Page 5 of 10 FirstFirst ... 34567 ... LastLast
Results 121 to 150 of 276

Thread: Female genital mutilation okay in small doses, says American Academy of Pediatrics

  1. #121
    Please, tell me - do you think it's reasonable to carry out genital reconstruction on babies for purely cosmetic (and social/psychological/whatever) reasons?
    Why the binary choice? It might be pretty dubious to carry out an operation on a child which can't consent to it, but at least the parents of that child could make a decent argument that they're acting in the interests of the child. Circumcision of either gender has no reasoned arguments in favor of it: it only has rationalizations, and weak ones at that. About the best you can hope for is that the effects on the child are neutral.
    The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
    The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
    When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
    I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun

  2. #122
    Quote Originally Posted by Spawnie View Post
    Actually, i do.

    However, i misread your post and didnt notice you had put "reconstruction". Even the second time i read it i nearly missed it. My mistake.
    Sorry - you were just the focus for my annoyance. LF addressed my other larger frustration.

    Steely:
    I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. I am positing that the arguments in favor of circumcision or FGM are essentially based in social or cultural norms (ignoring the controversy over HIV transmission rates and the like). Parents do it so that their kids are 'normal' by whatever rubric they are using, and presumably they do so to ease their future social interactions and identities in their community. How is this different from the reasons parents carry out genital reconstruction? Assuming there is no medical need (there certainly are many cases where there is not), they are using fundamentally the same justification as done for FGM and male circumcision. Why is one 'flimsy rationalization' but the other 'in the interests of the child'?

  3. #123
    Quote Originally Posted by wiggin View Post
    I'm asking what people here think, not trying to read anything into the situation. Please, tell me - do you think it's reasonable to carry out genital reconstruction on babies for purely cosmetic (and social/psychological/whatever) reasons? Neither you nor anyone else in this thread has yet to answer the question. You can argue about whether some cases have valid medical justifications but at the end I'd like an answer. I'm perfectly fine with answers either way, I think it should just inform our discussion.
    I voiced my opinion and you called it BS.

    If you want to know what I think, I think that this is all murky territory. In principle, I can see being hesitant to carry out any of the three discussed procedures (a variant of FGM, male circumcision, or genital reconstruction) on a child, but I can also see valid reasons why parents might feel it's best to do so (I think the reasons are best for reconstruction, okay for circumcision, and not the best for FGM, but I do see where they are coming from in all three). In principle, I think that society (and governments) should stop short of actually outlawing a practice it finds repugnant, and instead trying to influence parents through education, recommendations, and compromise (for example, by the AAP's not unreasonable move to suggest a compromise to FGM that has no real functional impact but still fulfils cultural/ritual desires). At the end of the day, it's awfully hard to legislate what a parent can do to their child, anyways.
    APA and WHO doesn't "outlaw" things. But mixing genital anomalies with normal genitalia is making it murkier....for no reason. Physicians will do internal scans and chromosomal tests before they do ANY surgery on an infant with anomalies/ambiguities.


    I call BS. You could make the same argument about 'medical necessity' for circumcision or FGM. Either it's okay to do to a kid or it's not.
    And what would that medical necessity be for circs and FGM? None.


    Oh? You don't think a kid in a highly circumcised community won't have psychological issues? What about a woman in a place where it is expected to have some variant of FGM, and a huge stigma is attached to a 'whole' woman?
    What about it? Are they romping around naked all the time? Are people demanding to look at kids' genitals to see if they've been cut? Kids tease fat kids, too. We going to perform liposuction and tummy tucks on 8 year olds now?


    They aren't delayed until an age of informed consent, which is all that matters here.
    Still say you're dragging reassignment and reconstruction into this for no good reason. Yes, they DO delay some surgeries until they're older. There's a young (7th grade now) FTM transgender in my community, and from what I know they've delayed removing *the* ovaries, even though they've changed the name to a boy's and he lives as a boy. Uses the boy's locker room, plays boy's sports, the whole bit.


    Medical necessity has nothing to do with social norms.
    That is exactly what I've been saying. I wanted to know about "religious reasons".

    *edit* Never mind then, one of these days I might 'research' the Jewish angle. I wasn't aware it was a taboo question reflecting your personal beliefs. Sorry if you thought so.


    *yawns* I didn't come to this thread to talk about this, nor is it your business what my religious beliefs or knowledge may be. Either look it up yourself or find someone else to bother. I came here to broaden the question. This is really a debate about how much parents can irrevocably change their children before the age of consent, often with serious ramifications for their future. I think that it's not as clear-cut as either side has been suggesting. I don't really give a fuck about the male circumcision debate here - I think that the extreme of FGM is a much more worthwhile discussion. I'm not so sure it should be outlawed.
    *sigh* We can't validate a cutting practice done on infant boys by saying "well, we do things to girls, too".


    Define 'anomaly'. Certainly it's not 'normal', but it's not 'normal' to have a foreskin as a child in some countries. You're imposing an external value system on the way a child is born. If all their parts work, why change it in a surgery with potentially huge side effects?
    Physicians try to decipher a functioning urethra/bladder and if there are ovaries/uterus in babies that have a vagina with the appearance of a small penis---to make sure it's not just an enlarged clitoris. They do chromosomal tests, too.
    Last edited by GGT; 05-12-2010 at 10:52 PM.

  4. #124
    Quote Originally Posted by wiggin View Post
    I'm not sure I understand what you're saying. I am positing that the arguments in favor of circumcision or FGM are essentially based in social or cultural norms (ignoring the controversy over HIV transmission rates and the like). Parents do it so that their kids are 'normal' by whatever rubric they are using, and presumably they do so to ease their future social interactions and identities in their community. How is this different from the reasons parents carry out genital reconstruction? Assuming there is no medical need (there certainly are many cases where there is not), they are using fundamentally the same justification as done for FGM and male circumcision. Why is one 'flimsy rationalization' but the other 'in the interests of the child'?
    It's a huge handwave to just mumble "cultural and social norms", as if they're all pretty much the same things; arbitrary preferences with nothing to choose between them. When parents take their children to have genital construction surgery, they're doing so because they don't want their child to suffer the psychological problems and social stigma associated with being of indeterminate gender. When parents have their children circumcised, they're doing it because their disgusting and contemptible religion tells them hacking off bits of small children is an important thing to do.

    Your argument about social and cultural norms in countries where circumcision is prevalent is a non-starter. We don't live in such a country. At least I don't. And you don't live in one where FMG is popular. And the OP of this thread proves that the well being of the child is not what is motivating the parents: immigrants from the barbarian lands still want to mutilate their children, even in the absence of any societal pressure, indeed in they still want to do it presence of contrary societal pressure.

    In short, gender reassignment surgery is something the parents have done for the benefit of their children. Circumcision is something parents have done to their children for themselves.
    The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
    The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
    When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
    I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun

  5. #125
    Yeah, the chromosome tests aren't all they are cracked up to be. There are many mechanistic ways to be born with one set of chromosomes and a different psychology/physiology/physiognomy.

  6. #126
    De Oppresso Liber CitizenCain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Bottom of a bottle, on top of a woman
    Posts
    3,423
    Quote Originally Posted by wiggin View Post
    I'm asking what people here think, not trying to read anything into the situation. Please, tell me - do you think it's reasonable to carry out genital reconstruction on babies for purely cosmetic (and social/psychological/whatever) reasons?
    Good question.

    I don't know, and I'm glad I've never been asked to make that decision for someone else. That said, in the case of "reconstruction," or "intersex" individuals, the procedure is a clear attempt to fix something seen as broken, where as in the case of circumcision (F or M), it's a clear case of trying to impact the expression of sexuality by reducing the pleasure of sex. Seems to be very cut and dry different to me. In one case, the interests of the patient are what matter, in the other, it's the interests of a morally repressive segment of society which are being advanced (by taking a knife to childrens' genitals).
    "I predict future happiness for Americans if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

    "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

    -- Thomas Jefferson: American Founding Father, clairvoyant and seditious traitor.

  7. #127
    Hmm...I guess my issue is this is the American Academy of Pediatrics saying this. We're "supposed" to be medically advanced, and using medicine in intelligent ways, not being swayed by religion or culture. Most people I have talked to who have circumcised their sons are not Jewish, they just went with what they think is the only option. So, that tells me that doctors are not letting people know that there is an option.

    Sad thing is, as much as I want to believe it, the truth is that even our "science" can be swayed by culture, religion, and politics.

    It's a sticky subject for sure, what as parent we should do for our children. The point wiggin brings up is a very tough choice for a parent; luckily it is a rare instance that it happens. But, I can understand that being something more permissible than removing what is a normal body part for questionable motives.

    We don't remove appendixes for the hell of it. We don't clip the ears of children if they are shaped funny. We don't typically do cosmetic surgery on minors unless there was an accident (burns, etc). So, why the need to change their genitals shapes? Should we automatically give girls breast implants at 16? How about rhinoplasty? We've got to look like everyone else after all!

    Look, what other cultures do is up to them to decide if they will stop it or not. But in America, or other civilized societies, we shouldn't be doing unnecessary surgeries on babies for superficial reasons.

    (I also think piercing ears on an infant is barbaric, not to mention tacky, but I think I'm in the minority on that)

  8. #128
    I decided to read the full AAP policy. Here's the part from their old policy that was revised:



    An educational program about FGC requires, above all, sensitivity to the cultural background of the patient and her parents and an appreciation of the significance of this custom in their tradition.5 Objective information should include a detailed explanation of female genital anatomy and function, as well as a thorough review of the lifelong physical harms and psychological suffering associated with most forms of FGC. It should be emphasized that many countries in Africa have supported efforts to educate the public about the serious negative health effects of FGC and that prominent physicians from Africa are advocates for the elimination of these practices because of their adverse consequences. Pediatricians and pediatric surgical specialists who care for patients from populations known to practice FGC commonly, such as Somalian, Ethiopian, Eritrean, and Sudanese communities, should be aware of local counseling centers. Successful educational programs typically require the active involvement and leadership of immigrant women, whose experience and knowledge can address the health, social status, and legal aspects of FGC. Health educators must also be prepared to explain to parents from outside North America why male genital alteration is routinely practiced here but female genital alteration is routinely condemned.31

    Some physicians, including pediatricians who work closely with immigrant populations in which FGC is the norm, have voiced concern about the adverse effects of criminalization of the practice on educational efforts.32 These physicians emphasize the significance of a ceremonial ritual in the initiation of the girl or adolescent as a community member and advocate only pricking or incising the clitoral skin as sufficient to satisfy cultural requirements. This is no more of an alteration than ear piercing. A legitimate concern is that parents who are denied the cooperation of a physician will send their girls back to their home country for a much more severe and dangerous procedure or use the services of a non–medically trained person in North America.33,34 In some countries in which FGC is common, some progress toward eradication or amelioration has been made by substituting ritual "nicks" for more severe forms.2 In contrast, there is also evidence that medicalizing FGC can prolong the custom among middle-class families (eg, in Egypt).35 Many anti-FGC activists in the West, including women from African countries, strongly oppose any compromise that would legitimize even the most minimal procedure.4 There is also some evidence (eg, in Scandinavia) that a criminalization of the practice, with the attendant risk of losing custody of one's children, is one of the factors that led to abandonment of this tradition among Somali immigrants.36 The World Health Organization and other international health organizations are silent on the pros and cons of pricking or minor incisions. The option of offering a "ritual nick" is currently precluded by US federal law, which makes criminal any nonmedical procedure performed on the genitals of a female minor.

    The American Academy of Pediatrics policy statement on newborn male circumcision expresses respect for parental decision-making and acknowledges the legitimacy of including cultural, religious, and ethnic traditions when making the choice of whether to surgically alter a male infant's genitals. Of course, parental decision-making is not without limits, and pediatricians must always resist decisions that are likely to cause harm to children. Most forms of FGC are decidedly harmful, and pediatricians should decline to perform them, even in the absence of any legal constraints. However, the ritual nick suggested by some pediatricians is not physically harmful and is much less extensive than routine newborn male genital cutting. There is reason to believe that offering such a compromise may build trust between hospitals and immigrant communities, save some girls from undergoing disfiguring and life-threatening procedures in their native countries, and play a role in the eventual eradication of FGC. It might be more effective if federal and state laws enabled pediatricians to reach out to families by offering a ritual nick as a possible compromise to avoid greater harm.

    Efforts should be made to use all available educational and counseling resources to dissuade parents from seeking a ritual genital procedure for their daughter. For circumstances in which an infant, child, or adolescent seems to be at risk of FGC, the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends that its members educate and counsel the family about the detrimental health effects of FGC. Parents should be reminded that performing FGC is illegal and constitutes child abuse in the United States.
    http://aappolicy.aappublications.org...;125/5/1088#F4


    I didn't look up their policy on newborn male circumcision....but the way this is written, the comparison is glossed over.

  9. #129
    Quote Originally Posted by wiggin View Post
    I'm asking what people here think, not trying to read anything into the situation. Please, tell me - do you think it's reasonable to carry out genital reconstruction on babies for purely cosmetic (and social/psychological/whatever) reasons? Neither you nor anyone else in this thread has yet to answer the question. You can argue about whether some cases have valid medical justifications but at the end I'd like an answer. I'm perfectly fine with answers either way, I think it should just inform our discussion.
    I'm sorry, I'm so used to everyone inferring everything they can from the other guy's post on here I just assumed it was obvious; I don't think it's reasonable to reconstruct baby genitalia for intersex reasons, pure deformities are another matter. Since I subject myself to a lot of trannie propaganda, I'm mostly only aware of how fucking awfully wrong these things can go; ruined lives are an understatement. I am also not aware of any studies that show kiddy-winks cannot be raised and reared with an ambiguous gender until they're old enough to pick one. Of course trying to do this in practice is probably nigh-impossible in most places in the world, I'm not sure I'd recommend it to anyone in Finland or Sveden, let alone redneck US. That doesn't make the genitalia chopping any more right in a vacuum, though. (And this reasoning does smack a bit of banning gay adoption because the kiddy-winks would get bullied, soooo)

    Quote Originally Posted by wiggin View Post
    If you want to know what I think, I think that this is all murky territory. In principle, I can see being hesitant to carry out any of the three discussed procedures (a variant of FGM, male circumcision, or genital reconstruction) on a child, but I can also see valid reasons why parents might feel it's best to do so (I think the reasons are best for reconstruction, okay for circumcision, and not the best for FGM, but I do see where they are coming from in all three). In principle, I think that society (and governments) should stop short of actually outlawing a practice it finds repugnant, and instead trying to influence parents through education, recommendations, and compromise (for example, by the AAP's not unreasonable move to suggest a compromise to FGM that has no real functional impact but still fulfils cultural/ritual desires). At the end of the day, it's awfully hard to legislate what a parent can do to their child, anyways.
    Oh I'm not saying the parents don't feel it's the "right thing to do", but as you may be aware, I'm virulently anti-religion, so their warm fuzzy feelings don't exactly hold much sway for me personally. And given my authoritarian tendencies, while I do also think edumacation and such are preferable, most people are just too dumb and mired in their own sick cultures to be able to make the best decisions for their kiddy-winks.
    In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
    The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

  10. #130
    Quote Originally Posted by GGT View Post
    APA and WHO doesn't "outlaw" things. But mixing genital anomalies with normal genitalia is making it murkier....for no reason. Physicians will do internal scans and chromosomal tests before they do ANY surgery on an infant with anomalies/ambiguities.
    The US government does outlaw things, including the 'nick' instead of FGM. The AAP was presenting a (IMO) reasonable compromise that they felt should not be criminalized; I am agreeing with them. As I understand it, that's how this whole thread was started, no?

    And what would that medical necessity be for circs and FGM? None.

    What about it? Are they romping around naked all the time? Are people demanding to look at kids' genitals to see if they've been cut? Kids tease fat kids, too. We going to perform liposuction and tummy tucks on 8 year olds now?

    Still say you're dragging reassignment and reconstruction into this for no good reason. Yes, they DO delay some surgeries until they're older. There's a young (7th grade now) FTM transgender in my community, and from what I know they've delayed removing *the* ovaries, even though they've changed the name to a boy's and he lives as a boy. Uses the boy's locker room, plays boy's sports, the whole bit.
    All of these arguments apply both to FGM/circumcision as much as they do to gender reconstruction (and reconstruction is entirely different from reassignment and generally happens much earlier than 7th grade).

    *edit* Never mind then, one of these days I might 'research' the Jewish angle. I wasn't aware it was a taboo question reflecting your personal beliefs. Sorry if you thought so.
    It's not taboo; I'm just not interested in sharing, nor do I think it's particularly relevant to the larger debate.

    Quote Originally Posted by Steely Glint View Post
    It's a huge handwave to just mumble "cultural and social norms", as if they're all pretty much the same things; arbitrary preferences with nothing to choose between them. When parents take their children to have genital construction surgery, they're doing so because they don't want their child to suffer the psychological problems and social stigma associated with being of indeterminate gender. When parents have their children circumcised, they're doing it because their disgusting and contemptible religion tells them hacking off bits of small children is an important thing to do.
    Really? You think that ~50% of families in the US perform male circumcision for religious reasons? You're arguing 'psychological problems and social stigma' yet fail to recognize that the majority of parents who choose circumcision in the US have identical motivations. One mother I just spoke to who doesn't give a shit about religion felt quite strongly that she was doing him a favor in future with the ladies and his social cohort growing up (I won't comment on whether that makes any sense or not, but that was her motivation despite her doctor being strongly opposed to it).

    Your argument about social and cultural norms in countries where circumcision is prevalent is a non-starter. We don't live in such a country. At least I don't. And you don't live in one where FMG is popular. And the OP of this thread proves that the well being of the child is not what is motivating the parents: immigrants from the barbarian lands still want to mutilate their children, even in the absence of any societal pressure, indeed in they still want to do it presence of contrary societal pressure.

    In short, gender reassignment surgery is something the parents have done for the benefit of their children. Circumcision is something parents have done to their children for themselves.
    Puh-leeze. People bring their cultural and social norms with them; it's not like assimilation to the US happens overnight. Also, in insular communities in the US, they may still have a majority practicing X procedure, leading to easier social integration in the future, regardless of the larger population's behavior.

    Quote Originally Posted by CitizenCain View Post
    I don't know, and I'm glad I've never been asked to make that decision for someone else. That said, in the case of "reconstruction," or "intersex" individuals, the procedure is a clear attempt to fix something seen as broken, where as in the case of circumcision (F or M), it's a clear case of trying to impact the expression of sexuality by reducing the pleasure of sex. Seems to be very cut and dry different to me. In one case, the interests of the patient are what matter, in the other, it's the interests of a morally repressive segment of society which are being advanced (by taking a knife to childrens' genitals).
    Why is the way an intersex person is born seen as 'broken'? If the parts all work, I don't understand the motivation except social norms. Also, for that matter, where do you get the idea that male circumcision and FGM are performed with a specific intent to reduce sexual pleasure? I won't doubt that may be some of the theological backing or official cultural line (esp. for FGM), but I seriously doubt that most parents are motivated by that.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nessus View Post
    I'm sorry, I'm so used to everyone inferring everything they can from the other guy's post on here I just assumed it was obvious; I don't think it's reasonable to reconstruct baby genitalia for intersex reasons, pure deformities are another matter. Since I subject myself to a lot of trannie propaganda, I'm mostly only aware of how fucking awfully wrong these things can go; ruined lives are an understatement. I am also not aware of any studies that show kiddy-winks cannot be raised and reared with an ambiguous gender until they're old enough to pick one. Of course trying to do this in practice is probably nigh-impossible in most places in the world, I'm not sure I'd recommend it to anyone in Finland or Sveden, let alone redneck US. That doesn't make the genitalia chopping any more right in a vacuum, though. (And this reasoning does smack a bit of banning gay adoption because the kiddy-winks would get bullied, soooo)
    All right, Nessus, that's fair - your position is at least consistent. I assume that you'd reluctantly understand a parent who chose to circumcize their male infant in Israel or a male child @ 13 in, say, Iran, yes? You might not approve, but you'd understand the parental motivation...

    What do you feel about the criminalization of such practices?

  11. #131
    Quote Originally Posted by wiggin View Post
    Really? You think that ~50% of families in the US perform male circumcision for religious reasons? You're arguing 'psychological problems and social stigma' yet fail to recognize that the majority of parents who choose circumcision in the US have identical motivations. One mother I just spoke to who doesn't give a shit about religion felt quite strongly that she was doing him a favor in future with the ladies and his social cohort growing up (I won't comment on whether that makes any sense or not, but that was her motivation despite her doctor being strongly opposed to it).
    Nobody I know did it for religous reasons. Many think they did it to reduce risk of disease, which turns out to be false. Those who know that's false did it for not wanting their child's penis to look different in the locker room. I'd think it would only be practicing Jews who have a religous motivation.
    The Rules
    Copper- behave toward others to elicit treatment you would like (the manipulative rule)
    Gold- treat others how you would like them to treat you (the self regard rule)
    Platinum - treat others the way they would like to be treated (the PC rule)

  12. #132
    Quote Originally Posted by wiggin
    All right, Nessus, that's fair - your position is at least consistent. I assume that you'd reluctantly understand a parent who chose to circumcize their male infant in Israel or a male child @ 13 in, say, Iran, yes? You might not approve, but you'd understand the parental motivation...
    I can understand plenty of motivations, that has nothing to do with the, hm, ethical validity of the actions in vacuum. Of course one's choice of ethical system is arbitrary, so *shrug*

    Quote Originally Posted by wiggin
    What do you feel about the criminalization of such practices?
    Everything needs to be criminalized; see my signature
    In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
    The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

  13. #133
    *smiles* Should've known that was coming, I suppose.

  14. #134
    wiggin--Read the link from AAP. Some of the history of FGM is in there, reducing sexual pleasure (and some mythical ideas about the clitoris) along with renderings of the grades I-IV. Notice also that AAP changed the terminology from 'mutliation' to 'cutting'. That's also a complaint by human rights groups, that a professional academy seems to be backtracking in their attitude. Or at least mincing words and straddling a fence. They also mention male circumcision at least three times.

    I think that's what started this thread. The change that adds more confusion and seems a move backward, not progressive.

    <As for gender reconstruction--that's quite rare. I'm assuming any newborn with ambiguous genitalia would be kept hospitalized to rule out other (internal) anomalies, and that the urinary tract is functional. Specialists get involved, ethics committees and counselors; it's nothing like circumcisions. Parents also face the dilemma of filing a birth certificate with gender, but choosing one over the other doesn't mean surgery needs to be ASAP. IMO this has nothing to do with ritual cutting.>

    I do think the relevant comparison is male cutting. Some of the studies aren't even being done now, but there has been a drop in US male circs, presumably due to physicians agreeing it's not medically necessary.

    I did some surfing around last night and found all sorts of interesting things about Jewish attitudes, also changing over time. Bris shalom.

    Hippocratic Oath = Do No Harm That male circs now include local anesthesia means it's recognized as painful, yes infants feel pain.

    As for the criminalization of this? That's where it gets sticky, but I don't know if that's the best approach.

  15. #135
    Quote Originally Posted by wiggin View Post
    *smiles* Should've known that was coming, I suppose.
    Well it seems like a very self-fulfilling prophecy to say that parents bow to societal pressure, particularly when they're doing abject harm (FGM and botched gender assignment reconstruction) to their kiddy-winks. And despite the lucky accident found over a century after the practice was adopted that male circumcision can be a poor Jew's mock-condom, sometimes, again it seems kind of iffy that it's done just because the society around the parents think it's "the right thing to do". Especially to the WASP kiddie-winks who don't know the difference between a putz and what Holmes had. If the practice isn't questioned, how could it change? I can't see much reason to go chop up some kid's groin unless you're getting off on it.
    In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
    The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

  16. #136
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    12,462
    Quote Originally Posted by wiggin View Post
    Oh, please. The 'condition' of the subject is that their genital anatomy doesn't look normal (even if it functions just fine).
    Totally irrelevant.
    Congratulations America

  17. #137
    GGT - I'm not sure what your point is wrt my previous post.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nessus View Post
    Well it seems like a very self-fulfilling prophecy to say that parents bow to societal pressure, particularly when they're doing abject harm (FGM and botched gender assignment reconstruction) to their kiddy-winks. And despite the lucky accident found over a century after the practice was adopted that male circumcision can be a poor Jew's mock-condom, sometimes, again it seems kind of iffy that it's done just because the society around the parents think it's "the right thing to do". Especially to the WASP kiddie-winks who don't know the difference between a putz and what Holmes had. If the practice isn't questioned, how could it change? I can't see much reason to go chop up some kid's groin unless you're getting off on it.
    Question away. I just don't have an issue with the AAP trying to reduce FGM by compromise and persuasion. Why do you?

    Quote Originally Posted by Hazir View Post
    Totally irrelevant.
    I disagree. You're defining nontraditional looking yet functional genitalia as a 'condition' in contrast with foreskins and uncut vulvas; I challenge you to support that statement on something other than social/cultural grounds.

  18. #138
    Quote Originally Posted by wiggin View Post
    Question away. I just don't have an issue with the AAP trying to reduce FGM by compromise and persuasion. Why do you?
    Because I find it highly unlikely their attempt will result in anything positive?
    In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
    The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

  19. #139
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    12,462
    Quote Originally Posted by wiggin View Post
    I disagree. You're defining nontraditional looking yet functional genitalia as a 'condition' in contrast with foreskins and uncut vulvas; I challenge you to support that statement on something other than social/cultural grounds.
    You can agree or disagree all you want; being a man or a woman is not a condition.
    Congratulations America

  20. #140
    *shrugs* So you disagree on effective policy grounds, not whether it's 'right' or 'wrong' (yes, I know, those words have rather little meaning in your worldview). Fine, I can accept that.

    What would be your policy recommendation for a Western country dealing with small but significant numbers of immigrants who feel a form of FGM is necessary for their daughters?

    edit:
    Quote Originally Posted by Hazir
    You can agree or disagree all you want; being a man or a woman is not a condition.
    Being born with nontraditional genitalia isn't a condition that needs to be rectified, either.

  21. #141
    What would be your policy recommendation for a Western country dealing with small but significant numbers of immigrants who feel a form of FGM is necessary for their daughters?
    Encourage them to migrate elsewhere?
    In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
    The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

  22. #142
    Quote Originally Posted by wiggin
    Really? You think that ~50% of families in the US perform male circumcision for religious reasons? You're arguing 'psychological problems and social stigma' yet fail to recognize that the majority of parents who choose circumcision in the US have identical motivations. One mother I just spoke to who doesn't give a shit about religion felt quite strongly that she was doing him a favor in future with the ladies and his social cohort growing up (I won't comment on whether that makes any sense or not, but that was her motivation despite her doctor being strongly opposed to it).
    So, the only reason for the prevalence of circumcision in America is social inertia?

    Puh-leeze. People bring their cultural and social norms with them; it's not like assimilation to the US happens overnight.
    And if their only reason for lopping off pieces of genitalia was the well being of the child was to save them from social stigma, they'd drop the practice the second they cross the boarder, because peer pressure is against the practice in the US.

    Also, in insular communities in the US, they may still have a majority practicing X procedure, leading to easier social integration in the future, regardless of the larger population's behavior.
    Are there insular communities in the US practicing FGM?

    What would be your policy recommendation for a Western country dealing with small but significant numbers of immigrants who feel a form of FGM is necessary for their daughters?
    "No."
    The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
    The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
    When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
    I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun

  23. #143
    Let sleeping tigers lie Khendraja'aro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    In the forests of the night
    Posts
    6,239
    Quote Originally Posted by wiggin View Post
    What would be your policy recommendation for a Western country dealing with small but significant numbers of immigrants who feel a form of FGM is necessary for their daughters?
    FGM will carry a prison sentence of at least 2 years in a short while over here (upped from half a year).
    When the stars threw down their spears
    And watered heaven with their tears:
    Did he smile his work to see?
    Did he who made the lamb make thee?

  24. #144
    Quote Originally Posted by Nessus View Post
    Encourage them to migrate elsewhere?
    Heh.

    Quote Originally Posted by Steely Glint View Post
    So, the only reason for the prevalence of circumcision in America is social inertia?

    And if their only reason for lopping off pieces of genitalia was the well being of the child was to save them from social stigma, they'd drop the practice the second they cross the boarder, because peer pressure is against the practice in the US.
    Social 'inertia' or custom is the prevailing reason why parents claim to circumcise their children in the US, yes. In principle, you are right - I imagine most immigrants who assimilate do not choose to practice FGM, and the vast majority of their children do not. For those who do, though, what should be done?

    Are there insular communities in the US practicing FGM?
    To be honest, I don't think there is data on this. I would not be surprised if certain immigrant communities did practice FGM, though.

    "No."
    I take it you're in favor of criminalization? Does this extend to the other two procedures discussed? (ditto to you, Khendra)

  25. #145
    Quote Originally Posted by Ender
    Heh.
    Seems more humane/merciful than forcibly separating the kiddy-winks from their barbarous parents, or other harsher measures to protect the kids via negative legislation!

    We wouldn't want to force anyone to go against their faith, now would we
    In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
    The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

  26. #146
    Quote Originally Posted by Nessus View Post
    I'm sorry, I'm so used to everyone inferring everything they can from the other guy's post on here I just assumed it was obvious; I don't think it's reasonable to reconstruct baby genitalia for intersex reasons, pure deformities are another matter. Since I subject myself to a lot of trannie propaganda, I'm mostly only aware of how fucking awfully wrong these things can go; ruined lives are an understatement. I am also not aware of any studies that show kiddy-winks cannot be raised and reared with an ambiguous gender until they're old enough to pick one. Of course trying to do this in practice is probably nigh-impossible in most places in the world, I'm not sure I'd recommend it to anyone in Finland or Sveden, let alone redneck US.
    I expect you're closer to the issues and problems than I am, but AFAIK, it tends to end up like Hazir said, a high proportion gets screwed either way. It's hard to talk about the latter still, though, just not enough experiential evidence yet.

    Quote Originally Posted by Steely Glint View Post
    So, the only reason for the prevalence of circumcision in America is social inertia?
    Pretty much, and the inertia's been fading for quite a while. The percentage of parents choosing not to circumsize has been rising consistently for decades, though there are surprisingly sharp regional differences. West of the Rockies, the general circumcision rate is down in the 30s and 40s. Up in the Northern states of the Central portion of the country, the rates have practically not dropped at all, it's still hovering around 80%.
    Last edited by LittleFuzzy; 05-13-2010 at 06:07 PM.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  27. #147
    Quote Originally Posted by Fuzzy
    I expect you're closer to the issues and problems than I am, but AFAIK, it tends to end up like Hazir said, a high proportion gets screwed either way. It's hard to talk about the latter still, though, just not enough experiential evidence yet.
    Pretty much yeah, on both counts
    In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
    The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

  28. #148
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    12,462
    Quote Originally Posted by wiggin View Post
    Being born with nontraditional genitalia isn't a condition that needs to be rectified, either.
    Circumcission of either sort is not meant as rectification. Your argument is entirely irrelevant to the discussion, it's the quintessential red herring.
    Congratulations America

  29. #149
    Quote Originally Posted by wiggin View Post
    GGT - I'm not sure what your point is wrt my previous post.

    Question away. I just don't have an issue with the AAP trying to reduce FGM by compromise and persuasion. Why do you?
    As I said, read the AAP policy and compare it to the old one. The revision of policy is a move backward in accepting a "nick" instead of trying to eradicate the whole practice.


    Quote Originally Posted by wiggin View Post
    The US government does outlaw things, including the 'nick' instead of FGM. The AAP was presenting a (IMO) reasonable compromise that they felt should not be criminalized; I am agreeing with them. As I understand it, that's how this whole thread was started, no?
    And I don't think the "compromise" is a step forward. If you clicked any links from the OP you'd know ALL cutting was once illegal over ten years ago, as a way to provide asylum for women who felt persecuted by forced FGM. Sort of stupid to come all this way for protection only to be told by a pediatrician "sure, I'll nick a chunk off the clitoris".


    All of these arguments apply both to FGM/circumcision as much as they do to gender reconstruction (and reconstruction is entirely different from reassignment and generally happens much earlier than 7th grade).
    No, I don't think reconstruction is analogous. At all.


    It's not taboo; I'm just not interested in sharing, nor do I think it's particularly relevant to the larger debate.
    As I said, the AAP policy refers to male cutting, so yes it's relevant. It was interesting to find a religious community that denounces male cutting.

    http://www.jewsagainstcircumcision.org/

  30. #150
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    12,462
    Interesting how conditioning works by the way. I deplore female genital mutilation but at the same time have the feeling that I would not like to be uncircumcised myself Even though I understand the 'anti's' in this topic and think that in essence they are right.
    Congratulations America

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •