I'll start, I missed the outdoor cats struggle session so i don't know what its deal was except a vague idea that outdoor cats were bad, so I've let my two cats stay being outdoor cats because I feel bad locking them inside, like I want to give them some experience of freedom to go where they please so they can live more fulfilling lives
Edit: also kruschev is imo a lot better than most hexbear users give him credit for
We could do male circumcision, that's usually nice and contentious.
Well it seems like you're the expert here
username checks out
I hope it's not here. I got rugburn on my glans last week and it sucked.
I don't think the glans is supposed to be sucking.
There's not really anything to argue about here, I think everyone can agree that altering a babies genitals is bad. I don't see how it becomes contentious unless you start including stuff like male initiation rituals into the mix
Do we even have enough people that are pro-circumcision? I think the most contrarian take you'll get is that it's not equivalent with FGM like some redditors would say.
It’s definitely nowhere near as bad as FGM, afaik the male equivalent would be cutting off the entire head, but it’s still comparable in that it’s a permanent genital modification done to a baby. I consider it to still technically be mutilation, but I understand using that word can imply equivalence between the two.
I actually have some nuance to throw on the fire, and I'm going to put this behind a CW: because it's not nice to talk about, but it deals with NGOs misrepresenting cultural practices to further NGO imperialism.
spoiler
Liberal NGO imperialism uses, or at least used to use, FGM as a bludgeon. There are a great diversity of "female circumcision" practices. Some, like infibulation, are horrible and cause enormous damage and trauma. Some involve or more less destructive surgical mutilation, including some practices which are directly analogous to male circumcision. And some, and this is where the NGO imperialism becomes more obvious, don't involve any cutting or removal of tissue. In some cases a needle is used to produce a drop of blood which is considered sufficient to achieve the necessary ritual cleanliness or whatever. In some cases there's no blood at all - In one example a needle is held near the clitoral hood and a drop of chicken blood is dabbed on the body - The "circumcision" has become entirely symbolic with no actual harm to the child.
But infibulation and other practices where there is actual cutting are so horrifying to westerners (and many people from the cultures where it's practiced) that NGOs found if they inform westerners about infibulation, then use the broad term "FGM" to encompass many different practices from across a broad swath of the world. All those cultures would be stained by the association with infibulation, and NGOs could use this to justify whatever interventions they wanted to carry out under a "save the women" campaign.
Okay that's my take. Carry on.
And unfortunately I don't have any sources on hand. I looked in to this once, but it was years and years ago.
I'm honestly surprised we don't have any Jewish people speaking up for it for religious reasons.
Religion is fine as long as you aren’t imposing it on anyone else, but religion doesn’t excuse doing it to a baby.
Well I am Jewish but reform. Isn't it mostly Orthodox Jews that care? Do we even have any Orthodox posters?
That would only be an appropriate response to saying "what about men" in a thread about FGM, which I have seen a million times, but I've never seen a stray post on circumcision that would warrant it.
Permanently cutting off a body part (especially such a sensitive one, especially on a literal baby) without consent or medical necessity is bad, there’s no good argument against that.
The best argument I’ve heard for circumcision in general is hygiene, but like, just pull your foreskin back and wash well, it’s not that hard.
Also reminder that it’s only a thing in America because the Kellogg’s cereal guy thought it would stop masturbation, which it doesn’t even do.
And now the most contentious part:
I feel like most defenders just can’t accept that their dick got messed up for no good reason. Which yeah, it must suck, but don’t do it to others because it was done to you.
One of the most horrifying and weird common
takes is when they normalize the idea of circumcising their sons "to look like their old man." 
My dad said this lol. But my mom was a crystal loving weirdo hippie at the time and refused to allow it, and thank god for that.
(I feel almost bad posting this because 99/100 times my dad was the better parent.)
It's kind of spooky that they somehow told you or you found out how close you came to an unnecessary surgery you didn't ask for and you didn't want.
Never really thought about it, but you're right. I think its because I accidentally saw my dad's dick once and saw his lack of foreskin and asked my mom about it or something? Can't remember.
I can't even fully get down to why the statement "make the baby look like the old man" creeps me out so much. The pathology of it is weird even if no direct sexual connotations are made.
No its a completely natural reaction and I completely agree with it. I'd probably go harder on my dad for it if he hadn't been a earnestly good parent most of the time.
Yeah, that argument is bull. It's just flat out not a real thing.
I remember hearing once that circumcision reduced the transmission of HPV, but even if that's true, there's a vaccine for that now.
My essay title: "Why male circumcision is genocide".
I'm circumcised, which means I don't have to wash my dick.
no you still do, trust me
No one else seems to think so. In fact, this seems to be the least controversial statement made on this website in the past week. I think it's time for you to do a little self criticism.