aka non consented circumcision is a human rights violations rule

    • Rachelhazideas@lemy.lol
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      16
      ·
      10 months ago

      I literally mentioned birth defects as a medically substiated reason, phimosis being one of them. Please read.

      • Fox@pawb.social
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        10 months ago

        Phimosis isn’t even a birth defect, it’s not supposed to be pulled back for an infant. There’s basically no medically justifiable reason, ever, to do this to a baby.

        • Norah - She/They@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          10 months ago

          While I agree that most cases of phimosis would be better to wait until teenage/young adult years before intervention is considered, if it’s bad enough that their pee balloons under the foreskin, it requires surgery. However, that surgery does not require full circumcision either in babies or adolescents.

          • Fox@pawb.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            Ballooning can be harmless and doesn’t mean that there’s severe phimosis, much less severe enough to require surgery. The process of natural separation takes time.

            • Norah - She/They@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              10 months ago

              Okay, I’m incredibly anti-circumcision, but you’re just being obtuse. The whole point of medical science is to prevent suffering. For example, we vaccinate babies to prevent harmful illnesses. They cannot speak for themselves so we have to make those decisions for them, but only in their best interests.

              • Fox@pawb.social
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                10 months ago

                The standard of care should be too take the least invasive approach possible, especially when the more radical option has lifelong consequences. Not sure how that position is obtuse. And if a child is too young to speak, nobody should be recommending this operation because any diagnosis of ‘phimosis’ at that age is plain bullshit.

                • Norah - She/They@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  10 months ago

                  …because any diagnosis of ‘phimosis’ at that age is plain bullshit.

                  This is the position I believe is obtuse. Circumcision being abhorrent doesn’t mean that any medically necessary surgery in the area is “bullshit”. I’ll point out, again, that surgery for phimosis does not require circumcision, nor does it cause the same lifelong consequences. I’m not going to debate it with you further though.

                  Edit: Under your logic, we should just let a baby with a congenital heart defect die instead of operate on them, because they can’t speak for themselves.

                  • Fox@pawb.social
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    edit-2
                    10 months ago

                    Good thing that’s not at all my logic. A high risk heart condition and not being retractable at age three are not even slightly the same degree of compelling. Talk about being obtuse. You give an extremely common phenomenon that many boys grow out of and say that it necessitates surgery without any qualifiers. I say bullshit, that is basically the extent of it.

              • barsoap@lemm.ee
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                10 months ago

                Even if there’s phimosis going straight to circumcision is not medically defensible, first there’s testosterone creme and mechanical stimulation. Don’t have statistics at hand but the number of cases where that’s not enough should be lower than that of intersex folks.

        • qyron@sopuli.xyz
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          10 months ago

          Phimosis in infants can lead to infections to the urinary tract, discomfort and/or pain and other related issues.

          Phimosis is a medical condition and needs to be addressed as such, with parents/guardians taking well informed decisions backed with medical advice.

          Addressing phimosis and other issues regarding the prepuce also does not require circumcision as other procedures can be done to rectify issues.

          The removal of the prepuce for non medical reasons is an unnecessary, unjustifiable, unreasonable act, already considered to some degree as genital mutilation, as it has been shown it deprives feeling from the area and thus inhibits the sexual development and enjoyment.

    • Soulg@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      13
      ·
      10 months ago

      Nobody takes you seriously either because you don’t even finish reading the post and then act unnecessarily rude and obnoxious afterwards.

    • Norah - She/They@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      10 months ago

      Let’s compare this to tail-docking for dogs. There are plenty of legitimate medical reasons that a vet might dock a tail for, including the fact it can be basically impossible to heal a severe injury on one. But if you get your dogs tail docked just for the looks, that’s a shitty thing to do. That’s why where I live, it’s illegal to do it just for aesthetics.

      Now, if you’re suggesting that the vast majority of circumcisions aren’t aesthetic, and are in fact a necessary preventative medical procedure. Well, firstly, we survived as a species for hundreds of thousands of years before we started doing it just fine. And secondly, you could just as easily make the argument that removing the testes is needed to prevent future cases of testicular cancer.

      Oh wait, doctors do literally say and do this to Intersex babies, with literally no medical evidence to back up their claims. Then try to force a child that was born with external genitalia to grow up as a “girl” after cutting it off.