4 ms·

To your point, assuming you're a Westerner, I quote you: "female circumcision wouldn't be questioned as the mutilation that it is" Maybe your traditions are b

To your point, assuming you're a Westerner, I quote you: "female circumcision wouldn't be questioned as the mutilation that it is" Maybe your traditions are blinding you to the fact that male circumcision falls in the same category. I agree with the sentiment though, and the italicized part of your comment is quite an elegant way to put it.

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
> Maybe your traditions are blinding you to the fact that male circumcision falls in the same category. No, they are not. Perhaps this is "oversharing", but I (male) was circumcised when I was 11 years old, and it was my choice - I wasn't circumcised at birth because I had jaundice when I was born. I had "tight foreskin", making it difficult to follow my doctor's instructions to clean under the foreskin when bathing, which is why I opted to undergo circumcision as a pre-teen. The process itself was pretty brutal (took a couple weeks for everything to heal), but in retrospect I'm very glad that I did it, and only wish I could have done it as an infant so I would have no memory of the surgery. Plus, circumcision has been definitively proven to greatly reduce the chance of HIV transmission from females to males.
- mikkergp 4y ago
  Definitively proven? I can’t wait to see that randomized controlled clinical trial. FWIW the language I see used is compelling evidence, where are you getting definitively proven from?
  - hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
    FWIW all I had to do was Google "male circumcision hiv clinical studies", it's not that hard to find: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4233247/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4233247/ From the introduction: "Three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in sub-Saharan Africa have shown that adult male circumcision reduces the risk of HIV acquisition in men by about 60% [1-3]."
    - nehal3m 4y ago
      Except a few results down the page there's an article that links a bunch of studies that claim the studies your article quotes are faulty: https://intaction.org/circumcision-hiv-a-dangerous-mistake/ https://intaction.org/circumcision-hiv-a-dangerous-mistake/ https://www.aidsmap.com/news/aug-2012/male-circumcision-may-not-make-much-difference-overall-male-hiv-incidence-caribbean https://www.aidsmap.com/news/aug-2012/male-circumcision-may-... https://www.aidsmap.com/news/feb-2013/circumcision-makes-no-difference-hiv-infection-uk-gay-men https://www.aidsmap.com/news/feb-2013/circumcision-makes-no-... https://web.archive.org/web/20210509203032/https://www.monitor.co.ug/News/National/688334-1360190-9jjptjz/index.html https://web.archive.org/web/20210509203032/https://www.monit... Which by the way would invalidate the CDC's encouragement of circumcision since that advice is based on the three studies your article a few comments up quotes: "The guidelines point to research, much of it done in sub-Saharan Africa, showing that circumcision reduces the transmission of STDs, including HIV and the human papillomavirus, which can cause cancer."
      - hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
        Wow, talk about cherry-picking, and apparently you picked all the rotten cherries. First, the comment I was responding to specifically requested randomized, controlled studies, which is what I responded with. I just looked at the first 3 of your links, and these are just observational/questionnaire studies, a decidedly less definitive source of evidence. Most hilarious to me is that your second link, titled "Male circumcision may not make much difference to overall male HIV incidence in Caribbean context" and from 2012, even has a big box at the top stating "This article is more than 10 years old. Click here for more recent articles on this topic". Clicking that link brings up a page with loads of articles, and a summary header: "Voluntary male medical circumcision (VMMC) lowers the risk of female-to-male sexual HIV transmission by about 60%. VMMC is an important part of public health programmes in African countries with a high prevalence of HIV and a low rate of male circumcision." Even your own links argue against your points.
        nehal3m 4y ago
        I don't think the age of an article invalidates it's findings by default, but of course I'd expect new insights with the passage of time. I'm doubting myself as ever in light of your comment, but the fact that there are studies, with any credibility at all, with a conclusion contrary to your earlier point namely that it is "definitively proven to greatly reduce the chance of HIV transmission from females to males" shows that that's pushing it at the very least. And even if you're right, that doesn't excuse genital mutilation.
- nehal3m 4y ago
  They're not equivalent in most cases (not all female genital mutilation is performed the same way and I cannot fathom a medical reason for any sort). But that doesn't mean they aren't in the same general category when defined as surgical alterations of people's genitalia performed for religious or cultural reasons without any medical necessity. A medically required circumcision when reasoned and self-chosen is an altogether different story.
  - hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
    Except, ironically enough, male circumcision is the perfect example of something that was done for "traditional" religious reasons, but for which now there is ample medical support for it. For example, circumcision is extremely common in the US, despite the fact that it is relatively very rare for it to be done for religious reasons (only about 2-3% of the US population is Muslim or Jewish). It is done because the medical community broadly recommends it due to its health benefits: https://www.healthline.com/health-news/cdc-encourages-circumcision-120314 https://www.healthline.com/health-news/cdc-encourages-circum...
    - drekipus 4y ago
      The biggest misconception about traditions is that people just randomly decided to do it and punish those who don't follow. The most probable case is that traditions, such as male circumcision were done for a particular purpose and ritualised into a traditional to share and continue that process. It's only in more modern ages where we said that rituals aren't enough and we need to think of medical reasons for it as well. Considering how much of the mind is an enigma it's arms race to find out positive reasons of why we do certain traditions before we get rid of them completely from not understanding them.
      - P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
        Think of it like ML at the human level. ML's entire thing is statistical correlations that aren't obvious. Tradition is probably operating like that as well. Is all tradition like this and useful? Of course not. But I bet a lot of it is very subtle and nuanced. It's also worth considering that there are other pressures. For example, women typically find circumstanced penises more appealing. It's very possible that pressure, coupled with the benefits, helped society land on it more than not.
- yCombLinks 4y ago
  It doesn't matter if there are (extremely overstated) medical benefits. Cutting off pieces of a babies genitals is wrong. Full stop.
  - hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
    Not arguing your point, but ending a comment with "... Full stop." doesn't make you somehow more right, it just broadcasts that you are uninterested in hearing any arguments or data that are contrary to your opinion. Which is good, I guess, to let us know that we shouldn't waste our time.
    - yCombLinks 4y ago
      Yes, that was my point. This is an issue I won't budge on.
    - midoridensha 4y ago
      Exactly. Covid vaccines do not contain 5G microchips. Full stop. The Earth is round. Full stop. Many things simply are not worth wasting time listening to someone's "data" or "arguments" contrary to my "opinion".

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

hn_throwaway_99 4y ago

> Maybe your traditions are blinding you to the fact that male circumcision falls in the same category. No, they are not. Perhaps this is "oversharing", but I (male) was circumcised when I was 11 years old, and it was my choice - I wasn't circumcised at birth because I had jaundice when I was born. I had "tight foreskin", making it difficult to follow my doctor's instructions to clean under the foreskin when bathing, which is why I opted to undergo circumcision as a pre-teen. The process itself was pretty brutal (took a couple weeks for everything to heal), but in retrospect I'm very glad that I did it, and only wish I could have done it as an infant so I would have no memory of the surgery. Plus, circumcision has been definitively proven to greatly reduce the chance of HIV transmission from females to males.

mikkergp 4y ago
Definitively proven? I can’t wait to see that randomized controlled clinical trial. FWIW the language I see used is compelling evidence, where are you getting definitively proven from?
- hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
  FWIW all I had to do was Google "male circumcision hiv clinical studies", it's not that hard to find: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4233247/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4233247/ From the introduction: "Three randomized controlled trials (RCTs) in sub-Saharan Africa have shown that adult male circumcision reduces the risk of HIV acquisition in men by about 60% [1-3]."
  - nehal3m 4y ago
    Except a few results down the page there's an article that links a bunch of studies that claim the studies your article quotes are faulty: https://intaction.org/circumcision-hiv-a-dangerous-mistake/ https://intaction.org/circumcision-hiv-a-dangerous-mistake/ https://www.aidsmap.com/news/aug-2012/male-circumcision-may-not-make-much-difference-overall-male-hiv-incidence-caribbean https://www.aidsmap.com/news/aug-2012/male-circumcision-may-... https://www.aidsmap.com/news/feb-2013/circumcision-makes-no-difference-hiv-infection-uk-gay-men https://www.aidsmap.com/news/feb-2013/circumcision-makes-no-... https://web.archive.org/web/20210509203032/https://www.monitor.co.ug/News/National/688334-1360190-9jjptjz/index.html https://web.archive.org/web/20210509203032/https://www.monit... Which by the way would invalidate the CDC's encouragement of circumcision since that advice is based on the three studies your article a few comments up quotes: "The guidelines point to research, much of it done in sub-Saharan Africa, showing that circumcision reduces the transmission of STDs, including HIV and the human papillomavirus, which can cause cancer."
    - hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
      Wow, talk about cherry-picking, and apparently you picked all the rotten cherries. First, the comment I was responding to specifically requested randomized, controlled studies, which is what I responded with. I just looked at the first 3 of your links, and these are just observational/questionnaire studies, a decidedly less definitive source of evidence. Most hilarious to me is that your second link, titled "Male circumcision may not make much difference to overall male HIV incidence in Caribbean context" and from 2012, even has a big box at the top stating "This article is more than 10 years old. Click here for more recent articles on this topic". Clicking that link brings up a page with loads of articles, and a summary header: "Voluntary male medical circumcision (VMMC) lowers the risk of female-to-male sexual HIV transmission by about 60%. VMMC is an important part of public health programmes in African countries with a high prevalence of HIV and a low rate of male circumcision." Even your own links argue against your points.
      - nehal3m 4y ago
        I don't think the age of an article invalidates it's findings by default, but of course I'd expect new insights with the passage of time. I'm doubting myself as ever in light of your comment, but the fact that there are studies, with any credibility at all, with a conclusion contrary to your earlier point namely that it is "definitively proven to greatly reduce the chance of HIV transmission from females to males" shows that that's pushing it at the very least. And even if you're right, that doesn't excuse genital mutilation.
nehal3m 4y ago
They're not equivalent in most cases (not all female genital mutilation is performed the same way and I cannot fathom a medical reason for any sort). But that doesn't mean they aren't in the same general category when defined as surgical alterations of people's genitalia performed for religious or cultural reasons without any medical necessity. A medically required circumcision when reasoned and self-chosen is an altogether different story.
- hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
  Except, ironically enough, male circumcision is the perfect example of something that was done for "traditional" religious reasons, but for which now there is ample medical support for it. For example, circumcision is extremely common in the US, despite the fact that it is relatively very rare for it to be done for religious reasons (only about 2-3% of the US population is Muslim or Jewish). It is done because the medical community broadly recommends it due to its health benefits: https://www.healthline.com/health-news/cdc-encourages-circumcision-120314 https://www.healthline.com/health-news/cdc-encourages-circum...
  - drekipus 4y ago
    The biggest misconception about traditions is that people just randomly decided to do it and punish those who don't follow. The most probable case is that traditions, such as male circumcision were done for a particular purpose and ritualised into a traditional to share and continue that process. It's only in more modern ages where we said that rituals aren't enough and we need to think of medical reasons for it as well. Considering how much of the mind is an enigma it's arms race to find out positive reasons of why we do certain traditions before we get rid of them completely from not understanding them.
    - P5fRxh5kUvp2th 4y ago
      Think of it like ML at the human level. ML's entire thing is statistical correlations that aren't obvious. Tradition is probably operating like that as well. Is all tradition like this and useful? Of course not. But I bet a lot of it is very subtle and nuanced. It's also worth considering that there are other pressures. For example, women typically find circumstanced penises more appealing. It's very possible that pressure, coupled with the benefits, helped society land on it more than not.
yCombLinks 4y ago
It doesn't matter if there are (extremely overstated) medical benefits. Cutting off pieces of a babies genitals is wrong. Full stop.
- hn_throwaway_99 4y ago
  Not arguing your point, but ending a comment with "... Full stop." doesn't make you somehow more right, it just broadcasts that you are uninterested in hearing any arguments or data that are contrary to your opinion. Which is good, I guess, to let us know that we shouldn't waste our time.
  - yCombLinks 4y ago
    Yes, that was my point. This is an issue I won't budge on.
  - midoridensha 4y ago
    Exactly. Covid vaccines do not contain 5G microchips. Full stop. The Earth is round. Full stop. Many things simply are not worth wasting time listening to someone's "data" or "arguments" contrary to my "opinion".