If a person is lobotomized because of uncontrollable seizure disorder, they aren't being mutilated.
Surgeons amputate patients and militias amputate opponents. But we don't call amputation itself mutilation.
Arbitrary surgery of infants is mutilation. "circumcision is mutilation" is as inaccurate a slogan as "amputation is mutilation" because that is the name of the medical procedure.
If you want to say that your parents mutilated your baby dick through circumcision, ok. But a 19 year old who gets circumcised because of a skin condition doesn't now have a mutilated penis
Oh yeah I totally agree with that. I think the issue comes from how it's just treated as the default for cis male babies rather than a treatment for specific issues.
But a 19 year old who gets circumcised because of a skin condition doesn’t now have a mutilated penis
In the United States, all foreskin problems are treated with amputation simply because physicians aren't taught anything else. In Europe, phimosis is treated by other, less radical methods, and circumcision is practically never necessary. Thus, treating phimosis with circumcision is still mutilation, just as amputating your arm to treat a bruise would be mutilation (although I agree that circumcising a healthy boy is more egregious).
I read a story of a man in France who elected for circumcision to treat his phimosis. When he later learned that other treatments were available, he was so dismayed that he sued his physician for not properly informing him of his medical options, and he sued his doctor and won.
I was going to write a smart response but then I realized I was just trying to explain why it's uncool and dehumanizing to say people are mutilating their genitals with consensual and safe surgical procedures. If I was going to do that, then I'd just post in /r/theredpill because nobody but you thinks that way here.
If a person is lobotomized because of uncontrollable seizure disorder, they aren't being mutilated.
Surgeons amputate patients and militias amputate opponents. But we don't call amputation itself mutilation.
Arbitrary surgery of infants is mutilation. "circumcision is mutilation" is as inaccurate a slogan as "amputation is mutilation" because that is the name of the medical procedure.
If you want to say that your parents mutilated your baby dick through circumcision, ok. But a 19 year old who gets circumcised because of a skin condition doesn't now have a mutilated penis
Oh yeah I totally agree with that. I think the issue comes from how it's just treated as the default for cis male babies rather than a treatment for specific issues.
weird american things
In the United States, all foreskin problems are treated with amputation simply because physicians aren't taught anything else. In Europe, phimosis is treated by other, less radical methods, and circumcision is practically never necessary. Thus, treating phimosis with circumcision is still mutilation, just as amputating your arm to treat a bruise would be mutilation (although I agree that circumcising a healthy boy is more egregious).
I read a story of a man in France who elected for circumcision to treat his phimosis. When he later learned that other treatments were available, he was so dismayed that he sued his physician for not properly informing him of his medical options, and he sued his doctor and won.
I was going to write a smart response but then I realized I was just trying to explain why it's uncool and dehumanizing to say people are mutilating their genitals with consensual and safe surgical procedures. If I was going to do that, then I'd just post in /r/theredpill because nobody but you thinks that way here.
I'm sorry for your unnecessary loss due to phimosis.