, I do support everyone's right to modify their body however they see fit, including gender affirming care. If a parent makes a decision on their baby's behalf, then that is the parents decision, and no law should be able to dictate otherwise.
I'm open to having my mind changed, but this just seems like the pendulum swinging too far in the other direction.
I do support everyone's right to modify their body however they see fit, including gender affirming care
Well...this seems sensible. It's a personal decision so it's everyone's right...
If a parent makes a decision on their baby's behalf, then that is the parents decision, and no law should be able to dictate otherwise.
Oh, I see. Except the baby.
Lmao right? What a ridiculous thing to say.
Should parents not have the right to make decisions on behalf of their own children, until they develop the faculties to make their own decisions?
A baby isn't aware that it may need to be circumcised for any reason.
What's the correct response here? Like I said, I'm open to other ideas, but babies cannot make decisions for themselves.
Not if it implies cutting off parts of their body for no medically accepted reason.
If he has a medical issue and circumcision is the solution, sure. If it's for the common bulshit reasons, hell no, why is that even a question?
Sure, sure, fair enough. But who gets to dictate if the reason is valid. You? Me? The government? I don't think any of those is an acceptable answer. To me, the answer is the parents, and their medical practitioner. It shouldn't be anyone else's business.
Medical decisions are decided by a medical doctor. This is not hard.
.... Right. So we agree.
The long and short of my argument is that the government shouldn't have a say in any of it. Banning circumcision and banning gender affirming care are both stupid decisions. Anyone advocating for government intervention in personal matters is no better than all the bible thumpers injecting their religious beliefs into social policy. It's a slippery slope when we vote to give the government power, as they seldom relinquish it. Just because the government exerts its power enforcing something you fundamentally believe in doesn't mean it's correct. The pendulum swings both ways, and just because it benefits your cause now does not mean it always will.
Furthermore, whatever you decide is a "common bullshit reason", can be used against you and others down the road.
Anyway, I feel like I'm spinning my tires here. Vote on these things however you like, but if you or someone you love ever needs some sort of procedure that has been banned for a "common bullshit reason" in the eyes of whoever is deciding the policy, you will reap what you sow.
So, if a parent wants to perform unneeded plastic surgery on a baby (a nosejob, botox, etc) you think the government should stay out of it because it could end up with the government disallowing a needed surgery arbitrarily (burn victim). That is your argument?
Of course not, because a medical professional would advise against it.
Here's an example of what I'm talking about: I had plastic surgery on my nose when I was a kid. I got into an accident which resulted in the near loss of my nose. I spent some time in the ER, and then had one of the best plastic surgeons in my area perform restorative work on my face.
If it wasn't for this procedure, I likely wouldn't have a nose today. Fortunately, because there was no law preventing a child from getting plastic surgery, I look completely normal as an adult.
Plastic surgery is a bit of a misnomer. There was no artificial material involved.
Do you see what I'm saying though? Giving plastic surgery to a kid sounds absolutely ridiculous, but there are its use cases, and if there was a flat ban on plastic surgery for children, it could harm people more than help, myself included.
The government often doesn't understand the nuances of certain situations. In mine, the surgery was cosmetic, and the government could have deemed it unnecessary. I could have lived a happy life without a nose. Do I trust the government to make a logical argument for why my cosmetic surgery as a child is justified? Do I trust them to delineate between an unneeded surgery or not? Absolutely not.
Sometimes, it isn't as black and white as Botox and burns.
I think you're trying to create nuances where there aren't any.
Sorry, but your case is far from being nuanced. You had an accident and it required reconstruction so it would look normal. Same way circumcision is acceptable when there's, for example, a really bad case of phimosis.
Forget about your accident. Imagine your parents had shit for brains and no nose because of some sick family tradition. So they wanted a plastic surgeon to amputate your nose so you'd be like them. It's their choice, right? They get to make that decision in your behalf, right?
Of course, in real life you wouldn't even get near the scalpel and social services would be on them quicker than you could say "keep the government off my nose".