male circumcision should be referred to as genital mutilation

[Zionazi]

Why?

Because:

Disclaimer: I'm a 4th year (senior) medical student, graduating with my
MD in May - that's the perspective I'm writing this from. I am not (yet)
a doctor, nothing here is medical advice, ect. ect.

——
The benefits angle.
There are no hygiene benefits - and even if they were that's not a valid
argument. We don't cut off ears to make it easier for kids to wash
behind them.
——

Now this is not justifying the practice, but pointing out that its
benefits seperate it from female genital mutilation which does not serve
any such benefits, especially when done to the clit.
Not quite true - there are some minimal benefits to hygiene, infection
risk, ect. These don't remotely justify the procedure, but they do
exist.

The medical benefits of MGC on the other hand are severely overhyped,
and also in no way justify permanent surgical removal of healthy tissue.
But for the sake of completeness we'll go through them - the three most
common are UTIs, HIV, & cancer.

Briefly lets discuss a number you'll see a lot in this discussion - NNT
or number needed to treat. This is how many times we have to do a
particular intervention to stop 1 instance of the thing we want to
prevent. For example if the NNT for a blood thinner was 500, we'd have
to put 500 people on a blood thinner for some amount of time before we
prevented a single clot. (made up numbers for illustration).

- UTIs, is has been shown that MGM can lower the risk of UTIs in boys.
However, UTIs is boys cut or no are already very rare, and can be simply
treated with a course of antibiotics. The NNT here is in the low
hundreds, so we're permanently maiming hundreds of boys to stop a single
infection that would be cleared in a few days of antibiotics. UTI
prevention is not a valid medical reason for prophylactic MGC

- HIV/STDs. The HIV risk studies are almost all garbage - at this point
it's a mark that someone doesn't know what they're talking about.
Firstly, they were conducted in subsaharan africa, where HIV is endemic.
The risk:benefit analysis has extremely limited applicability to first
world nations where that isn't the case (If you want to talk about
African MGM, that's a whole other can of worms). The methodology of the
study was so poor that they (IMO) produced no valid data - they cut the
men and gave them sex education/condoms/other interventions all at once
while the control group got no intervention. Then, they stopped their
follow-up for "ethical" reasons soon after, and included the time frame
the cut men were still recovering from surgery. Interestingly, if you
don't have sex because your penis is healing, its much harder to get HIV
during that window. Also of note are sex practices in regions of Africa
that make HIV transmission higher in cut men. Finally, even in the most
favorable light possible their results are something like 60% reduction
in transmission. Condoms are at 90%, MGC is very clearly inferior
especially considering it's a permanent surgical intervention. HIV
prevention is not a valid medical reason for prophylactic MGC

- Penile cancer. Already an *incredibly rare disease, the NNT ranges
from 900 to >300,000 to prevent a single case. Given that, like
anal/cervical cancers it is strongly linked to HPV, a more appropriate
intervention would be vaccinating boys for HPV in middle school like we
do girls. Having to cut so many boys to stop a single case doesn't
justify MGC anymore than breast cancer justifies bilateral mastectomies
for infant girls. penile cancer is not a valid medical reason for MGC.

- Finally - the other side of the equation: complications. Even if we
accept a 1-2% serious complication rate (fairly good for routine
surgical procedures on healthy subjects) that doesn't balance things
out. Complications such as severe bleeding, sugical site infection,
sepsis, need for revision, accidental amputation/destruction. Even just
looking at infections & UTIs, if you have to cut >100 boys to prevent
one, you'll have 1-2 complications - like a surgical site infection,
which is much more serious. The risks do not justify the benefits, and
medically speaking there's no tenable argument for routine infant MGC.
In fact, the AAP (American Academy of Pediatrics) has reversed their
policy position and no longer recommends it. Numerous other medical
organizations in other nations don't recommend it.

——
The insensitivity angle.
——

A medically necessary circumcision is pretty rare, given that only 1-3%
of boys will get pathological phimosis (compared to physiological, which
is sometimes mistaken for the other), which is by far the most common
indication for circumcision. Even then - 80% of cases resolve with
medical therapy. Of the remaining 20%, there are less damaging surgical
interventions that are equivalent in outcome like dorsal
slitting/z-plasty, ect. As far as the insensitivity option, i apologize
if this comes of as harsh, but that doesn't matter at all. Mutilate - to
cut off or permanently destroy a limb or essential part of. That's
what's done in MGC, by the most conservative interpretation of the fact.
You are removing the most sensitive tissue of the penis, removing
secretory mucosa/epithelia, making the glans penis an external organ
instead of internal, removing the functional equivalent to the glans
clitoris in the female (frenulum & ridged band), permanently changing
the way the organ functions sexually, introducing scar tissue, and a lot
of stress that will stay with that child for the rest of their life. I
understand that you feel it's insensitive, and you may be right - but
it's also completely accurate.

——
3) In summary im just saying the practice is not so bad that it deserves
such a brutal and horrendous term. It is an insensitive exaggeration
used to push an agenda.
——

But it is - the summary here being that mutilation is an accurate term
to describe whats done, there is in 99.999% of cases no medical
justification to do it, hygiene is not an acceptable reason, and
honestly while I agree with you that MGM was coined in response to FGM
to push an anti-circumcision agenda, there should be an agenda to ban
the practice based on the above facts.

https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/user/POSVT

[Pluted Pup]

Why?

Mass circumcision is cause by a lack of antisemitism.

There was a time when 90% of white males were circumcised in America,
this is caused by Jews outlawing antisemitism. Jews are
ecstatic to mutilate the penis of those they hate, Jews love
power games.

Freedom for antisemitism means the right to say "no" to Jews.

[Zionazi]

Post by Pluted Pup

Why?

Mass circumcision is cause by a lack of antisemitism.
There was a time when 90% of white males were circumcised in America,
this is caused by Jews outlawing antisemitism. Jews are
ecstatic to mutilate the penis of those they hate, Jews love
power games.
Freedom for antisemitism means the right to say "no" to Jews.

Go cry.

[Frank Berger]

Post by Zionazi
Why?
Disclaimer: I'm a 4th year (senior) medical student, graduating with my
MD in May - that's the perspective I'm writing this from. I am not (yet)
a doctor, nothing here is medical advice, ect. ect.
——
The benefits angle.
There are no hygiene benefits - and even if they were that's not a valid
argument. We don't cut off ears to make it easier for kids to wash
behind them.
——
Now this is not justifying the practice, but pointing out that its
benefits seperate it from female genital mutilation which does not serve
any such benefits, especially when done to the clit.
Not quite true - there are some minimal benefits to hygiene, infection
risk, ect. These don't remotely justify the procedure, but they do
exist.
The medical benefits of MGC on the other hand are severely overhyped,
and also in no way justify permanent surgical removal of healthy tissue.
But for the sake of completeness we'll go through them - the three most
common are UTIs, HIV, & cancer.
Briefly lets discuss a number you'll see a lot in this discussion - NNT
or number needed to treat. This is how many times we have to do a
particular intervention to stop 1 instance of the thing we want to
prevent. For example if the NNT for a blood thinner was 500, we'd have
to put 500 people on a blood thinner for some amount of time before we
prevented a single clot. (made up numbers for illustration).
- UTIs, is has been shown that MGM can lower the risk of UTIs in boys.
However, UTIs is boys cut or no are already very rare, and can be simply
treated with a course of antibiotics. The NNT here is in the low
hundreds, so we're permanently maiming hundreds of boys to stop a single
infection that would be cleared in a few days of antibiotics. UTI
prevention is not a valid medical reason for prophylactic MGC
- HIV/STDs. The HIV risk studies are almost all garbage - at this point
it's a mark that someone doesn't know what they're talking about.
Firstly, they were conducted in subsaharan africa, where HIV is endemic.
The risk:benefit analysis has extremely limited applicability to first
world nations where that isn't the case (If you want to talk about
African MGM, that's a whole other can of worms). The methodology of the
study was so poor that they (IMO) produced no valid data - they cut the
men and gave them sex education/condoms/other interventions all at once
while the control group got no intervention. Then, they stopped their
follow-up for "ethical" reasons soon after, and included the time frame
the cut men were still recovering from surgery. Interestingly, if you
don't have sex because your penis is healing, its much harder to get HIV
during that window. Also of note are sex practices in regions of Africa
that make HIV transmission higher in cut men. Finally, even in the most
favorable light possible their results are something like 60% reduction
in transmission. Condoms are at 90%, MGC is very clearly inferior
especially considering it's a permanent surgical intervention. HIV
prevention is not a valid medical reason for prophylactic MGC
- Penile cancer. Already an *incredibly rare disease, the NNT ranges
from 900 to >300,000 to prevent a single case. Given that, like
anal/cervical cancers it is strongly linked to HPV, a more appropriate
intervention would be vaccinating boys for HPV in middle school like we
do girls. Having to cut so many boys to stop a single case doesn't
justify MGC anymore than breast cancer justifies bilateral mastectomies
for infant girls. penile cancer is not a valid medical reason for MGC.
- Finally - the other side of the equation: complications. Even if we
accept a 1-2% serious complication rate (fairly good for routine
surgical procedures on healthy subjects) that doesn't balance things
out. Complications such as severe bleeding, sugical site infection,
sepsis, need for revision, accidental amputation/destruction. Even just
looking at infections & UTIs, if you have to cut >100 boys to prevent
one, you'll have 1-2 complications - like a surgical site infection,
which is much more serious. The risks do not justify the benefits, and
medically speaking there's no tenable argument for routine infant MGC.
In fact, the AAP (American Academy of Pediatrics) has reversed their
policy position and no longer recommends it. Numerous other medical
organizations in other nations don't recommend it.
——
The insensitivity angle.
——
A medically necessary circumcision is pretty rare, given that only 1-3%
of boys will get pathological phimosis (compared to physiological, which
is sometimes mistaken for the other), which is by far the most common
indication for circumcision. Even then - 80% of cases resolve with
medical therapy. Of the remaining 20%, there are less damaging surgical
interventions that are equivalent in outcome like dorsal
slitting/z-plasty, ect. As far as the insensitivity option, i apologize
if this comes of as harsh, but that doesn't matter at all. Mutilate - to
cut off or permanently destroy a limb or essential part of. That's
what's done in MGC, by the most conservative interpretation of the fact.
You are removing the most sensitive tissue of the penis, removing
secretory mucosa/epithelia, making the glans penis an external organ
instead of internal, removing the functional equivalent to the glans
clitoris in the female (frenulum & ridged band), permanently changing
the way the organ functions sexually, introducing scar tissue, and a lot
of stress that will stay with that child for the rest of their life. I
understand that you feel it's insensitive, and you may be right - but
it's also completely accurate.
——
3) In summary im just saying the practice is not so bad that it deserves
such a brutal and horrendous term. It is an insensitive exaggeration
used to push an agenda.
——
But it is - the summary here being that mutilation is an accurate term
to describe whats done, there is in 99.999% of cases no medical
justification to do it, hygiene is not an acceptable reason, and
honestly while I agree with you that MGM was coined in response to FGM
to push an anti-circumcision agenda, there should be an agenda to ban
the practice based on the above facts.
https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/user/POSVT

The definition of mutilate seems to require serious disfigurement.
Calling make circumcision "genital mutilation," therefore seems to be a
matter of opinion. Many may find a circumcised penis no less attractive
than an uncircumcised one. And a statistical finding of a slight
medical benefit to not circumcising hardly seems "serious."

[Zionazi]

Post by Frank Berger
The definition of mutilate seems to require serious disfigurement.
Calling make circumcision "genital mutilation," therefore seems to be a

No, you're making things up.

Definition of "mutilation" according to Cambridge dictionary:

"the act of damaging something severely, especially by violently
removing a part:"

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/mutilation#google_vignette

Which is exactly what the rabbis are doing.

Not every male genital mutilation ends up with a disfigured penis, but
botched surgeries do -- happened countless times within the Jewish and
Muslim community etc. You are free to ignore all of this, you are also
free to cry about being called an idiot for ignoring all of this -- just
goes on to show who you are, a person who is not concerned with the
suffering of others.

Look there are many pornstars (and I'm quite critical of the
porn-industry; not completely against it) with circumcised dicks...
obviously that's not the problem. The problem is you are doing it to an
infant, an infant can't consent -- Jewish right to self-determine also
concerns this. But obviously you don't care about real Jewish
Selfdetermination -- for you Jewish Selfdetermination appears to mean to
become religiously indoctrinated or sth, instead of being emancipated.

Post by Frank Berger
matter of opinion. Many may find a circumcised penis no less attractive
than an uncircumcised one. And a statistical finding of a slight
medical benefit to not circumcising hardly seems "serious."

If you actually cared to read and understand what I posted, you'd figure
out that it's exactly the other way around: A statistical finding of a
slight benefit to circumcising hardly seems serious :)

Again you are ignoring all the Jews and Muslims etc with disfigured
dicks thanks to a botched circumcision. Apparently your God wanted them
to walk around with disfigured dicks... all hail hashem lol

[Frank Berger]

Post by Zionazi
Why?
Disclaimer: I'm a 4th year (senior) medical student, graduating with my
MD in May - that's the perspective I'm writing this from. I am not (yet)
a doctor, nothing here is medical advice, ect. ect.
——
The benefits angle.
There are no hygiene benefits - and even if they were that's not a valid
argument. We don't cut off ears to make it easier for kids to wash
behind them.
——
Now this is not justifying the practice, but pointing out that its
benefits seperate it from female genital mutilation which does not serve
any such benefits, especially when done to the clit.
Not quite true - there are some minimal benefits to hygiene, infection
risk, ect. These don't remotely justify the procedure, but they do
exist.
The medical benefits of MGC on the other hand are severely overhyped,
and also in no way justify permanent surgical removal of healthy tissue.
But for the sake of completeness we'll go through them - the three most
common are UTIs, HIV, & cancer.
Briefly lets discuss a number you'll see a lot in this discussion - NNT
or number needed to treat. This is how many times we have to do a
particular intervention to stop 1 instance of the thing we want to
prevent. For example if the NNT for a blood thinner was 500, we'd have
to put 500 people on a blood thinner for some amount of time before we
prevented a single clot. (made up numbers for illustration).
- UTIs, is has been shown that MGM can lower the risk of UTIs in boys.
However, UTIs is boys cut or no are already very rare, and can be simply
treated with a course of antibiotics. The NNT here is in the low
hundreds, so we're permanently maiming hundreds of boys to stop a single
infection that would be cleared in a few days of antibiotics. UTI
prevention is not a valid medical reason for prophylactic MGC
- HIV/STDs. The HIV risk studies are almost all garbage - at this point
it's a mark that someone doesn't know what they're talking about.
Firstly, they were conducted in subsaharan africa, where HIV is endemic.
The risk:benefit analysis has extremely limited applicability to first
world nations where that isn't the case (If you want to talk about
African MGM, that's a whole other can of worms). The methodology of the
study was so poor that they (IMO) produced no valid data - they cut the
men and gave them sex education/condoms/other interventions all at once
while the control group got no intervention. Then, they stopped their
follow-up for "ethical" reasons soon after, and included the time frame
the cut men were still recovering from surgery. Interestingly, if you
don't have sex because your penis is healing, its much harder to get HIV
during that window. Also of note are sex practices in regions of Africa
that make HIV transmission higher in cut men. Finally, even in the most
favorable light possible their results are something like 60% reduction
in transmission. Condoms are at 90%, MGC is very clearly inferior
especially considering it's a permanent surgical intervention. HIV
prevention is not a valid medical reason for prophylactic MGC
- Penile cancer. Already an *incredibly rare disease, the NNT ranges
from 900 to >300,000 to prevent a single case. Given that, like
anal/cervical cancers it is strongly linked to HPV, a more appropriate
intervention would be vaccinating boys for HPV in middle school like we
do girls. Having to cut so many boys to stop a single case doesn't
justify MGC anymore than breast cancer justifies bilateral mastectomies
for infant girls. penile cancer is not a valid medical reason for MGC.
- Finally - the other side of the equation: complications. Even if we
accept a 1-2% serious complication rate (fairly good for routine
surgical procedures on healthy subjects) that doesn't balance things
out. Complications such as severe bleeding, sugical site infection,
sepsis, need for revision, accidental amputation/destruction. Even just
looking at infections & UTIs, if you have to cut >100 boys to prevent
one, you'll have 1-2 complications - like a surgical site infection,
which is much more serious. The risks do not justify the benefits, and
medically speaking there's no tenable argument for routine infant MGC.
In fact, the AAP (American Academy of Pediatrics) has reversed their
policy position and no longer recommends it. Numerous other medical
organizations in other nations don't recommend it.
——
The insensitivity angle.
——
A medically necessary circumcision is pretty rare, given that only 1-3%
of boys will get pathological phimosis (compared to physiological, which
is sometimes mistaken for the other), which is by far the most common
indication for circumcision. Even then - 80% of cases resolve with
medical therapy. Of the remaining 20%, there are less damaging surgical
interventions that are equivalent in outcome like dorsal
slitting/z-plasty, ect. As far as the insensitivity option, i apologize
if this comes of as harsh, but that doesn't matter at all. Mutilate - to
cut off or permanently destroy a limb or essential part of. That's
what's done in MGC, by the most conservative interpretation of the fact.
You are removing the most sensitive tissue of the penis, removing
secretory mucosa/epithelia, making the glans penis an external organ
instead of internal, removing the functional equivalent to the glans
clitoris in the female (frenulum & ridged band), permanently changing
the way the organ functions sexually, introducing scar tissue, and a lot
of stress that will stay with that child for the rest of their life. I
understand that you feel it's insensitive, and you may be right - but
it's also completely accurate.
——
3) In summary im just saying the practice is not so bad that it deserves
such a brutal and horrendous term. It is an insensitive exaggeration
used to push an agenda.
——
But it is - the summary here being that mutilation is an accurate term
to describe whats done, there is in 99.999% of cases no medical
justification to do it, hygiene is not an acceptable reason, and
honestly while I agree with you that MGM was coined in response to FGM
to push an anti-circumcision agenda, there should be an agenda to ban
the practice based on the above facts.
https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/wiki/user/POSVT

I'm wondering whether you would support legally limiting the right of
parental choice in any area of parenting where one or more statistical
studies find that one possible choice is detrimental to a child's
health. Or, how about an individual's right to choose some form of
elective surgery that has zero medical benefit but some risk. A nose
job, face lift, or tummy tuck, for example.

Obviously a society has the right to limit freedom if action in extreme
cases, but where do you draw the line?

[Zionazi]

I am not only trying to reason with you Frank, but I am trying to appeal
to what makes you human... to your senses... your senses should suffice
for you to comprehend (begreifen! nicht verstehen / comprehend! not
understand) that mutilating the dick of an unconsenting infant is not
right - it is barbaric and unjust.

[Zionazi]

Post by Frank Berger
I'm wondering whether you would support legally limiting the right of
parental choice in any area of parenting where one or more statistical
studies find that one possible choice is detrimental to a child's
health. Or, how about an individual's right to choose some form of
elective surgery that has zero medical benefit but some risk. A nose
job, face lift, or tummy tuck, for example.

To answer your first question:

I don't know, depends on the specific issue and the statistical
analysis, I guess - not all statisticsal analyses are good, you see...
Remember COVID statistical analyses - of which many/most were utter
bullshit.

You see, when it comes to male genital mutilation (aka 'circumcision'),
it is not as complex as COVID -- it is obvious that you are causing harm
to an unconsenting infant - you are literally cutting off very sensitive
tissue from a very sensitive organ.

Again; Talmud, Schabbat 134a:

"As it was taught in a baraita, Rabbi Natan said: On one occasion, I
went to the coastal cities, and one woman came before me who circumcised
her first son and he died, and she circumcised her second son and he
died, and since she feared circumcising the third due to concern that he
might die as well, she brought him before me. I saw that he was red. I
said to her: Wait until his blood is absorbed into him. She waited until
his blood was absorbed into him and then circumcised him, and he lived.
And they would call him Natan the Babylonian after my name."

https://www.sefaria.org/Shabbat.134a.15?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en

Frank, why are you ignoring the death of Jewish infants because their
dicks got mutilated, and why are you ignoring how the Rabbi obviously
doesn't give a fuck... He's like "oh your first child died because of
circumcision? Oh your second child died as well because of circumcision?
Well who cares, let's circumcise your third child as well -- no matter
the risk.

The mother of the child and the Rabbi, just like you Frank, gambled with
the well-being, in this case the life! of the child. But just like the
Rabbis, you don't give a fuck.

To answer your second question: I'd generally advise against cosmectic
surgeries, but it depends on the individual. You see in cosmetic
surgeries usually people don't mutilate things, but try to make them -
in the eyes of the patient - more beautiful. There is a difference
between boob-jobs - you know making tits bigger (and you can even take
the silicon out again) and cutting off healthy tits (as it is being
promoted within the Trans-Movement).

You see, many people who suffered a botched circumcision and hence have
a disfigured penis might be looking into cosmectic surgeries ;)

Post by Frank Berger
Obviously a society has the right to limit freedom if action in extreme
cases, but where do you draw the line?

Freedom is a very difficult thing, we should understand that we don't
know what real freedom is. Certainly it's not freedom to just rape
people, because you are being a slave to your animalistic drives,
certainly it's not freedom if some rabbi cuts off the foreskin of an
unconsenting infant etc

[Zionazi]

Post by Zionazi
Freedom is a very difficult thing, we should understand that we don't
know what real freedom is. Certainly it's not freedom to just rape
people, because you are being a slave to your animalistic drives,
certainly it's not freedom if some rabbi cuts off the foreskin of an
unconsenting infant etc

To be against rape, because of reason, would also not constitute real
freedom btw. If you just don't rape people, because you reason it's bad,
then "reason" becomes authority. It should be natural for people, their
senses should make them _feel_ that this is all wrong. But the senses of
the people have been dulled down, so they use reason... so when they
want to argue against 'circumcision', people start asking for "studies"
for "statistical evidence"...

In some ways this also stems from Christianity maybe which banished the
body (don't masturbate, deny your sexual wishes etc) -- so we use Geist
(our mind/ like in Zeitgeist), we don't really even notice what our body
is - our senses are - telling us anymore.

[Zionazi]

Interestingly the German word „begreifen“ (to comprehend) as opposed to
„verstehen“ (to understand) has a physical Dimension — greifen means to
lay your Hands on something, and if you lay your hands on something you
feel it…

Verstehen as in to understand seems to be more connected to reason and
mind maybe… it seems to be related to the intellect… begreifen seems to
be sth more transzendental

[Zionazi]

Maybe „to grasp“ would be a better translation for „begreifen“ than „to
comprehend“.