Circumcision classed as possible child abuse in draft CPS document

83 pointsposted a month ago
by isomorph
(theguardian.com)

75 Comments

just_the_tip2

a month ago

In 1996 the Federal Prohibition of Female Genital Mutilation Act made it illegal to perform FGM on minors for non-medical reasons, and in 2013 the Transport for Female Genital Mutilation Act prohibited transporting a minor out of the country for the purpose of FGM.

Male genital mutilation on minors for non-medical reasons should also be made illegal. It is amazing Medicaid still pays for it in many states. The American Academy of Pediatrics is failing the United States.

pseudohadamard

a month ago

Female genital mutilation is done by Them, and bad. Male genital mutilation is done by Us, and not bad.

sedawk

a month ago

I had to read it twice to get your point, well said!

foxglacier

a month ago

[flagged]

GeoAtreides

a month ago

They're not different: they both irreversibly violate body autonomy for non-medical purposes.

IshKebab

a month ago

They're clearly different. FGM generally has much more severe consequences than circumcision. They should both be banned but FGM is clearly much worse.

Jensson

a month ago

> FGM generally has much more severe consequences than circumcision

There are variants that are equivalent to circumcision, but those are banned as well. It is illegal to cut into female genitals and legal to cut into male genitals today.

To stay consistent people should either support making some versions of FGM legal or make all versions of MGM illegal.

edanm

a month ago

So does getting your kid's ears pierced. So does fixing their teeth for aesthetic reasons.

GeoAtreides

a month ago

if those are done without the child consent, yes, obviously they violate their body autonomy.

stogot

a month ago

Have you ever argued in favor of aborting children? That is mutilation without the child’s consent, almost always for non-medical purposes

GeoAtreides

a month ago

I would answer, but I rather not, publicly, because of HN privacy policy (nonexistent) and handling of personal data (abysmal), and also because is impossible to delete your comments.

edanm

a month ago

FYI I think you can email dang and ask to delete old posts. Or at least I think he said that once.

sporkxrocket

a month ago

You wouldn't fix a child's teeth until well after they can talk. They have much more capacity to consent at that age.

Fire-Dragon-DoL

a month ago

> “enormously powerful symbolic act of identity”.

That's revolting in a way. Identity OF THE PARENT, not of the baby who definitely doesn't know.

And maybe the teenager doesn't want to have that identity, but now it's too late

odyssey7

a month ago

Also: given the historic role of circumcision in religious and cultural conversion, one could view infant circumcision as removing that possibility for certain religious or cultural conversions later in life. In this sense, it might be viewed as culturally immunizing as well as being a cultural marker.

somewhereoutth

a month ago

As it should be.

However this practice has become deeply culturally ingrained, whether through religion or other custom, so it is going to be a hard slog to eradicate it worldwide.

kyleee

a month ago

Definitely, and unfortunately. FGM is also on the rise in Europe :(

stranded22

a month ago

Good. It is barbaric and mutilation.

kyleee

a month ago

It should be, right along with FGM

user

a month ago

[deleted]

attqqq

a month ago

Baffling that male genital mutilation persists to this day due to momentum, misinformation, and a small religious niche alone. Really makes me think there’s an empathy gap between gendered issues. 1996 we got rid of FGM, yet 30 years later baby boys still get their tips of their penis cut off, often incorrectly/too far.

Humbling reminder we really are a bunch of well dressed apes playing house, I forget that sometimes

mieses

a month ago

hackers gonna hack

AndrewKemendo

a month ago

Finally taking this seriously as what it is: religious genital mutilation

HiPhish

a month ago

I have seen babies with pierced ears and studs. Even when there is no religious pressure some people are just so sick in their head, they will have their babies put through mutilation just because they think it looks "cute". Those people deserve to have railroad spikes driven through their skin.

I would advocate for banning all non-necessary body modification on small children. And before anyone tells me "it's better to do it when they are small, then they won't remember it": no remembering the source of a trauma makes is even worse. That's like saying date rape drugs are no big deal because the victim can't remember it.

odyssey7

a month ago

There isn’t an equivalence between pierced ears, which is reversible, and circumcision, which is not.

sporkxrocket

a month ago

Good, it's barbaric child abuse. No other form of permanent body modification surgery (especially to genitals!) would be allowed on infants who can't consent. An adult wants to get circumcised? Go for it. It's pretty wild that we allow it on babies that can't even speak.

dang

a month ago

We've banned this account for using HN exclusively for political/ideological/national/religious battle and ignoring our requests to stop. That's not allowed here, regardless of which political position you're advocating.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

(Before somebody pounces with "so we're not allowed to post about $TOPIC now?": no, I'm not secretly advocating for circumcision (of all things) and this comment is not about $TOPIC. I just had to hang it somewhere so I chose the most recent thread.

The issue is the overall pattern of the account's behavior, which is clearly against HN's rules.)

sporkxrocket

a month ago

Oh, but every Zionist gets to stay. We know you're a tool for censorship dang.

You happily let this account continue: https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=soldthat

dang

a month ago

We've banned quite a few accounts on either side of that issue—theirs as well as yours—not because of their/your view on the issue itself, but because they/you were posting abusively. It's obviously a divisive topic, and people's strong feelings and political commitments are unfortunately leading them to break HN's rules pretty much irrespective of where they stand on it.

You can't derive much signal from cherry-picked examples, because we don't come close to seeing everything that gets posted here. When accounts are posting abusively and not getting moderated, the likeliest explanation is that we just haven't seen it yet. We don't come close to seeing everything that gets posted here.

FridayoLeary

a month ago

[flagged]

wiether

a month ago

> what gives you the right to impose your worldview on someone elses child Just because you think it's better?

And my question to you: what gives you the right to impose your worldview on someone elses *body* Just because you think it's better?

Fire-Dragon-DoL

a month ago

You cannot possibly know the alternative, since the the babies with the surgery performed will never know the alternative.

TheCraiggers

a month ago

> What about freedom of religion

Babies don't have a religion.

lostmsu

a month ago

Maybe the laws should explicitly encode babies' freedom of religion of their parents.

TheCraiggers

a month ago

It isn't hard to find people with different religious views from their parents, so no, I don't think defaulting a baby to any religion should be a thing.

tstrimple

a month ago

"Because I've seen successful children come out of abusive homes, I don't think we need to do anything about abusive homes."

TheCraiggers

a month ago

Nice straw man you got there. Shame what happened to it.

9x39

a month ago

> those that are happy it was done to them specifically as babies

Who have no way to know whether they would prefer to not have it done.

It’s not FGM, but it’s in the realm of it relative to reduced sensory ability.

wrsh07

a month ago

In general, I'm surprised by the vitriol in these comments.

I think your claim proves too much:

If you pick a different religion (my siblings and their kids are religious - not Jewish), you could similarly say "even though they're happy being raised in their religion, they have no way to know whether they would prefer to have been raised agnostic/atheist" (or some other religion)

Of course that's true for many decisions parents make on behalf of their children.

I am curious if folks in this thread are similarly incensed by young children having their ears pierced? It's obviously different, but it still seems like a cultural decision.

To my knowledge (having only learned about it incidentally during the pregnancy/birthing process since it wasn't a relevant decision) it didn't seem like circumcision had strong medical recommendations for or against

9x39

a month ago

You can stretch it to religion, if you consider being inculcated in a certain religion a 1-way door.

Circumcision removes nerve endings and results in an exposed glans, which thickens the skin and further dulls its nerve endings. This is a 1-way reduction in sexual capacity, which the child doesn't have any say in. Comparing it to ear piercing isn't the same, which, while cartilage doesn't heal easily, there's no sexual sensation interaction and leaving piercings empty tends to reverse them over time.

wrsh07

a month ago

I don't know that your claims about male circumcision have any basis in fact

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/26724395/?utm_source=chatgpt...

baubino

a month ago

The linked study doesn’t measure sexual stimulation, only touch, pain, and heat. The study also found that the foreskin was more sensitive than any other area, which supports the prior commenter’s point.

wrsh07

a month ago

As far as I can tell it addresses the mechanisms proposed by the parent comment.

If the claim is specifically about reduced stimulation during sex, that's a different claim. I'm simply saying the initial explanation seemed like bullshit

In general, if a claim is easy to verify, someone has verified it, but the US is also somewhat prudish so making the research more explicit might make it less likely that the research happens in the states. If there is an existing study that says this claim is correct, feel free to link it.

9x39

a month ago

Respectfully, this is a case where a lack of "field experience" combines with asking AI about peepees, and it gets weird after that.

Like another commenter said, this is a small (62) group of men tested for stimuli that don't appear to resemble sex.

To be blunt, I think it is apparent to those with experience that uncircumcised penises are significantly more sensitive than circumcised ones. If you wanted to test this - get a big sample size and simulate the 3 common types of copulation in a standard way (lol).

kyleee

a month ago

Parents can definitely decide how to raise their child, within reason. It is in no way reasonable to conduct a non medical non consensual surgical procedure on your child. Simple as, really.

sporkxrocket

a month ago

Religion is a personal choice, not something your parents or anyone else can enforce on you with surgery.

user

a month ago

[deleted]

FridayoLeary

a month ago

[flagged]

limagnolia

a month ago

Polygamy is a fundamental religious practice by some religions too, but the US Supreme Court already ruled that the government can restrict it. (Though this article is talking about England and Wales... which also don't allow polygamy, so...)

I think it would be better to have the debate on circumcision in the legislature/parliament, but I am not opposed to outlawing it.

HiPhish

a month ago

> 7 deaths in 20 years out of who knows how many hundreds of thousands if anything is a testament to how safe the procedure is.

That's still seven deaths too many for a surgery (without anesthetics!) which has no medical necessity. Tonsillectomy is also a very safe procedure, yet we don't just do them willy-nilly because any form of surgery carries its own risk, no matter how small.

odyssey7

a month ago

Some people are traumatized by it. There have been suicides. These experiences never candidly enter public policy discourse, because keeping people from getting depressed etc. is important for productivity, birth rates, and trust in public institutions.

sporkxrocket

a month ago

The children being mutilated are not even able to consent to practicing a religion.

Der_Einzige

a month ago

[flagged]

malfist

a month ago

I don't believe there are very many circumcision single issue voters

bilbo0s

a month ago

You are shortsighted.

What Trump has proven is that millions of single issue voters can be created on any issue if a political party desires it.

Underestimating this reality will only keep political parties that depend on unwritten rules of decorum from winning more and more elections.

There are now new unwritten rules of election issue decorum. Which is to say there are no longer any unspoken rules of election issue decorum. I'd strongly urge everyone to acclimate themselves to that reality sooner rather than later.

odyssey7

a month ago

I remember around 2016 seeing videos on social media of Clinton endorsing circumcision campaigns.

Der_Einzige

a month ago

That's because of the IRL SCP object! Destroy it and they will soon exist in droves!

leggerss

a month ago

This is satire, right? Or reasoning by analogy... right??

I looked up "SCP object", and boy that was a rabbit hole. Interesting and entertaining, sure. But if you "fully believe" in anything on that website, please try to confirm your reality with observations or lived experience rather than text from the internet.

Here's an excerpt from SCP's "Guide For Newcomers"[1]:

> This is the SCP Foundation Wiki, a collaborative writing site based around the premise that… in essence, magic is real. It's not exactly like the traditional fantasy style magic you've come to know, but that's the best way we can describe the stuff we have here - Anomalies; items and critters that do not follow the rules of nature as we know them. Staircases that go on forever, mechanical gods from the beginning of time, otherwise regular humans who reshape reality with their mind: these are the kinds of things that, if known to the public, could cause mass hysteria and start wars on scales unprecedented. Due to that, there exists an organization called the SCP Foundation, whose job is to research paranormal activity, keep these creatures and objects concealed from the public, and protect humanity from the horrors of the dark.

[1] https://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/guide-for-newcomers

cramsession

a month ago

I don't believe in that and it sounds totally out there, yet it's far less extreme than infant genital mutilation.

Der_Einzige

a month ago

That's my point. Yes it's tongue-in-cheek. No I'm not an SCP version of a "furry" or "otherkin" who thinks that their make believe universe is real.

It's an analogy for the INSANITY of the current acceptance of mass circumcision uncritically by the masses.

DoctorOetker

a month ago

You don't need a "Ketar class SCP object", simple conflict of interest from the Medical-Industrial Complex will do.

All those skin banks could turn into liabilities instead of profit centers, since preservation of the product is also preservation of the evidence.

A functioning government would waltz in, keep the power on, start sequencing the tissues and cells to identify at least some of the victims, and do this in a transparent and public way.

mindslight

a month ago

Are those victims not capable of identifying themselves if they feel they were indeed victimized?

(but for context, my own view on the subject is "Let's wait a hot minute before we go cutting parts off the baby")

DoctorOetker

a month ago

The problem is evidence, its not like those urologists like incriminating themselves. Even though my trauma occurred in hospital, its not in my medical file. How does one even start to file an official complaint if it didn't happen according to your medical file?

mindslight

a month ago

Thank you for elaborating! Your original comment was abstract and high-handed, but this makes it clear you're coming from a place of wanting to solve your own specific problem.

Practically if you know you were circumcised shortly after your birth, can't you look at the record of your birth and subsequent care, make a list of doctors that attended or treated you in any way, and then make the complaint about all of them?

(this isn't arguing against your point, just exploring the problem)

DoctorOetker

a month ago

You are making assumptions, I was effectively infibulated (by "partial circumcision") after a false diagnosis, age 11, where I clearly conveyed I did not want to before it happened.

I know the name of the urologist.

I go to the hospital as a young adult, made an appointment with another urologist at the same hospital (to prevent myself from ending up in jail).

I ask her to check my medical record, it's not there.

She proposes to check the record under my mother's name: nope, under my stepfather's name: nope, my father's name: nope, and my father didn't even know it happened.

Meanwhile the university had some recent philosophy thesis paper that tried to answer the question why no one in my country has sued any urologist regarding circumcision, their conclusion? some random psychological stuff.

Psychological? the suppression of evidence (or access to the evidence) is not something that happens in my head, but in the real outside world.

I my case I know the name of the urologist, but we are denied access to legal evidence.

And why would they incriminate themselves? its not like they "woops-what-are-my-hands-doing" accidentally put the sample of foreskin in the sterile packaging again boy after boy, and "woops-my-arms-uncrontrollably" put it in their fridge until the medical courier picks it up, and remuneration magically follows without these surgeons understanding what they are doing. Of course they perfectly know what they are doing. It's organised harvesting of foreskin tissue. Why would they incriminate themselves with a paper trail? How naive the rest of society can be: we know these people select their profession because it is an auspicious hidey hole.

And this is in a hospital setting.

Now reread the posted article, every time people argue to only ban religious settings they pretend there is no trauma in hospital settings. The real reason is they want to lucratively harvest the tissues for themselves. It's a limited hang-out every time. Journalists either aren't doing their job, or are being censored by their superiors.

soldthat

a month ago

WTF is a “Ketar class SCP object”?