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

originally posted by: Abysha

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Abysha
Lopping off a part of your junk for no good reason at birth (without consent), however, is permanent and traumatizing.

I had it done, no trauma here. Almost everyone I know had it done, with no trauma. I think most of the problems with circumcision is due to those who have the procedure done religiously, by someone unqualified to do it.

No trauma that you know of.

Zero signs of trauma. Might as well say someone has the Flu despite no symptoms and no flu virus present.

a reply to: firefromabove

I'm happy where I stand with endowment but it be nice to have up to 50% more penis...

originally posted by: Antipathy17
a reply to: firefromabove

I'm happy where I stand with endowment but it be nice to have up to 50% more penis...

Anyone who told you that you would have 50% more penis flat out lied to you. Any difference would be negligible while erect.

a reply to: firefromabove

In my opinion, changing a child's hormones is lunacy - regardless of moral implications of making such a physical change to a child's body, it's not medically wise, especially considering how shallow the pool of knowledge in the field is. They don't know enough about broader and long term affects.

We do know that boosting estrogen or testosterone can increase cancer risk. I think people are crazy who mess with a child's DNA-programmed development.

I say let them grow - and help them be comfortable being themselves, even if they're "different." I think teaching them that there's something inherently wrong with them as they are is a bad idea. When they're grown, if they decide they want to make risky changes to their chemical composition, let them do it then.

I don't think it even belongs in the same conversation with circumcision.

originally posted by: dogstar23
a reply to: firefromabove

In my opinion, changing a child's hormones is lunacy - regardless of moral implications of making such a physical change to a child's body, it's not medically wise, especially considering how shallow the pool of knowledge in the field is. They don't know enough about broader and long term affects.

We do know that boosting estrogen or testosterone can increase cancer risk. I think people are crazy who mess with a child's DNA-programmed development.

I say let them grow - and help them be comfortable being themselves, even if they're "different." I think teaching them that there's something inherently wrong with them as they are is a bad idea. When they're grown, if they decide they want to make risky changes to their chemical composition, let them do it then.

I don't think it even belongs in the same conversation with circumcision.

MAIMING kids in any way is just wrong...

Warmest

Lags

a reply to: Lagomorphe

Agreed.
I've been searching for ages and can't find any reliable studies showing that European men have noticeably higher rates of penile cancer or STD's and the other health issues Americans claim.
Maybe American men don't know how to wash their penis properly.

...and yes I think routine circumcision of infants who cannot consent is child abuse.
Hormone therapy for transgender issues, I guess it depends on circumstances, but at least that doesn't happen to infants.

a reply to: Lagomorphe

I agree. It is. I would be mad if I was maimed. Luckily for me my parents only had me circumcised, they never ordered the maiming.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Lagomorphe

I agree. It is. I would be mad if I was maimed. Luckily for me my parents only had me circumcised, they never ordered the maiming.

You know what I mean....

Would you be happy if your parents chopped off the tip of your nose or an ear lobe when you were a child because the doctor said so or they read it in a religious book?

Warmest

Lags

a reply to: grainofsand

Here you go, and there is lower cervical cancer rates for female partners.
www.nejm.org...
academic.oup.com...

originally posted by: Lagomorphe

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Lagomorphe

I agree. It is. I would be mad if I was maimed. Luckily for me my parents only had me circumcised, they never ordered the maiming.

You know what I mean....

Yes, and I showed you why your inflammatory improper wording is just that, improper.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Lagomorphe

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04
a reply to: Lagomorphe

I agree. It is. I would be mad if I was maimed. Luckily for me my parents only had me circumcised, they never ordered the maiming.

You know what I mean....

Yes, and I showed you why your inflammatory wording is just that, improper.

Nothing inflammatory just my opinion!

a reply to: Lagomorphe

That's what makes it inflammatory. By saying others doing it are maiming their children is inflammatory. You can say all day long you would feel it would be maiming to do it to your kids, and I will respect that every time.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: SaturnFX

Just to add something to this discussion, a child with gender dysphoria must go through years of heavy therapy before the decision is made to take hormones. It's not as simple as little Timmy telling Mom, "I'm a girl" and getting hormones right after that. Psychiatrists who specialize in gender dysphoria know what to look for, and know to look for other issues that might mimic gender dysphoria (mental illnesses like schizophrenia, or past physical/emotional traumas).

keyword
child
hormone treatment sterilizes once started..thats life
A child cant even get a tattoo, have sex, sign a contract, but the idea that a child can choose life altering sterilization because of what may or may not be a phase?...

I am open to the blockers, but hormone therapy is a hard stop for me until at least 18. the blockers have no known lasting side effects from what I have read. hit pause if you must.
psychologists are often quacks. I speak from 1st hand experience from multiple angles

healthcaredelivery.cancer.gov...

How come when the US circumcises pretty much all infants your incidence rate of cervical cancer is only 1.5 per 100,000 population less than the UK?

I would expect a much bigger difference when circumcision is rare.
Of course, it is why UK doctors do not recommend routine cutting.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

a reply to: dogstar23

What do you think about suicide? Think that's got some permanent effects?

Telling a child with severe gender dysphoria to just be happy with the gender they are, and you will likely end up with a dead kid before it's over.

a reply to: grainofsand

Nice cherry picking. Portugal has low circumcision rates, and over double the US cervical cancer rates. Seems that big difference is there.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Oh I picked the UK because I know circumcision is rare as rocking horse # and our doctors don't recommend it.
Maybe the Portuguese don't wash their penis as well as Brits?
Still, doesn't explain how a nation rabidly cutting all its infants has such a small difference in cervical cancer rates compared to a nation which rarely does it.

*edit*
How about Finland?
Less than 1% circumcised but 2 less per 100,000 population getting cervical cancer than the US.
We can argue stats all day, but you gotta ask questions when the majority of developed nations do not routinely cut their kids.

originally posted by: SaturnFX

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: SaturnFX

Just to add something to this discussion, a child with gender dysphoria must go through years of heavy therapy before the decision is made to take hormones. It's not as simple as little Timmy telling Mom, "I'm a girl" and getting hormones right after that. Psychiatrists who specialize in gender dysphoria know what to look for, and know to look for other issues that might mimic gender dysphoria (mental illnesses like schizophrenia, or past physical/emotional traumas).

keyword
child
hormone treatment sterilizes once started..thats life
A child cant even get a tattoo, have sex, sign a contract, but the idea that a child can choose life altering sterilization because of what may or may not be a phase?...

I am open to the blockers, but hormone therapy is a hard stop for me until at least 18. the blockers have no known lasting side effects from what I have read. hit pause if you must.
psychologists are often quacks. I speak from 1st hand experience from multiple angles

If your child lived with gender dysphoria and you had them on blockers from age 11 or so... by the time they hit 16 (the earliest possible age to introduce hormones), everybody in that kid's life is gonna have no doubt they are who they are. It's critical at that stage in order to allow the young adult to grow up normally. Otherwise, you are robbing them of a normal life by making them wait even two more years.

We draft kids at 16. I'm pretty sure they can make their own decisions about something so fundamental as what sex they are.

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Oh I picked the UK because I know circumcision is rare as rocking horse # and our doctors don't recommend it.
Maybe the Portuguese don't wash their penis as well as Brits?
Still, doesn't explain how a nation rabidly cutting all its infants has such a small difference in cervical cancer rates compared to a nation which rarely does it.

So maybe there are other factors? The fact is the US rate is low, and circumcision is high. Maybe the Americans who tend to get cervical cancer in the US don't wash their penis as well as the Brits.

FACT: US has a lower rate
FACT: I just gave you actual sources proving this is true after you saying no sources exist

originally posted by: Taupin Desciple
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.

This argument is naive. We stopped worrying about what Mother Nature thought when we moved out of the trees and invented agriculture.