3 ms·

The Thin Line Between Surgery and Mutilation

8 points by hirundo 8y ago

eigenspace 8y ago
This issue really is an interesting window into the morass of inconsistencies in the human mind. I wasn't even aware of how common these 'corrective' surgeries were on infants until somewhat recently and at first I thought it was probably the right thing to do but the more I think about it the more obscene it seems. These days I tend to think of any medically unnecessary surgery on infant's genitals (including circumcision) as wrong and fundamentally at odds with a 'do no harm' or 'do the least harm' medical philosophy. Not to get sidetracked from the intersex issue, but it really does bother me that it seems that most people's reason for being okay with circumcision these days comes down to at least one of * I'm circumcised and I want my sons penis to look like mine * I think circumcised penises look better * Circumcised penises aren't susceptible to problems caused by ignoring the very minimum requirements of personal hygiene. * Circumcised penises aren't susceptible to phimosis (though phimosis is much much rarer than botched Circumcisions) All of these reasons are relatively absurd when put next to the fact that you're putting your infant child at a considerable risk of serious medical complications should something go wrong and arguably minor sexual impairment even if things go right.
belorn 8y ago
Fascinating how the article avoids mention the common practice of non-medically necessary genital surgeries on boys. It get so close, talking about consent, classes and cultures. What is normal and "normalizing". How "parents who want these procedures for their children are doing so because of cultural norms and fear of ostracism". But no, all we get is weird comparison between female circumcision and intersex surgery on girls (and boys?). Not even a mentioning of Iceland proposed law to make all non-medically necessary genital surgeries illegal until the age of consent regardless of gender and religion.

8 points by hirundo 8y ago

This issue really is an interesting window into the morass of inconsistencies in the human mind. I wasn't even aware of how common these 'corrective' surgeries were on infants until somewhat recently and at first I thought it was probably the right thing to do but the more I think about it the more obscene it seems. These days I tend to think of any medically unnecessary surgery on infant's genitals (including circumcision) as wrong and fundamentally at odds with a 'do no harm' or 'do the least harm' medical philosophy. Not to get sidetracked from the intersex issue, but it really does bother me that it seems that most people's reason for being okay with circumcision these days comes down to at least one of * I'm circumcised and I want my sons penis to look like mine * I think circumcised penises look better * Circumcised penises aren't susceptible to problems caused by ignoring the very minimum requirements of personal hygiene. * Circumcised penises aren't susceptible to phimosis (though phimosis is much much rarer than botched Circumcisions) All of these reasons are relatively absurd when put next to the fact that you're putting your infant child at a considerable risk of serious medical complications should something go wrong and arguably minor sexual impairment even if things go right.

belorn 8y ago

Fascinating how the article avoids mention the common practice of non-medically necessary genital surgeries on boys. It get so close, talking about consent, classes and cultures. What is normal and "normalizing". How "parents who want these procedures for their children are doing so because of cultural norms and fear of ostracism". But no, all we get is weird comparison between female circumcision and intersex surgery on girls (and boys?). Not even a mentioning of Iceland proposed law to make all non-medically necessary genital surgeries illegal until the age of consent regardless of gender and religion.