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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

On one hand I oppose circumcision, on the other hand I think we’re getting far too comfortable letting politicians ban medical procedures.

My alternative perspective is no surgery on someone too young to request it unless it cannot wait until they’re old enough to do so.

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.

we *should *ban circumcision, it's genital mutilation and children cannot consent

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

Because the laws are being pushed on a religious basis, not a rational one.

Circumcision is so weird. Like why are non religious people opting for that so much in the US?

I think we should ban circumcision

This is one of the case where we can talk about the Jewish/Muslim lobby without being a far-right biggot. People want to defend their religious practice, even if they involve chopping off a piece of kids genitalia

because we are a stupid, prudish, and vain country. we don't want people to enjoy jerking off too much, nor do we want to reverse the trend of mutilation, which would make the old guard feel like they're the broken ones

Genital mutilation is incredibly sad and people are somehow tricking themselves into being ok with it because they can't get they dick tips back lol

Remember that cult where dudes were required to cut their balls off? It's the same cult.

If we ban circumcision does that then mean it's okay to keep trans medical procedures banned aswell or that we shouldn't ban neither? I'm not sure the reasoning is sound here. Circumcision without the subject's concent is an obviously barbaric tradition that we will look back with horror one day.

They'll make the Church of Scientology pay taxes before they ban circumcisions.

Circumcision is taking a kid and doing something irreversible to them without consent. Trans treatment is taking a kid and preventing irreversible things from happening until they consent.

You probably want to carve out medically necessary circumcision (required treatment for some issues). The main answer in the US would be a combination of religion and tradition with some bonus vanity and outdated knowledge (see arguments about cleanliness).

You act as if logic and consistency matters to them

I think cosmetic surgery should be limited to adults, yes. Circumcision here is usually cosmetic (someone wants the baby to look like the Dad, I am not kidding, that is the argument I hear the most) so like labiaplasty, I don't think it should be done to people who can't choose it. I don't think intersex babies should be modified either.

Trans care for minors does not involve surgery. But other gender affirming care should be available to those over 13, like sexual health services are, without parental consent. That's the age we legally think kids get some privacy rights so why not this?

There's actually no mandate for non-Jewish people people to be circumcised in Christianity. It's specifically made clear that it isn't a requirement for "gentiles" in the new testament. But I have a great circumcised cock and I have no complaints. I'm still curious what it would be like naturally though.

The same answer to both:

Religious indoctrination.

In my country circumcision is only for medical reasons

Assuming you’re talking about male circumscission, the short answer is you’re about to be inundated with accusations of antisemitism.

As for female circumcision; it is illegal in the US. The Stop FGM act was signed into federal law in 2020.

I would have loved to have the option to keep my hoodie on or not. I have a wicked crooked scar down there too. It doesn't keep me up at night but if I was given the choice I would have said no.

Because it's "traditional".

Prepare for all sorts of excuses that appear to be along the lines of "Americans don't know how to wash their cocks".

Same reason they want to ban trans medical procedures. "Family values"

It's tradition, so supporting it means supporting the status quo. Change is scary, and throwing shade at the past means throwing shade at all the people who've been harmful things all their lives. Can't have that, then they'd be to blame for not doing better (even though most probably didn't know better nor had good resources to know better).

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.

The first problem is using logic. These bans are to hurt trans people to score political points. Nothing more.

Proving they are logically unsound does nothing for the base that eats this up. They just want to hurt those that scare and confuse them, that's all.

Sometimes people have a medical reason for circumcision. My buddy had it done in his late 20's because it was difficult enough to keep clean that it was causing problems.

Also I might be out of the loop, where are trans medical procedures banned?

Why are you allowed Viagra, minoxidil, testosterone supplements, lifts in your shoes, girdles, hair plugs, tanning booths, calf implants, guns, camo/armor, ozempic and all the other gender affirming care that many conservatives and theocratic nutjobs enjoy to help pretend they're big, strong men and not the withering impotent cowards that they actually are?

Because Jeesssuuuusssssss

because (and I recognize the irony) some people actually need it for health reasons.

From someone who is trans and circumcized without consent at birth.

From my personal experience it's religions way of controlling people, they believe mutilation of kids genitalia is good if stops them from doing whatever there religion dictates that's bad (like pleasure of sex and masterbation)

When blocking people from having transgender surgery is against there beliefs because it gives people control over there life's and body which most religions strictly enforce through gaslighting and manipulation.

This is all from my personal experiences with religion and being trans.

Can it be stopped? Yes

Should it be stopped? Yes

Will it be stopped? No.

I am not pro circumcision, but as someone who worked in peds urology before, a parent of a new son really should take a moment to ensure they are actually going to be able to keep the kid's penis clean, because phimosis and balanitis and later childhood circumcision are pretty awful. Betnovate cream can resolve a lot of it but making that decision later in life when you're at the point of excessive scarring and infection because you weren't honest with yourself about your ability to keep you kid clean is a bad way to end up. If you honestly are squicked out by penis hygiene as a parent just go ahead and circ them in infancy so you don't put them through hell later. That is way worse.

States could but I don’t see anyone pressing for it. People would just claim a religious exemption if they wanted to do it.

Wait it's in the bible to get cut? I thought it was only a Jewish thing.

Because some medical experts deem it a valid and valued preventative remedy for severe phimosis. While I don't concur, my grandfather developed a case late in life that necessitated surgical remediation.

I think it's probably not a great procedure, but at the same time, I, maybe weirdly, don't give a shit at all, for the most part. I don't really care because it was done to me at such a young age that there's not really any way I could possibly remember it, and so I don't really harbor any residual feelings about it. There's also not really a comparison to be had, here, since I can't really get my foreskin back, so there's not like, an A and B test that you can run on a person to be like "oh yeah does this feel better or does this feel better" type of thing.

You know, on the plus side, my dick looks, like, normal, to me, so that's neat. That would probably be the case if my penis were uncircumcised, too, but the uncircumcised penis looks kinda gross to me on a purely aesthetic level, I don't like the reciprocating skin, looks weird, looks like a pig in a blanket type of thing. Probably a result also of, I think probably a good majority of porn, at least in america, featuring circumcised dicks. Or, a majority of porn I've looked at, anyways.

So overall, I don't really care. I don't know why people kind of would care generally. I think it's probably not a good procedure, certainly, and I think it's kind of weird that we do it and that it's so common, and basically, seems to be pretty much unjustifiable, but I also haven't received a comprehensive or compelling argument against it, other than "the sex is better", which, you know, again, not really any way of A B testing that, for me. On an individual basis, it doesn't matter. It would only really matter, I would think, if you were kind of, hyper-insecure about the fact that you've been circumcised.

Just kind of extrapolating from what I understand, which is obviously not a lot, as I'm sure some sap will enlighten me to, it also doesn't strike me as being a surgery that's probably going to do that much damage. Mostly cosmetic, mostly just a flesh wound.

Still don't think it should be done, probably, but the overwhelming amount of people mad about it kind of indicates to me that there's something else going on about it. I think, probably, this is a pretty common edgy antitheist type of stance to have. The stance itself isn't really edgy, but it is sort of a common stance for edgy antitheists to have, is what I mean. I also use antitheist here instead of atheist, because I consider most atheists to not give a shit about god, while most antitheists I would consider to have a kind of brainrot inflicted by traumatic religious upbringings, or just kind of by ambiently having, predominantly christians (but this can also be applied to islam, or really whatever religion), be shitty to them. Which is fair, since christians are pretty shitty a good amount of the time, perhaps a majority, even.

Certainly though it does give me pause, especially when you get, as I've heard it, enlightened atheist types, that try to kind of argue that religion is the fault of, say, some major wars in history, the crusades, black death, whatever. That seems to me like blaming the wind, or stones. It's a deterministic element that just kind of arose out of humanity's latent need to explain the natural world around them, I would think most materialist (presumably) atheists would be able to understand that, but I think we've maybe become so swamped in this kind of post-history scientific materialist perspective as the default that we've kind of forgotten how weird everything is at face value, and how weird being conscious is. But I could go on that rant for hours, so.

Because the people fighting for one usually aren't concerned with the other. I'm sure you'll find that support for gender affirming care and support for circumcision fall along party lines.

✝️

Preventing religious people from circumcising their kids would violate their religious liberties in the US.

Mostly though, nobody cares.

Unless you're talking about "female circumcision" which is a totally different and way more horrific thing.

Sperm is life, protect sperm from being desecrated and thrown up everywhere.

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.

What the heck is going on here.

I've been circumcised as a child, as far as I know it was a medical necessary. I never had any Problem with my genitals. I have never even heard about people having such strong opinions about this topic.

It was just like, that some children having tympanostomy tube and some don't. Is this such a big topic in the USA, or just in this post?

Freedom of religion. Please note it has nothing to do with jesus and is not a christian thing except in dumbfuck america where everything is done wrong simply to feed their narrative that they're thpeshul.

That said, use what's there. Somebody needs to officially start the Gayligion and then everything lgbtq will be protected with all the force of the legal bullshit that protects the jfags (a neutral, unoffensive term if you know the intent behind it, btw)

Because there are cases when you need it for health reasons. Sure this are not the majority of the circumcisions realized if we account for all the babies who receive it, but is still is a legit medical procedure. You can't completely ban something useful just because is misused.

I got a late stage circumcision (I was 10). Cut is better.

Because hooded monks are fucking gross.

Because not everyone wants to look like an anteater?

You can ho hum all you want but circumcising me was 100% the right choice.

Cutting foreskin versus turning a dick inside out are two very different things.

Real answer? Society doesn't care about problems that only effect men.

Hot take: I have never regretted being circumcized and never met anyone who regretted being circumcized so banning it doesn't make sense for that reason alone. Some parents pierce their children's ears without their consent, some give them frenectomies, pull teeth, reshape heads, bind feet, or do a variety of other "elective" procedures so I'm not sure why circumcision has so much hate.