Circumcising kids or altering them hormonally. Which is worse and why?

Jews and Muslims circumcise their boys and many people oppose it and want it banned. they say that adults cannot make decisions that affect children.

Liberal parents of allegedly transgender children make the decision to hormonally alter their children and most people have no problem with it. The media even praises such parents as being progressive and "brave" etc

Why is hormonally altering children alright but not circumcising them?

Circumcision just removes a piece of skin, not a vital organ; besides temporary pain it does not affect their day to day life.

Hormone therapy OTOH changes a whole bunch of things that will affect kids all their lives.

a reply to: firefromabove

I would say hormonal therapy is probably worse...

Circumcision is permanent though, and i guess it depends on how long a person undergoes the hormone therapy...

By the way you say it's not an organ, but actually your skin is an organ, and foreskin does actually have few glandular functions that many people dont know about.

Im not for either... But i admit i don't know much about hormone therapy.. or individuals with complicated sexual biology (they do exist)... Perhaps for the extreme cases (for example those with naturally feminine bodies, breasts wide hips, high voices etc, but male genitals) it might be appropriate.

a reply to: firefromabove

not a vital organ; besides temporary pain it does not affect their day to day life.

Are you ignorant or is it too hard to look up?

www.circinfo.org...

Additionally, circumcision results in loss of 30–50% of the penile skin, loss of at least 10,000–20,000 specialized erotogenic nerve endings, loss of reciprocal stimulation of foreskin and glans, and loss of the natural coital gliding mechanism, etc. From the point of view of sensation and function, the most important effect is caused by the tissue loss itself. The most sensitive part of the penis is removed, and the normal mechanisms of intercourse and erogenous stimulation are disturbed.

Either one is OK unless it hurts the child's life. Killing the child before he/she is born is horrible though.

originally posted by: firefromabove

Jews and Muslims circumcise their boys and many people oppose it and want it banned. they say that adults cannot make decisions that affect children.

Liberal parents of allegedly transgender children make the decision to hormonal alter their children and most people have no problem with it. The media even praises such parents as being progressive and "brave" etc

Why is hormonally altering children alright but not circumcising them?

Because people are starting to move away from the belief that a religious based practice is acceptable. People are becoming less tolerant of peoples' religious preferences and more tolerant of socially based practices that are still new and untested in regards to how they shape a society. Like it or not, (and I don't) religions have shaped societies more than any other faction in society by the sole tool called control. What we're seeing now is the opposite of that. A sort of free-for-all of ideas, like hormonal therapy, which is sure to change society in some way, we just don't know exactly how right now.

Personally, I don't agree with either viewpoint because neither one of them take the natural order of things into account. Mother nature rules this school, yet we keep her out of every decision we make.

Well, I was circumcised and don't mind it. In fact looking at pictures of the uncircumcised, both my wife and I agree, the former looks better. And been married for a long time, and perfectly satisfied with our sex life.

I don't see the big issue people make over it.

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: firefromabove

not a vital organ; besides temporary pain it does not affect their day to day life.

Are you ignorant or is it too hard to look up?

www.circinfo.org...

Additionally, circumcision results in loss of 30–50% of the penile skin, loss of at least 10,000–20,000 specialized erotogenic nerve endings, loss of reciprocal stimulation of foreskin and glans, and loss of the natural coital gliding mechanism, etc. From the point of view of sensation and function, the most important effect is caused by the tissue loss itself. The most sensitive part of the penis is removed, and the normal mechanisms of intercourse and erogenous stimulation are disturbed.

Are you being dramatic or do you just like to argue for the heck of it?

I know what circumcision is.

Oh and you forgot to address the question

In my opinion both are just as bad.

We humans should not be playing "God"

Sexually, we are born as we are and should stay that way until said person is old enough to make their own adult decision on what is right for them or not.

Warmest

Lags

a reply to: Lagomorphe

We were told that circumcising was a good thing for health reasons.

Less possibility for infections.

So far things are going good for my boy's

a reply to: firefromabove

Hormonal treatment sounds way worse to me. Who knows what long term side effects there are from such treatment...

As for circumcision, let's just make it clear that it is not always for religious reasons. Most of my class mates growing up were curcumcised, myself included, and it had nothing to do with religion at all! I personally wouldn't have it any other way.

a reply to: crappiekat

im sorry to break this to you but they lied and your sons foreskins were sold to the beauty industry who use the foreskin cells in anti aging facial creme, for a high price.


Its just another way for doctors to make money. I suggest you get a new doctor.

I understand and respect that CC.

I think it also depends on how one is educated and how we educate our kids in regards to hygiene and not what religion or popular belief dictates (IMO)

On a personal note both myself and my son are not "cough" snipped and have never had any health issues as look after ourselves correctly.

Warmest

Lags

These are completely different issues. Chalk and cheese, or apples and oranges.

Issues with a child’s actual, or perceived sexuality and transgender/sexual state are complex and individual. You cannot compare this with…

Male circumcision where a small and (arguably) harmless mutilation against a boy for cultural, or religious reasons takes place. It's unnecessary but appears to have no lasting impact. However, in my view because it’s unnecessary and should not be allowed.

Female circumcision is an affront to civilised behaviour and can involve the removal of the entire female sex organ and other barbarity. Female genital mutilation (FGM) is a practice of male control, ingrained for cultural and religious reasons in backward cultures and communities across Africa and the Middle East. I have very strong views on FGM and violence against women and girls.

a reply to: firefromabove

I say kids need to leave their peepees and vajayjays alone. Parents too. It dont matter if you pee sitting down or standing up, just quit cutting your private areas up!

originally posted by: Idreamofme
a reply to: firefromabove

I say kids need to leave their peepees and vajayjays alone. Parents too. It dont matter if you pee sitting down or standing up, just quit cutting your private areas up!

That is a great way of putting it👍👍👍

Warmest

Lags

originally posted by: paraphi
These are completely different issues. Chalk and cheese, or apples and oranges.

Issues with a child’s actual, or perceived sexuality and transgender/sexual state are complex and individual.

Its not "complex".

Kids are either born male or female.

" transgender mania" of recent years has the media making a big issue out of it.

Parents do not have the right to hormonally alter their kids, simply because they think their kid is a transgender. Doing so harms them for the rest of their lives.

The answer to the first question is circumcision is not morally wrong, although genital mutilation (which mostly happens to girls in Mulsim countries and keeps them from enjoying sex) is.

I think hormonal treatment of someone under 18 is a bit dicey, but some trans folk on ATS made it clear that they themselves knew what gender they were meant to be at a young age.

a reply to: firefromabove

Well... I'd say that children with gender dysphoria are rare, just like children born with a medical necessity to circumcise. The difference is we don't give hormone blockers to kids who don't need it yet we circumcise countless children for no reason, forever mutilating their genitalia without their consent.

If one is normalized to you and the other is not, blame porn and Judaism.

How can you even put the two in the same ballpark?

One stops the accumulation of smegma, so they don't get infected and need the whole head amputated.

One is insane projection of feelings onto a child and failing to guide them.

a reply to: firefromabove

If you know what circumcision is why do you downplay the effects?

Circumcision just removes a piece of skin, not a vital organ; besides temporary pain it does not affect their day to day life.