"Circumcision a criminal act"

[bleeding heart]

I'm curious: what does "man" and "woman" feel like? I mean, I am a man (at least, according to the traditional way of determining such matters), but I simply feel like me; I don't sense any particular feeling related to my gender; I can't even be certain there is or should be one. I can't tell what others, men and women, feel like, which I'd need to in order to first determine whether or not there's a specific feeling attached to one's biological gender and then whether or not I feel the way a man is "supposed to".

I put it to you that if you felt you were actually, identity-wise, a woman, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

In short, you're verging on an argument that, at bottom, says,"since I don't get it, it must not be too convincing."

Put it another way: what in the world would make anyoen think they don't know how they feel; that this isn't a serious matter for them?

This isn't to be confused with the traits and behaviours that society typically relates to gender; women are soft, men are rugged, blah, blah. There are soft men and rugged women, but they don't feel any need to force their bodies to physically appear as a woman's or a man's because they "feel" like a woman or a man.

Yes....because you're talking about "soft" men and "rugged" women who still feel like men and women, respectively.

It's not about cultural views of "soft" versus "rugged."

Behave organically, naturally, by undergoing the deliberate act of cosmetic surgery? Um... If they are people who indeed feel like the gender they physically are not, then that is what they are; surgery artificially changes that.

[ed.: -, sp]

Surgery artificailly changes them, yes, but into what they feel as their core identity.

Your argument is with transgendered people themselves. I trust their opinion about what they feel of themselves.

Crazy, I know, when we already have puritanical busybodies explaining them so well for us! And for transgendered people themselves, who obviously don't know themselves as well as do those who consider them acting upon "sick desires," like our resident genius elsewhere in this thread.

Edited July 21, 2012 by bleeding heart

[bleeding heart]

What's ironic is that bleeding heart made a comment about "gender roles" with the usual contempt we see from the left regarding cultural/traditional concepts (even though they are more often than not grounded deeply in biology), but then talks about "feeling like a man" or "feeling like a woman". G_bambino is correct to call him out on this stupidity.

g-bambino did not "call me out on this stupidity," but rather made an honest attempt at debate. You could learn from him.

And if a man or a woman does not feel like a man or a woman...then what is "deeply grounded in biology" immediately and incontrovertibly becomes more complicated than you see it....no surprise there.

In one breath he expresses contempt for tradition and cultural norms,

Nope. Only contempt for tradition and cultural norms at the point where they become unneccessary and hurtful.

I know, I know....you hate anyone not defined by cultural norms.

Your problem is that the norms are changing (as they always do and always will and always have)...and you can't keep up, so you use hatred and contempt as your default setting.

Edited July 21, 2012 by bleeding heart

[g_bambino]

[Y]ou're verging on an argument that, at bottom, says,"since I don't get it, it must not be too convincing."

I'm verging on no such thing; because I don't get it, I'm asking for clarification. Admittedly, I'll tend to draw conclusions from the information I have; but, I'm willing to let those conclusions change if more information comes my way.

To say someone "feels" like they're the opposite gender to that which they biologically are implies that each of us "feels" our gender. Since I don't "feel" my gender, I don't understand when someone says people who get gender reasignment surgery do so because they "feel" like the gender they're not. Further, the surgery only alters outward appearances; it's purely cosmetic. So, the person never becomes the opposite gender, just a faximile thereof. That may more closely match the identity they hold, but they still, and always will, have the X and Y chromosome combination they were born with and their bodies will never naturally produce certain hormones in the way actual women and men do, they have to be artificially controlled. So, how then do they "feel" like the gender they now appear like but biologically still aren't?

[Guest Manny]

So, how then do they "feel" like the gender they now appear like but biologically still aren't?

Because they have nice boobies now?

[bleeding heart]

To say someone "feels" like they're the opposite gender to that which they biologically are implies that each of us "feels" our gender. Since I don't "feel" my gender,

Of course you do; it's so entrenched, so part of your identity, that you don't consider it.

People with transgender issues are forced to consider it, and often.

I don't understand when someone says people who get gender reasignment surgery do so because they "feel" like the gender they're not.

I understand that it's difficult to put one self in their shoes. I can't do it...by definition of not being one of them.

So I have to trust their opinion.

And why wouldn't I? No one suddenly decides they are a different gender, on a whim, and then irresponsibly chooses gender reassignment surgery.

Further, the surgery only alters outward appearances; it's purely cosmetic. So, the person never becomes the opposite gender, just a faximile thereof. That may more closely match the identity they hold, but they still, and always will, have the X and Y chromosome combination they were born with and their bodies will never naturally produce certain hormones in the way actual women and men do, they have to be artificially controlled. So, how then do they "feel" like the gender they now appear like but biologically still aren't?

Yes, and in fact, transgender folks often tend to forever consider themselves "transgendered," with "male" or "female" being something of a shortcut explanation. but still, once the surgery and hormone therapy has been undertaken, they always say that they feel "like themselves"...often for the first time in their lives.

What in the world could anyone (aside from puritanical reactionaries) possibly object to in this? And why is it so difficult to understand?

You repeatedly summon the notion that you, personally, don't "feel like" a specific gender.

OK, first of all, I profoundly doubt this. I feel very muhc like a male; it informs my identity at a deep, core level. (And no, nothing too much to do with "ruggedness," I don't think, though I suppose social mores and gender roles play a part.)

But even if it's so...why do you suppose your personal experience (or non-experience, as the case may be) trumps theirs?

More to the point: what is it, exactly, that you think they're doing wrong, or are mistaken about?

Edited July 23, 2012 by bleeding heart

[bleeding heart]

To say someone "feels" like they're the opposite gender to that which they biologically are implies that each of us "feels" our gender. Since I don't "feel" my gender,

Of course you do; it's so entrenched, so part of your identity, that you don't consider it. (Or,, if not, see near the bottom of my post where I try to tackle this matter a little.)

People with transgender issues are forced to consider it, and often.

I don't understand when someone says people who get gender reasignment surgery do so because they "feel" like the gender they're not.

I understand that it's difficult to put one self in their shoes. I can't do it...by definition of not being one of them.

So I have to trust their opinion.

And why wouldn't I? No one suddenly decides they are a different gender, on a whim, and then irresponsibly chooses gender reassignment surgery.

Further, the surgery only alters outward appearances; it's purely cosmetic. So, the person never becomes the opposite gender, just a faximile thereof. That may more closely match the identity they hold, but they still, and always will, have the X and Y chromosome combination they were born with and their bodies will never naturally produce certain hormones in the way actual women and men do, they have to be artificially controlled. So, how then do they "feel" like the gender they now appear like but biologically still aren't?

Yes, and in fact, transgender folks often tend to forever consider themselves "transgendered," with "male" or "female" being something of a shortcut explanation. but still, once the surgery and hormone therapy has been undertaken, they always say that they feel "like themselves"...often for the first time in their lives.

What in the world could anyone (aside from puritanical reactionaries) possibly object to in this? And why is it so difficult to understand?

You repeatedly summon the notion that you, personally, don't "feel like" a specific gender.

OK, first of all, I profoundly doubt this. I feel very muhc like a male; it informs my identity at a deep, core level. (And no, nothing too much to do with "ruggedness," I don't think, though I suppose social mores and gender roles play a part.)

But even if it's so...why do you suppose your personal experience (or non-experience, as the case may be) trumps theirs?

More to the point: what is it, exactly, that you think they're doing wrong, or are mistaken about?

[MiddleClassCentrist]

Circumcision is probably the most common surgical procedure in North America, and it is performed for valid medical reasons at any age. So any talk of a "ban" is a non-starter.

Often just performed for idiocy though.

"I want my son to look like his father" ... Because they are comparing wangs all the time, right?

"That mother I know is very sensitive about her decisions and advocates that others get it done to make herself feel better about the choice she made" (This is reality of the dicussion)

"For Profit Medical Corporation that performs circumcisions conducted a study saying they provided benefit... " Yeah, and Coke can be part of a healthy lifestyle and Kentucky Fried Chicken can be a family's attempt to "Eat Better".. (lol). I really don't know how Americans can trust their for profit health care... It's like trusting the guy selling you a used car working off of commission.

The majority of people have absolutely 0 reason to get a circumcision. Unless you are trying to raise a manslut/pornstar and want them to have a lot of unprotected sex with promiscuous women/meth addicts.

IT should be up to the individual to decide later in life. Female circumcision is illegal. Involuntary male circumcision should also be illegal.

Edited July 23, 2012 by MiddleClassCentrist

[g_bambino]

I understand that it's difficult to put one self in their shoes. I can't do it...by definition of not being one of them.

[W]hy is it so difficult to understand?

I hope that was a rhetorical question.

I feel very muhc like a male; it informs my identity at a deep, core level.

Can you explain it to me, then, so that I can see if I have the same feeling but have somehow mislabelled or misunderstood it? I have feelings that are based in me being a male; but, as I undestand it, they're hormone driven. Otherwise, I still don't recognise a "man" feeling.

[bleeding heart]

I hope that was a rhetorical question.

No, but my bad. Let me rephrase.

I personally cannot understand what it must be like to be in their shoes.

But I trust their opinions about their own lives, their own identities; and I find it difficult to believe they'd undergo such a profound and life-changing process if they didn't feel powerfully compelled to do so.

So, unless we're going to assume they're lunatics, we take their word for it. And accept it the matter as perfectly fine.

Why not? What's the problem?

I see it as not much different from homosexuality; I don't "get" the sexual attraction to males, who are physically rather grotesque, but I certainly don't dispute the objective reality as lived by most women and a small number of males. Further, I take it for granted that there's not something "wrong" with them.

[g_bambino]

I trust their opinions about their own lives, their own identities; and I find it difficult to believe they'd undergo such a profound and life-changing process if they didn't feel powerfully compelled to do so.

So, unless we're going to assume they're lunatics, we take their word for it. And accept it the matter as perfectly fine.

I'm not going to delve into what's "lunatic" and what isn't. But, since you've brought it up, it does make me wonder: do you respect as much the desires of those who want to have a limb or limbs amputated because the appearance it would give them would make them feel more complete and natural?

[bleeding heart]

I'm not going to delve into what's "lunatic" and what isn't. But, since you've brought it up, it does make me wonder: do you respect as much the desires of those who want to have a limb or limbs amputated because the appearance it would give them would make them feel more complete and natural?

I'm afraid I don't think this is a serious question.

I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt by assuming it's not a serious question.

[g_bambino]

I'm afraid I don't think this is a serious question.

You've assumed incorrectly. Did you think I invented the existence of people who want such body modification for the reasons stated? Because I did not.

[bleeding heart]

You've assumed incorrectly. Did you think I invented the existence of people who want such body modification for the reasons stated? Because I did not.

How is it even remotely related?

But if we're going to have a serious discussion, let's answer each other's questions directly, then:

Would I "respect as much the desires" for people to have limbs removed, for the reasons you've stated?

Well, that's a new one for me, and I've never considered it (because I've never heard of it). But in the end, I'd have to come down on "yes," while wondering if I would remain forever baffled by the matter.

More to the point, I'd prefer to hear their views on the matter, and listen to them explain it at length, especially if it's been a lifelong issue for them (as for those wishing gender-change).

Now it's your turn: what is your problem with gender-reassignment, exactly? why do you take issue with it?

Edit: the trouble I'm having with your quesiton is that I've not had any time to consider it. Are there things I'm not taking into account? Who are these people? Are there broad and industry-accepted psychological assessments of them (as there certainly are for those wanting gender-reassignment...and they agree with me, not incidentally. Or me with them, if you prefer).

The point here is that these matters often take serious thought and moral consideration...which I have been subject to on the broader issue...and which you have not. You've scarcely considered it in any way at all, and so are basing your response on visceral factors.

Which is, if I can be blunt, a useless, intellectually-empty, and morally vacuous manner from which to view such an important subject.

Precisely--precisely!--why homosexuality has only relatively recently started to be accepted as a societal norm.

Edited August 7, 2012 by bleeding heart

[Boges]

Looks like the pro-circumcision lobby has an ally.

The health benefits of circumcision in newborn boys outweigh the risks, says the American Academy of Pediatrics in its strongest statement yet in favour of the procedure.

In guidelines issued Monday, the influential physicians’ group says the latest scientific evidence shows that circumcision can reduce the risk of urinary tract infections in infants and cut the risk of sexually transmitted diseases, including HIV, syphilis, and human papillomavirus or HPV, which causes cervical cancer in females as well as some oral cancers. As well, the procedure can also reduce the risk of penile cancer, the group said.

Until now, the AAP’s stance on circumcision has been fairly neutral. The American Medical Association also has a neutral policy on circumcision.

This new statement, published in the journal Pediatrics, comes down firmly in favour of the procedure, saying circumcision’s health benefits "justify access to this procedure for families who choose it."

At the same time though, the group doesn’t universally recommend circumcision for all newborn boys, saying the benefits are not great enough, and that parents should make the final call.

“Ultimately, this is a decision that parents will have to make,” Dr. Susan Blank, chair of the task force that authored the AAP policy statement, said in a statement.

Read more: http://www.ctvnews.ca/health/circumcision-benefits-outweigh-risks-say-u-s-pediatricians-1.931029#ixzz24m2bPX3s

[Boges]

And the CDC

https://www.yahoo.com/health/circumcision-benefits-outweigh-risks-cdc-says-104161436012.html

The first federal guidelines show benefits to circumcision — even as rates of newborn male circumcision drop. (Getty Images)

U.S. health officials on Tuesday released a draft of long-awaited federal guidelines on circumcision, saying medical evidence supports having the procedure done and health insurers should pay for it.

The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention guidelines stop short of telling parents to get their newborn sons circumcised. That is a personal decision that may involve religious or cultural preferences, said the CDC’s Dr. Jonathan Mermin.

But “the scientific evidence is clear that the benefits outweigh the risks,” added Mermin, who oversees the agency’s programs on HIV and other sexually transmitted diseases.

These are the first federal guidelines on circumcision, a brief medical procedure that involves cutting away the foreskin around the tip of the penis. Germs can grow underneath the foreskin, and CDC officials say the procedure can lower a male’s risk of sexually-transmitted diseases, penile cancer and even urinary tract infections.

The CDC started working on the guidelines about seven years ago, when a cluster of influential studies in Africa indicated circumcision might help stop spread of the AIDS virus.

"The benefits of male circumcision have become more and more clear over the last 10 years," said Dr. Aaron Tobian, a Johns Hopkins University researcher involved in one of the African studies.