SF Puts Circumcision Ban on the Ballot

[Aimless]

Probably not within a generation or so

According to Loki, peer-groups have an age-range of 2 years, so it wouldn't take a generation. If it were banned tomorrow, every single boy born next year--except the Muslims and Jews and the unfortunate--would grow up with foreskins. Your locker rooms would look like Scandinavian ones in no time

but why would we want to ban it? It's a perfectly reasonable cosmetic procedure. I think it would be a vast overreach on the part of the government to do so, at least by US law.

I hope you can at least see where the opposition comes from. It doesn't come from whatever bizarre motive Fuzzy was ascribing to Flixy, for example. My position, at least, is that there is something wrong with treating children's bodies--ie. the bodies of future adults--as if they were owned forever by their parents. Regardless of whether or not I feel handicapped by my lack of foreskin, I think that is an important issue.

Fuzzy's claims notwithstanding, there are limits even today to what parents may legitimately do with their children's bodies without cops and child services getting involved. I understand why some of you have been dismissing things like spanking, cutting off fingers, FGM, tramp-stamps, sexual molestation, etc as being irrelevant to the greater discussion. But those comparisons don't just attempt to cast circumcision as abuse. They also serve to remind us that children do in fact have rights pertaining to the integrity of their bodies and their minds. They aren't owned by their parents to be done with as their parents please. Parents aren't owners. They're stewards. They're advocates. They're a great many things but it is misguided to pretend that they are owners of people.

Fuzzy keeps talking about parental consent and medical proxies. I don't know a single person, doctor or otherwise, who would even for a second consider eg. giving a normal little girl breast implants against her will just because her daddy thinks it would be hot. Apparently there are people who are also okay with giving little girls botox for pageants, but clearly very many--including American doctors--are not okay with it.

Don't get me wrong, I can understand why male circumcision may be seen as legitimate, and I can understand why it is and probably will remain legal. But the problems with it--the arguments against it--are at least as legitimate. I think it's unfortunate that so many people choose to dismiss those problems out of hand simply because they themselves have no problems with being circumcised or because they're being antagonised by "intactivists". What a retarded name btw. What're their enemies called?

[wiggin]

According to Loki, peer-groups have an age-range of 2 years, so it wouldn't take a generation. If it were banned tomorrow, every single boy born next year--except the Muslims and Jews and the unfortunate--would grow up with foreskins. Your locker rooms would look like Scandinavian ones in no time

I don't doubt it would take some time for the ban to filter through, especially as such a ban is likely to be only regional in the US and not a national law.

I hope you can at least see where the opposition comes from. It doesn't come from whatever bizarre motive Fuzzy was ascribing to Flixy, for example. My position, at least, is that there is something wrong with treating children's bodies--ie. the bodies of future adults--as if they were owned forever by their parents. Regardless of whether or not I feel handicapped by my lack of foreskin, I think that is an important issue.

I understand why people wouldn't choose to do it to their children; I don't understand why people want to ban this specific practice.

Fuzzy keeps talking about parental consent and medical proxies. I don't know a single person, doctor or otherwise, who would even for a second consider eg. giving a normal little girl breast implants against her will just because her daddy thinks it would be hot. Apparently there are people who are also okay with giving little girls botox for pageants, but clearly very many--including American doctors--are not okay with it.

No one would give a 'little girl' breast implants because it's medically unwise. But for parents to authorize and pay for their grown daughter (who is not yet 18) to get breast implants? I would say it's distasteful (I wouldn't do it) but not illegal.

Don't get me wrong, I can understand why male circumcision may be seen as legitimate, and I can understand why it is and probably will remain legal. But the problems with it--the arguments against it--are at least as legitimate. I think it's unfortunate that so many people choose to dismiss those problems out of hand simply because they themselves have no problems with being circumcised or because they're being antagonised by "intactivists". What a retarded name btw. What're their enemies called?

I don't think anyone is arguing with you here. AIUI Fuzzy (and others) hasn't been saying parents should circumcise their kids, just that they should be allowed to.

[Aimless]

No one would give a 'little girl' breast implants because it's medically unwise. But for parents to authorize and pay for their grown daughter (who is not yet 18) to get breast implants? I would say it's distasteful (I wouldn't do it) but not illegal.

There is a reason why I specified "against her will"!

I understand why people wouldn't choose to do it to their children; I don't understand why people want to ban this specific practice.

...

I don't think anyone is arguing with you here. AIUI Fuzzy (and others) hasn't been saying parents should circumcise their kids, just that they should be allowed to.

I reckon it's like a pro-lifer trying to reconcile the thoughts "abortion is murder" and "i believe it should be legal". Or "it's very wrong for adult men to have sex with 14-y-o girls" and "but i think it should be legal".

[LittleFuzzy]

Fuzzy keeps talking about parental consent and medical proxies. I don't know a single person, doctor or otherwise, who would even for a second consider eg. giving a normal little girl breast implants against her will just because her daddy thinks it would be hot. Apparently there are people who are also okay with giving little girls botox for pageants, but clearly very many--including American doctors--are not okay with it.

Ok, let's work with this breast implant example, since I plainly don't have a "proper" grasp on what should be considered an analogous procedure to circumcision. A minor somehow manages to get breast implants *using this as your chosen example for body-modification* Not forced by parents or anything, she chose to do this on her own, illicitly. Her parents are less than thrilled with this and want the procedure reversed. Do they, should they, have any such power? You've been quite clear that there are limits to the control a parent has over their childrens bodies and quite rightly, but you seem much more vague on the corollary that there are also limits on the control a minor has or should have over their own bodies as well.

[GGT]

Cat, I'm surprised you haven't talked about this with your Mom group. It became rather controversial in the late 80's, and by the time I had my sons no insurance company considered circumcision "medically necessary" or a legitimate claim. It's not an automatic easy decision, believe me. Their dad, his four brothers/father--entire family (southern) on both sides had circumcised males. My family males on both sides were all circumcised (midwestern). I used to think it was related to WWI and WWII, doctors encouraging it for hygiene when showering was rare, to prevent UTIs and STDs. Not sure though....it's not something that used to routinely discussed.

Anyway, it wasn't a lazy, flippant or 'pretty penis' decision. We put a great deal of thought into it, and doctors were still saying circs reduced chances of penile cancer (and other problems). Most of the male patients I'd seen naked had been circumcised, bathing foreskin wasn't very common (in the midwest). In the end, I let their father decide for our sons, because I couldn't, and he decided on circs. Mostly to "fit in" with all the men in our families, male friends, schools and sports with gang showers, the locker room stuff.

[Catgrrl]

Oh, it's been discussed to death. I hadn't discussed it much with hubby until we were pregnant, and as an afterthought (we already knew we were having a girl at that point). We grew up in the '90s when looking at other people's privates in the locker room made jerks call you a queer, so no one ever made fun of Hubby's penis. I don't know, I'm not a boy, so I can't speak to the topic of being ridiculed. Though to me it's like saying all girls should have breast implants, or blonde hair, you know...to fit in.

If we ever do decide to have another (at this point it's a big NO! in my opinion), and it's a boy, we won't circumcise unless there's a medical condition that would make it necessary.

I do find it an odd practice, but since at this point it is embedded in the minds of the majority that this is the way to go, then I don't see it going away anytime soon. I really don't think a ban will happen, and it's probably not the right time for it to happen just yet.

[Aimless]

A minor somehow manages to get breast implants *using this as your chosen example for body-modification* Not forced by parents or anything, she chose to do this on her own, illicitly. Her parents are less than thrilled with this and want the procedure reversed. Do they, should they, have any such power?

My point wasn't that breast implants are bad or that they're any more like circumcisions than is sexual molestation. My point was that it's bad for parents to be able to do whatever they want--esp. if it's permanent--to their children's bodies against their will or just without their consent. Yes, they're minors, but their autonomy and integrity merit some consideration. At the very least their future autonomy and integrity merit consideration.

I wouldn't put a kid under the knife just because her parents want it. I'd have to ask whether or not it would be a good idea from a medical perspective, and I'd have to make sure the patient was onboard (we can all still have a dialogue, right?). Hopefully, in time, we'll break the circle of people doing various things to their kids just because their parents did the same to them.

We justify very many of the things we do to kids with "it's for their own good". I just think that when we set up those equations we should also include the things that are not for their own good. Violation of autonomy and integrity aren't good things in themselves.

On a side note, I think among the best things you can do for a child is to raise him as if he's a (beautiful, funny, smart) person in his own right. If it's possible. At least, if you want him to be both happy and successful

[GGT]

My point wasn't that breast implants are bad or that they're any more like circumcisions than is sexual molestation. My point was that it's bad for parents to be able to do whatever they want--esp. if it's permanent--to their children's bodies against their will or just without their consent. Yes, they're minors, but their autonomy and integrity merit some consideration. At the very least their future autonomy and integrity merit consideration.

I wouldn't put a kid under the knife just because her parents want it. I'd have to ask whether or not it would be a good idea from a medical perspective, and I'd have to make sure the patient was onboard (we can all still have a dialogue, right?). Hopefully, in time, we'll break the circle of people doing various things to their kids just because their parents did the same to them.

We justify very many of the things we do to kids with "it's for their own good". I just think that when we set up those equations we should also include the things that are not for their own good. Violation of autonomy and integrity aren't good things in themselves.

On a side note, I think among the best things you can do for a child is to raise him as if he's a (beautiful, funny, smart) person in his own right. If it's possible. At least, if you want him to be both happy and successful

I wouldn't say circumcising infant males = parents doing whatever they want or being inconsiderate of, or violating their future autonomy and integrity. You've inserted some fairly inflammatory language there, pretty much saying parents are acting out a power trip or just not thinking it through. That's not true at all.

These decisions are made with consultation from Pediatricians, and they often recommend continuing family or cultural 'tradition' when there's doubt. Precisely because it's a challenging decision! They do often frame it as something "for their own good" from a medical perspective: by reducing UTIs, STDs, HIV, penile cancer, and being less painful or emotionally traumatic than circs in adulthood (that can have higher surgical risks).

African adult males are now being encouraged to have circs, and to perform them on infants, for medical reasons fully supported by WHO. So which is it....not necessary, or necessary? Do we raise and nurture male children with foreskin intact, teaching them how beautiful and perfect they are, just as they are....showing them proper foreskin hygiene, letting them grow into sexual beings that include their foreskin.....but when they're an adult they'll need to excise that potentially 'dangerous' foreskin? And it's best that way because they have the (somewhat misleading) idea it was their own choice?

Not to be too personal here, but wouldn't it have been better if your parents had done yours in infancy, instead of an age you remember and felt remorse for losing part of your body?

[LittleFuzzy]

My point wasn't that breast implants are bad or that they're any more like circumcisions than is sexual molestation. My point was that it's bad for parents to be able to do whatever they want--esp. if it's permanent--to their children's bodies against their will or just without their consent. Yes, they're minors, but their autonomy and integrity merit some consideration. At the very least their future autonomy and integrity merit consideration.

I wouldn't put a kid under the knife just because her parents want it. I'd have to ask whether or not it would be a good idea from a medical perspective, and I'd have to make sure the patient was onboard (we can all still have a dialogue, right?). Hopefully, in time, we'll break the circle of people doing various things to their kids just because their parents did the same to them.

We justify very many of the things we do to kids with "it's for their own good". I just think that when we set up those equations we should also include the things that are not for their own good. Violation of autonomy and integrity aren't good things in themselves.

On a side note, I think among the best things you can do for a child is to raise him as if he's a (beautiful, funny, smart) person in his own right. If it's possible. At least, if you want him to be both happy and successful

Such a wordy non-answer on what is or should be law. You realize, I hope, that implementing and applying law does not involve a dialogue, yes?

[Aimless]

The answer is no, parents shouldn't be able to just willy nilly force their kids--against their will--to go under the knife under general anesthesia. I heard once that people often change their minds about things and one way to help them do so is to engage them in dialogue. This is kinda like how it's illegal to have sex with someone against their will. You're allowed to win them over eg. through witty banter. If it's not against their will it's not illegal or wrong. Am I getting through to you here? Do I need to clarify things even further? Just say the word. It looks like it may be necessary so that you don't end up doing to me what you did to Flixy.




GGT, i realise parents aren't just powertripping. What they're doing is exercising a right that they, IMO, should not generally have. Esp. not in an environment that will, more often than not, steer them in the wrong direction. On another note, Nessie's eloquent rants notwithstanding, the US is not Africa.

[LittleFuzzy]

The answer is no, parents shouldn't be able to just willy nilly force their kids--against their will--to go under the knife under general anesthesia. I heard once that people often change their minds about things and one way to help them do so is to engage them in dialogue. This is kinda like how it's illegal to have sex with someone against their will. You're allowed to win them over eg. through witty banter. If it's not against their will it's not illegal or wrong. Am I getting through to you here? Do I need to clarify things even further? Just say the word. It looks like it may be necessary so that you don't end up doing to me what you did to Flixy.

What did I do to Flixy? And that willy-nilly qualifier is more mealy-mouthing, accompanying a generalized statement that appears to have just expanded things back to something besides purely "cosmetic" procedures. Cochlear implants perhaps? Apparently you do need to clarify further. Say what you damn mean.

[Flixy]

What did I do to Flixy? And that willy-nilly qualifier is more mealy-mouthing, accompanying a generalized statement that appears to have just expanded things back to something besides purely "cosmetic" procedures. Cochlear implants perhaps? Apparently you do need to clarify further. Say what you damn mean.

Not sure what you did to me.

Anyway, you say you are against legislating culture, but that in fact already happens, the question isn't whether you do that but where you draw the line. Things like female circumcision, or hell, human sacrifice also have their roots in certain cultures, but those are not legal here, and with good reason. Other things like arranged marriage is also not acceptable here, but is in other cultures. So claiming that you are against a ban purely because you are against legislating things related to culture is bullshit, unless you mean that you are against legislating things about your culture.

Wiggin's argument about other cosmetic procedures is a lot more interesting, and I will get back to that later.

[LittleFuzzy]

Not sure what you did to me.

Anyway, you say you are against legislating culture, but that in fact already happens, the question isn't whether you do that but where you draw the line. Things like female circumcision, or hell, human sacrifice also have their roots in certain cultures, but those are not legal here, and with good reason. Other things like arranged marriage is also not acceptable here, but is in other cultures. So claiming that you are against a ban purely because you are against legislating things related to culture is bullshit, unless you mean that you are against legislating things about your culture.

Wiggin's argument about other cosmetic procedures is a lot more interesting, and I will get back to that later.

There's a rationale for opposing human sacrifice that completely bypasses culture. Female circumcision is more murky but recall I have less qualms about that than you and others seem to. And I've already stated that I can think of approaches where the prohibition of circumcision would be reasonable. I just haven't seen any sign that they're what people here *or in the general public* are interested in. This is entirely about kulturekampf and trying to legislate so that people think and act like you is NOT a legitimate use of regulatory or police power.

[GGT]

This is entirely about kulturekampf and trying to legislate so that people think and act like you is NOT a legitimate use of regulatory or police power.

So why does California use ballot initiatives to ban a medical procedure?

[LittleFuzzy]

So why does California use ballot initiatives to ban a medical procedure?

It's not California, it's San Francisco. And because they disagree. Same as Minx does, Minx is absolutely fine with any social engineering, so long as the object of that social engineering matches his position. He refuses to recognize that legitimizing the use of power for his purposes legitimizes it for cross-purposes.

[Hazir]

It's not California, it's San Francisco. And because they disagree. Same as Minx does, Minx is absolutely fine with any social engineering, so long as the object of that social engineering matches his position. He refuses to recognize that legitimizing the use of power for his purposes legitimizes it for cross-purposes.

Eh, isn't that the fallacy that if you don't fix all ills you have no business fixing a single one?

[GGT]

GGT, i realise parents aren't just powertripping. What they're doing is exercising a right that they, IMO, should not generally have. Esp. not in an environment that will, more often than not, steer them in the wrong direction. On another note, Nessie's eloquent rants notwithstanding, the US is not Africa.

That means you'd prefer to restrict parental rights, and give doctors total authority over minors' health care? Even when those very physicians have, more often than not, steered parents in what you think is the wrong direction?

Oh yeah, that'll work.

[LittleFuzzy]

Eh, isn't that the fallacy that if you don't fix all ills you have no business fixing a single one?

I suppose there could be a degree of that fallacy seeping in, the thought that someone might say that as a rebuttal occurred to me earlier today when I was re-reading one of Khend's posts. There's not really a sharp border between that fallacy and seeing hypocrisy in people considering one action as mutilation and other actions which are in process very like it as not noteworthy.

[Aimless]

i must have missed the part where i gave doctors the right to force circumcisions for nonmedical and nonreligious reasons. can you point out to me where i did that so that i can fix it? Saying "i won't perform that procedure" is not the same as saying "i will force you to undergo this procedure". Don't put words in my mouth just because you want to be contrary or because you have some sort of Thing about doctors. You're right, doctors can steer parents in the "wrong" direction. eg. when the wrongness isn't readily apparent, or when it isn't defined as wrong in laws or in culture, or when the doctors are circumcised, or has a financial interest in the decision, etc. I'm not inclined to vilify them any more than I want to vilify parents who want their kids circumcised.

[Aimless]

There's not really a sharp border between that and seeing hypocrisy in people considering one action as mutilation and other actions which are in process very like it as not noteworthy.

I honestly can't figure out what you're getting at so examples would be appreciated. I don't think I've ever pretended to be against social engineering. I have a bias towards some outcomes rather than others. In this particular case I have a bias towards letting boys grow up without unnecessary surgeries that only serve to pressure parents into giving other boys unnecessary surgeries.

As I said earlier, we can justify a lot of things by claiming it's for someone else's own good. We can also look at that equation when it comes to circumcision and ask, "in the case of baby X, does the good of circumcision outweigh the bad?"

I often cast my desired social changes as being so good that they outweigh the harms related to their imposition on the barbaric masses. I might be right or I might be wrong. Often I'm just angry. If someone disagrees with me I might try to defend my position and/or undermine theirs. I can't think of the last time I espoused forcing people to do things in order to accomplish something that I myself think is trivial, however.

So in short, the outcome matters to me as it should to you and to everyone else. I'll concede that opinions differ as to which outcomes are good enough to justify bad actions.

[Aimless]

Re. legitimate use of police power, I hear one legitimate use is to prevent old men from sexing 14-year-olds regardless of what old men and little girls may think. I can't imagine those are the only laws that enforce values.

[Dreadnaught]

http://gawker.com/5808669/support-an...skin-man-comic

Support Anti-Circumcision Bill With Anti-Semitic Hero ‘Foreskin Man’

What better way to show your support for the San Francisco circumcision-ban ballot measure than by picking up a copy of "Foreskin Man No. 2," in which the suspiciously Aryan "intactivist" superhero battles "Monster Mohel"?

"Nothing excites Monster Mohel more," the Foreskin Man trading cards helpfully inform us, "than cutting into the penile flesh of an eight-day-old infant boy." He sure does seem excited, doesn't he? He also seems a little bit, uh, how you say, racist? Whoa there, P.C. police! The San Francisco Chronicle's Debra Saunders asked creator Matthew Hess if the comic was anti-Semitic, to which Hess replied, "A lot of people have said that, but we're not trying to be anti-Semitic. We're trying to be pro-human rights."

So there you have it. There's nothing anti-Semitic about "Foreskin Man"! It's just a delightful, family-friendly comic book about a guy who... I guess he owns, like, a circumcision museum? And he has these magic... boots? And, uh, there's this gang of, I think, hippie bikers? "The Intactivist Underground"? Who steal stuff from hospitals? It's kind of a trip.

http://www.foreskinman.com/index.htm



The site is loading very slowly...

[Flixy]

That is a weird comic.

[GGT]

California ballot initiatives have spread from SF to Santa Monica. Who's next?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/05/us....html?_r=1&hpw

[Nessus]

You appear to see circumcision as akin to cutting off an arm, I see it as akin to tattoos and ear-piercings. No good way to resolve that difference of interpretation, though I can't help but suspect that medically, I'm closer to accurate than you are. Since you've suggested that my "live and let live" opinion must be about my uncut dick, I'll go ahead and return the favor. All of your hyperbole is your own desperate hostility to your mismatched sexual and gender identities. I'm very sorry you're having profound penis issues but kindly leave them out of legislation.

Wouldn't I be for penis surgery in that case, though?

[LittleFuzzy]

Wouldn't I be for penis surgery in that case, though?

Why of course, everything in your world is incredibly simple and shallow, right? No reason for angst, complications, depression, drinking. . .

[Nessus]

Why of course, everything in your world is incredibly simple and shallow, right? No reason for angst, complications, depression, drinking. . .

I'm going to need a five-point hint here Alex, I didn't really see your reasoning earlier and this post only made it worse.

[LittleFuzzy]

I'm going to need a five-point hint here Alex, I didn't really see your reasoning earlier and this post only made it worse.

You're the one who started this line of discussion with that earlier suggestion, if you can't comprehend your own position then maybe you shouldn't have posted it.

[Nessus]

Don't ask me to explain the reasoning, you're the one who started this line of discussion with that suggestion earlier.

But...It doesn't make sense! Now even if, for the sake of argument, you placed emphasis on the anti-HIV properties of circumcision on the basis of your own wing-wang, it's still somewhat reasonable seeing as how ostensibly one'd like to, well, like one's junk. Of course I wouldn't seriously suggest archangel Gabriel to possess such base motivations, but since the whole arms-earlobes-deafness thing didn't jive with you either I can see we won't get anywhere there. But what I can't puzzle out is how I'm opposed to circumcision due to gender dysphoria. I don't like the idea of cutting into ding-a-lings? I don't like ding-a-lings, period? Like, what's my motivation here, Stanley?

[LittleFuzzy]

And thus you demonstrate that your own original claim is you being full of shit. Isn't it just easier for everyone for you to stop trying that tack, Nessie? Or do you seek these digressions for pure diversions' sake?