I don't see any similarities. Circumcision is usually done soon after birth and the baby has no say in the matter. It's permanent. The 11-13 yr old is part of the decision making process whether to take a puberty blocker. Puberty blockers are used temporarily and can also be stopped at any time.
They can be stopped at any time, but if they last too long, especially during the critical and important years of puberty, the effects can be permanent. I guess you also think it's okay for a female Muslim child in your country to choose circumcision?
"I don't see any similarities. Circumcision is usually done soon after birth and the baby has no say in the matter. It's permanent. The 11-13 yr old is part of the decision making process whether to take a puberty blocker. Puberty blockers are used temporarily and can also be stopped at any time." Bye Felecia!
You are uninformed. ... Here are the 10 states with the highest rates of circumcision: West Virginia - 87.00% Michigan - 86.00% Kentucky - 85.00% Nebraska - 84.00% Ohio - 84.00% Indiana - 83.00% Iowa - 82.00% Wisconsin - 82.00% South Carolina - 81.00% Pennsylvania - 79.00% https://worldpopulationreview.com/state-rankings/circumcision-rates-by-state
No similarities between the 2 procedures. What makes you think that circumcision has an effect on one's view of sex identity?
I'm not going to say that no 11 to 13 year old knows what they want, but many of them are young and confused and don't really know what they want, or what they will want in the future. If we let 11 year olds get tattoos, how many of them would get stupid tattoos that they would later regret, and which would hurt their employment prospects? Is an 11-year-old old enough to decide they don't want to go to school, that they will want to pursue a job that does not require school?
and how many adults would get a circumcision when they got older if not forced on them as a baby is an teen old enough to be forced to have a baby, is she old enough to decide not to have a baby? Puberty blocker can postpone puberty, which can later be induced if one changes their mind - breast implants, physical sex changes should wait until one is an adult
tell that to the boy that had to have his stuff removed due to a botched circumcision as a baby, there is no reason for that risk "David Reimer, 38; After Botched Surgery, He Was Raised as a Girl in Gender Experiment" https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2004-may-13-me-reimer13-story.html "Complications of Circumcision" https://med.stanford.edu/newborns/professional-education/circumcision/complications.html
hpv is included in the post you quoted. It’s the one I said the review and uptodate truly conflict on. It does cause squamous cell carcinoma of the tonsils, but I don’t recall it being specific to men. It more often causes carcinoma of the anogenital area
I haven’t seen cost effectiveness analysis. Like I said: It’s good, but not a huge benefit unless hiv is common like parts of Africa.
Lower risk of STDs by a fraction of a percent isn't really the point. The point is to not have sex with someone with an STD in the first place! You could wait until after marriage to have sex. Which would work because in many places you need to have an STD test to get married with a license. But then you wouldn't know if your parts fit or not beforehand if you never had sex, so never mind.
What about female "circumcision"? Somehow people find it all cool and Chistian/Jewish to go snip parts of a male for the heck of it. But snipping parts of a female, remains a no. It's weird and discriminatory.
I'm against both without consent of the patient, but the two are very far apart in terms of severity.
pfff... "consent". As if it doesn't go with an enormous amount of pressure from the community to comply with that "consent".
I've never considered circumcision to be mutilation. I always thought it was a necessary procedure for a boy to help prevent STDs and keep himself clean.
When a boy is small and can't clean himself well, being circumcized is a good thing isn't it? (Of course sometimes grown men don't clean themselves well either)
What about little girls? Don't they need help to clean themselves? How about cut off their labia minora?
Little girls are taught to wipe front to back every time they use the bathroom. And to wash those parts good when they take a bath. That helps a lot. Little boys could be taught to pull their foreskin back and gently clean themselves at least 2-3 times a week. BUT---I raised a boy and I can tell you, he wouldn't have remembered to do that. So, with the foreskin gone it was easier to stay clean. AND, when an uncircumcized man has sex doesn't he have to clean himself afterwards? P.S. I think a female would be at risk for lots of ugly infections without her labia minora.
This idea that circumcision confers "health benefits" is just a myth, from people trying to justify the practice.
Oh really? Did you evaluate the evidence yourself? Did you review the studies? The American Academy of Pediatrics disagrees with you, but I'm sure you did some kind of thorough review to prove them wrong? Neonatal Circumcision: What Are the Factors Affecting Parental Decision? - PMC (nih.gov)
Can you quote what you are thinking of here? I've only skimmed it, but it only seems to be talking about the impressions of the parents, not actual scientific findings from medical professionals. Everything I've seen from actual medical sources seems to say that the health benefits are, at best, minimal and can be replicated by good hygiene.