2026-04-13 18:09 UTC
Replies (5)
-
@wonderingwanderer@sopuli.xyz 2026-04-14 20:43
I was circumcized as an infant without my consent, and my mutilated dick wants you to stop downplaying the severity of its fate. A piece of me is literally missing, and you want to say I'm not mutilated because that would offend you? Why, do you have uncomfortable feelings about your own situation that you refuse to examine?
-
@AbsolutelyClawless@piefed.social 2026-04-13 18:27
Circumcision is and should only be a medically necessary procedure. I've never heard anyone say medically necessary circumcision is mutilation, but I'm from Europe where most men aren't circumcised, so there's that. Whoever says it's mutilation when it's medically justified is ignorant.
-
@Deceptichum@quokk.au 2026-04-13 18:54
-
@homes@piefed.world 2026-04-13 18:20
> I am sick and tired of seeing all circumcision lumped together as mutilation it's the definition of the word. sure, it carries a lot of negative connotations that may not have affected you the same way, and you may have, personally, _appreciated_ your circumcision, but that doesn't invalidate the feelings of others. this isn't some zero-sum situation where other people being upset about it somehow invalidated your experience. Many people can feel different ways about things. That's called _society_. A key part of civilization is our ability to all live together with many different people feeling different ways about things. In fact, a huge advance in civilization - no shit - is that, several thousand years ago, we stop killing each other _over this very issue_. REALLY. In a much more contemporary context, it's just not necessary. Most recently, as recently as the late 1970s and early 1980s, a now-debunked study pushed the idea that it was, at _least_ "more hygienic" to circumcise males, but that was based on shaky and now-debunked studies. In modern medicine, circumcision is no longer recommended at birth except in rare cases of medical necessity of urinary or other birth defects. Exceptions also exist in some religions, Judaism most prominently, not for medical necessity, but as an alignment with a belief based on ancient mythology, not unlike the genital mutilations some women undergo in Islam — _also widely/globally denounced._
-
@Passerby6497@lemmy.world 2026-04-13 19:37
> Those that get it done for medical reasons being called mutilation would be offensive. Right, because they weren't mutilated, they had to have a procedure done for a medical reason. Any non-medically necessary surgery to a child's genitals is mutilation. They have no way to consent, and anything short of a medical necessity is the parent making massive changes to their child's life based on their preferences. To make the point crystal clear: * If I have a kid and the arm ends up gangrenous, we would remove it as it would be medically necessary for the child's well-being * If I have a kid and think it's cool to have one arm, I would be trying to mutilate my child by removing it for no reason How is performing a medically unnecessary surgery on a child's genitals not mutilation? Again, you're changing their body surgically without their consent for no reason aside from ignorant beliefs.