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

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

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.

When someone stops using electricity and all modern tools and goes back to sticks and stones I will entertain their premise of getting back to mother nature.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

No I didn't, I said I couldn't find reliable sources, but I have now, and thanks for the inspiration to search harder.

Oh and see my edit in last post regarding Finland, the jury is out.
...and Americans were cutting their kids way before HPV was even known.

a reply to: grainofsand

It was done because the Bible instructs it. People had faith there was a good reason for it.

Turns out that Bible knew a thing or two. Although strictly from a Biblical perspective Christians need not do it. So if there is no longer a medical/cultural imperative to do so only Jews have to keep doing it.

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Krazysh0t

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.

When someone stops using electricity and all modern tools and goes back to sticks and stones I will entertain their premise of getting back to mother nature.

Exactly! That argument is always tromped out as a check against progressing technology but it is always ignored that the life the person checking technology is already a life outside of what mother nature wants. Fun fact: Mother nature tends to have terrible solutions for problems. That's why humans are so inefficient in everything we can do outside of thinking rationally.

a reply to: Krazysh0t

I will pass on that kind of life, I need my Excedrin.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Well maybe the overwhelming majority of developed nations (which do not cut routinely) will catch up with the apparently enlightened US one day.

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Well maybe the overwhelming majority of developed nations (which do not cut routinely) will catch up with the apparently enlightened US one day.

They don't have to. They should simply have access to the pros and cons and make an informed decision. They should realize their decision is just that, THEIRS, and everyone else's decision is just that, someone else's.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Oh I should have been more clear sorry, I meant the various doctor/government advice which the countries influence their people with.
US advises to cut, majority developed world does not.

The advice wouldn't affect me, I've had my parenting time and even thoughts of cutting didn't happen. It isn't a thing here aside from religious types or medical complications.

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Oh I should have been more clear sorry, I meant the various doctor/government advice which the countries influence their people with.
US advises to cut, majority developed world does not.

The advice wouldn't affect me, I've had my parenting time and even thoughts of cutting didn't happen. It isn't a thing here aside from religious types or medical complications.

I don't think Doctors should advise much either way. Just give the facts and let parents be parents.

It makes sense in socialized healthcare to prevent procedures (advise against) and in private pay health care to encourage procedures (advise for).

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Of course follow the money as often said.
The NHS here make decisions like that all the time, mortality rate V cash.
I imagine cervical cancer treatment is shockingly expensive, as well as penile cancer, blah, etc, so if the all these could be reduced by cutting newborns, I'm surprised they don't provide the information.

Must be poor planning policy, or maybe the benefits haven't been proven, and private doctors in the US can see an extra buck or two.

originally posted by: Abysha

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.

I disagree. 16 years old to choose a lifetime of sterility is a gigantic decision at a time when they aren't even responsible enough to vote. Also, draft starts at 18. 18 is the main age for pretty much everything adult (except drinking..that one always confused me)
Now, there is a possible happy medium. perhaps if they choose this, to cryogenically freeze sperm/egg from the person beforehand so that if indeed they go through with it and he/she transitions and regrets it, they can still have a (actual) normal life and have kids one day.

a reply to: grainofsand

Government is always wanting to save a penny today even if it costs them a dime tomorrow.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

True but I'd be surprised if that was the reason with the NHS if the savings were clear from advising to cut.
Advising it as a private paid procedure would be another option but no, the colleges of doctors do not.
Must just be crap doctors and mortality statisticians in Europe.

originally posted by: PlasticWizard
The big one is that, in fact, male genital mutilation(circumcision) is on par with female genital mutilation. In both cases they are just taking a little skin off.

Good Lord. You got stars for this ignorant statement. Have you ever met a women? Do you really have a clue what female genital mutilation is? It's just that, mutilation. It involves the removal of the woman's sex organs and other practices like sowing it all up, slicing and dicing and removing any hope a woman will enjoy sex, or even be mobile.

Very sad ignorance persists. Can I suggest a bit of research time. It's nothing like the male equivilant.

Start here

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

True but I'd be surprised if that was the reason with the NHS if the savings were clear from advising to cut.
Advising it as a private paid procedure would be another option but no, the colleges of doctors do not.
Must just be crap doctors and mortality statisticians in Europe.

Let's say there are no savings. Let's say 1% of the population would die, but it's cheaper than to treat 100% of the population.

What should be done, treat everyone to save the 1%, or save money and let the 1% die?

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Treat?
Call it what it is at least, surgically remove skin and reduce sensitivity for all males to reduce incidences of cervical cancer in women.
A question in a world where the overwhelming majority of developed nations does not routinely offer the suggestion to expectant parents.

originally posted by: grainofsand
a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Treat?
Call it what it is at least, surgically remove skin and reduce sensitivity for all males to reduce incidences of cervical cancer in women.
A question in a world where the overwhelming majority of developed nations does not routinely offer the suggestion to expectant parents.

My post was a hypothetical, not circumcision. But yes, it WOULD be a treatment if it was done to prevent later STD infection.

If you read the studies linked it reduces penile HPV infection, which results in cancer. So it benefits both the man and his partners.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

I did read them and thanks for posting them, they were interesting.
Strange how the overwhelming majority of developed nations don't recommend routine cutting if the evidence is so clear as you assert.

a reply to: grainofsand

Because they would have to pay for it. If circumcision for 100% of people is more costly than treating the smaller percent that get complications it makes sense they would not do it to save money.

a reply to: OccamsRazor04

Do you know it's more costly than treating cervical cancer?
There are already clinicians on site, simple cut and clean isn't it, could be loads cheaper than cervical cancer care.