I've been trying to ignore all this but hearing Dennis Prager this morning I am more and more shocked with it all. Kinda think about how males are circumcised when they are born. Similar but not really. I've questioned cutting up the little boys. My ex was NOT cut up as a baby and he was born in a Republican family..... So much food for thought on all of it.
I think there are similarities between the two, but the two are not really the same issue, having some significant differences. At least with puberty blockers the child gets to make the choice, even if they are very young and unqualified to make a good choice concerning this decision. If, rather than being done at birth, there was a huge epidemic of 11-year-old children choosing to be circumcised, with encouragement from their parents and teachers, then I think that would make the issue of circumcision far more like the issue of puberty blockers. But that is kind of just a hypothetical. Besides from that, puberty blocks and transexual hormones messes up a child in a different way than circumcision. I'm almost reluctant to proffer any opinion on whether one is specifically overall worse than another. But what I would say is that one is worse in some ways, and the other worse in others. I do think it is an interesting comparison though, and one that is worthwhile to discuss, to compare the similarities. Another political irony of course is that, statistically as a group in the society, those who hold a negative view of circumcision are more likely to hold a positive view of child sexual transitions and hormone blockers, and those who hold a negative view of hormone blockers and more likely to hold a positive view of circumcision. It seems to me, personally, that if you hold a negative view of one, you should hold a negative view of the other. At least that would be consistent.
Okay and the real concern are things called EDCs. https://www.endocrine.org/topics/edc/what-edcs-are/common-edcs They are causing more alterations to male hormone production than all the hormone blocking therapists put together https://www.endocrine.org/-/media/e...s/hormones_and_edcs_what_you_need_to_know.pdf https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fendo.2021.706532/full
It amazes me that Americans are so worried about something that IF it is happening is only affecting one or two individuals but ignoring the growing evidence around EDCs https://www.endocrine.org/topics/edc/plastics-edcs-and-health
what science is doing with left over baby circumcisions, seems these cells are alive, they are killing them or making them play pong they should let them decide for themselves when adults, not force genital mutilation on innocent babies after they are born
I see lots of smokescreens, deflections, and red herrings, trying to distract from the actual issue being raised in the first post of this thread.
I am asking - what is more important - especially since EDCs are causing more disruption than all other “hormone blockers” put together Why is no one upset over the ubiquitous amounts in the environment that is not just affecting a person here or there but has and are affecting each and every one of us
There are lots of Progressives on the Left who seem unwilling to confront their ideological inconsistencies. You know very well, if you choose to actually examine it, and use your brain, that there is some parallel between young trans children going on hormone blockers, and genital circumcision, which you oppose. (Again, not claiming they are the same exact issue, but there is a parallel and they have some similarities)
In my opinion, what you brought up half has a legitimate point and is half disingenuous at the same time. An analogy would be like responding to an outrageous case of murder, "Well what about those 52,000 people who die from colon cancer every year?"
But then again, an 11-year-old deciding to do something radical and unusual to their body -- something that may not be able to be reversed -- isn't really that different. Look, we don't let 4-year-olds get full body tattoos, or let 10-year-old girls get hormone and fertility treatments to accelerate their body if they think they want to have a baby. I totally agree that it's especially bad if it's done before the child can even speak. But if 3-year-olds were being given circumcisions before they could even fully comprehend the entirety of everything that entails, and they were only doing so, making the "choice", because it was being strongly encouraged by their caregivers, would that really be so different from infant circumcision?
Can we just be honest for a minute? Progressive are looking for any way, any method to accomplish their replacement theory. Evidence? Millions of illegals who democrats clap for their prodigious reproduction replacing citizens who are too busy figuring out if they are trans... Pretty evil when you look at it in the light of day.
yet we mutilate babies with circumcisions now when they are older, they could make the choice themselves and only have themselves to blame if something went wrong or they did not like the results
Yes, I am pointing out there is an inconstancy in either direction. There do seem to exist some double standards. I would hope that everyone who opposes puberty blockers in young children would carefully examine their position and the exact reasons why they believe that, and then see if any of those arguments also apply to child circumcision, and give that some honest thinking. And likewise I would hope that some of those on the progressive Left who oppose circumcision, yet automatically support all of this wacky transgender nonsense without question, would do the same.
LOL... no really... "mutilate"... how again? And how again would democrats "fix" this? By letting 5 yos go on replacement hormones and genital mutilation surgeries? I truly don't see how you've attempted to create an equivalence of these things...
I suppose the question is how much older exactly. I personally lean towards 15 or 16, since then at least the child already has some sexual experience under their belt, and I think 15 or 16 is old enough for the child to begin making some sexual decisions about themself. It is true many 15 or 16 years olds do all sorts of stupid unwise things to their body, but at least this is an age where they have no one to blame other than themselves for their bad decisions. Keep in mind I am talking about circumcision here, not puberty blockers. Circumcision is a bad thing, but at least it won't ruin your body in a more overall way like hormone blockers. Going for a gender transition will very much affect your interactions and standing in society and (in most cases) fundamentally alter the individual's social and romantic interactions. Tons of trans people have a hard time finding anyone who will date them and end up having to resort to specifically seeking out and dating other trans people. Others are relegated to temporary sexual flings with men who hold unusual sexual fetishes for that sort of thing. (And a sexual fetish is usually a poor basis to establish a long-term solid relationship on)
Baby boys haven't been routinely circumsized for at least a generation. It's rarely done anywhere in the world, other than in Jewish communities. It's technically illegal in many places, outside of medical or religious (ie Jewish) imperative. No doctor would do it.
Lots of trans individuals are knocked down several notches in attractiveness level when they try to go back and be the original gender that they were born with. Some of the effects of these hormone treatments, especially when done over the course of many years or during the critical years of adolescent development, can be kind of permanent, and there's no fully going back. It's definitely not a decision to be taken lightly.
I wish this were true, but it is still commonly done in certain countries, mainly the U.S., a big country with 332 million people. In the U.S., more than half of newborn babies are still being circumcised. Right now about 20 percent of newborn babies in Australia are being circumcised, and the percentage of much older Australians who were circumcised is as high as 80 percent. In Canada, 32 percent of newborn babies are being circumcised.
how about just letting them choose for themselves when they are old enough - what age do you think is old enough to choose fr themselves to be circumcised?
it can ruin your body, people have had major complications from this unnecessary surgery on little boys and girls private parts, it also reduces one pleasure after they become adults, they are denied this
So, what? this is you running away? Here's a more difficult question for you then. The primary reason for it in the first place were doctors convincing folks that it was a health concern. Are you willing to agree that blindly following medical "advice" like this, (and lots of other areas) isn't perhaps the best platform for the basis of actual public policy? If, as you suggest, there is a reason to respect the individual and their choice, you really seem to have set up a problem for al of your other posting where you suggest exactly the opposite. I doubt you'll cop to this, but ... As with most things, what does the law say? If I can't buy a drink, why should I be able to choose body mutilation? All those super nanny laws from the authoritarian of the left...
you seem to not be consistent, I am being consistent, don't let your biases come into it and you will see what it
