#infant circumcision

[semtrainers]

Ensuring safe and effective training for infant circumcision is essential to maintaining high standards of care. Our latest blog post introduces the Infant Circumcision Training Kit, a comprehensive resource designed to improve training outcomes and reduce complications. We'll explore the features of this innovative kit and discuss how it can be used to teach proper technique and enhance trainee confidence. Join us as we take a closer look at the Infant Circumcision Training Kit and its role in promoting safe and effective circumcision practices.

[victusinveritas]

So, the routine infant circumcision to fascist douchewad pipeline is not something I expected...but if you need another reason to be against circumcision... there's, ah, this. I am also hoping it's kind of a one off.

[whatgoesthroughmyhead]

PLEASE CONSIDER NOT CUTTING THE END OF YOUR CHILD'S PENIS OFF. ('CAUSE IT'S NOT YOUR PENIS TO CUT, IS IT?)

[barefootbaltimore]

I will never understand people who support infant circumcision. Just have it done later as an adult if the person truly hates their foreskin so much. It's really not a big deal at that point because adults can weigh pros and cons, are allowed painkillers after an amputation, and also don't regularly have shit and urine sitting on their open wounds.

I don't care how you prefer a penis to look, I don't care if you wanna disregard the ethical dilemma of cutting a piece off an hours old baby; the fact that it's so unhygienic alone should be enough. It's an open wound in a diaper. I just. This shouldn't be controversial.

[magicalenbysarah]

If anyone would like to help me you can send an email to Nintendo UK saying it's not okay for Adam Howden, VA of Shulk, to be making and sharing antisemitic, Islamophobic, anti-BLM, and anti-queer posts. Use these photos.

[kahuna-burger]

If I had to live in a culture that normalizes permenantly removing part of our infants' bodies at birth, why couldn't it have been toenails?

[tanadrin]

it is extremely weird that in the 1800s some guys started promoting infant circumcision to discourage masturbation in teenage boys, and out of mostly cultural inertia the vast majority of americans still circumcise their male children.

[andrewpcannon]

Daily Devotional: Exodus 4:24-26

Daily Devotional: Exodus 4:24-26

This part of the story sits awkwardly in the text. If someone was inventing a story to tell, this detail would be one left out. But, when recording actual events in narrative form—one cannot escape the awkwardness of the story. The Lord meets Moses at one of the lodging places on the way to Egypt in order to kill him. The reason is obscure at best in the text. We don’t know God’s method—whether…

[applesauce42069]

“You can’t mutilate infants” I simply do not believe that circumcising a penis is an act of mutilation. I don’t even know where that idea comes from. The only possible averse affect is the lost of some sensation. This is not like female genital mutilation which literally destroys the functions of the vagina and the ability to feel any pleasure. Circumcision is more akin in my opinion to piercing a baby’s ears.

[semi-imaginary-place]

Story is identical twins got circumcisions and one of them was messed up so badly there'd never be a "normal" penis. Fuckwad psychologist (why is it always these old cis white men psychologists that are the worst) decided to use this chance to prove his hypothesis that gender identity is entirely learned through social conditioned and tried various abusive and medical ways to make David a girl including reproductive surgeries, feminizing hormones, socialization, and whatever the fuck this is:

"Money theorized that reproductive behaviour formed the foundation of gender, and that "play at thrusting movements and copulation" was a key aspect of gender development in all primates. Starting at age six, according to Brian, the twins were forced to act out sexual acts, with David playing the female role—Money made David get down on all fours, and Brian was forced to "come up behind [him] and place his crotch against [his] buttocks". Money also forced David, in another sexual position, to have his "legs spread" with Brian on top. On "at least one occasion" Money took a photograph of the two children doing these activities.[24]

When either child resisted these activities, Money would get angry. Both David and Brian recall that Money was mild-mannered around their parents, but ill-tempered when alone with them. When they resisted inspecting each other's genitals, Money got very aggressive. David says, "He told me to take my clothes off, and I just did not do it. I just stood there. And he screamed, 'Now!' Louder than that. I thought he was going to give me a whupping. So I took my clothes off and stood there shaking."[24]"

"Both David and Brian were traumatized" no shit.

Anyways it failed. And the psychologist went on for years touting this case as proof that he was right despite every bit of evidence point to him being wrong. David continuously insisted in childhood that he was male and lived as male in adulthood after being suicidally depressed because yeah between the everyone telling him he's a girl, the forced body modification, and the sexual abuse by dr. ego. And the trauma carried through into adulthood he killed himself at age 38.

Now this is just one case if this happened to 1000 identical twin pairs maybe some of them would have identified as female what's more important is how even though David was not intersex his case highlights many of the struggles of intersex and transgender people. I mean he was assigned a gender shortly after birth and raised as that gender but always felt it was wrong and the people around him did everything to make him female. Is that not the trans experience. Gender is complicated and this case rejects dr. fuckwad's single souce explanation. Gender arises from the interplay of internally derived gender identity, gender presentation and performance, and social interplay. Gender is complicated and it's components and relationship with a person are unique to everyone. There's a lesson here too on forcing unnecessary medical procedures on intersex infants and children without their consent or sometimes against their wishes all to better conform them to a binary when even among non intersex people there is amazing diversity among bodies. And it's important that those same procedures forced on intersex infants from gonad removal, to genital reconstruction (making genitals and sticking them on), masculinizing or feminizing hormones, are the exact ones often denied to transgender teenagers who want them. Even as adults it's hard and sometimes practically impossible to get gender affirming medical care. But the right has never cared about being hypocrites only about making the world worse for the greatest number of people.

[apenitentialprayer]

Women Are Physiologically Primed for Parenthood (And So Are Men)

In 2017 The New York Times published a short piece called "The Birth of a Mother." It explored something anthropologists have termed matrescence, or the process of becoming a female parent. The writer noted: "[T]his transition is also significant for fathers . . . , but women who go through the hormonal changes of pregnancy may have a specific neurobiological experience." The nod to fathers is cursory. The "but" that follows makes the sentence's point: that women are the sex hormonally primed for parenthood. This notion is so generally accepted that it escaped the fact-checker's scrutiny. Like most of the conventional wisdom about the hard-core nature of maternal versus paternal parenting, it's also misleading. Men undergo their own neurobiological experience as their babies-to-be gestate. Throughout the prenatal period, men in close contact with pregnant partners are physiologically primed to care for infants. Expectant fathers experience a rise in the levels of the pregnancy-related hormones prolactin, cortisol, and estrogen in proportion to that of their baby's mother. Additionally, testosterone, associated with competition for mates, declines. Second-time fathers produce even more prolactin and less testosterone in the company of a pregnant partner than do first-timers. [...] Throughout their children's lives, involved fathers continue to experience hormonal changes. In North America, men in long-term relationships like marriage and fatherhood almost uniformly have lower testosterone levels than their single and childless counterparts. [...] As anthropologist Sarah Hrdy observes in Mothers and Others: "Men are physiologically altered just from spending time in intimate association with pregnant mothers and new babies. To me, this implies that care by males has been an integral part of human adaptation for a long time. Male nurturing potentials are there, encoded in the DNA of our species. [...] [In the late '70s], psychologist Ross Parke and colleagues studied fathers of newborns in maternity wards. For most of the behaviors his team measured, fathers and mothers hardly differed. Men spoke to babies in high-pitched voices and responded with sensitivity to infant cues during feeding. They also exhibited patterns similar to their wives when holding their children. The major difference Parke observed was that fathers, unlike mothers, took a step back from their child's care in the presence of their spouse. [...] In a study that measured response times and hormone levels in parents listening to infant cries, mothers and fathers were equally reactive to wails of distress (recordings of baby boys being circumcised). When the cries were fussy rather than pained, mothers' physiological responses and then also their reaction times were a little quicker than fathers', though fathers' responses were quicker than those of childless adults.

- Darcy Lockman (All the Rage: Mothers, Fathers, and the Myth of Equal Partnership, pages 82-83, 83, 84, 85, 86)

[beardedmrbean]

really not liking how everyone opposed to circumcision is now automatically accused of antisemitism.

really really not liking how any and all research over the past several years into the negative effects of circumcision are either downplayed or outright accused of being antisemitic.

really really really not liking how even the non-religious arguments in favor of it mirror arguments in favor of fgm

really really really really not liking how bodily autonomy and integrity is being demonized in all these conversations.

do we all have to throw our principals in the trash to blindly support genital mutilation?

I've had several Jewish friends who were also opposed to infant male circumcision, they're reform which duhhh, but they felt it was something that the person should be able to choose for themselves.

Right now the Jewish community, understandably, is in defensive mode, so slights seem much bigger than they are now.

I'm not going to get in the way of people doing it even if I completely disagree with the practice

>really really really not liking how even the non-religious arguments in favor of it mirror arguments in favor of fgm

ya that's another thing with it, think that's how that one doctor in michigan avoided jail and kept her license

I do wonder why it just pops up with it only being Antisemitic considering it's apparently also required in islam.

We're allowed to disagree with people even if we support them in most everything, nobody is gonna be 100% behind folks on things

you can disagree with aspects of peoples faith or culture and still be friends, more people would do well to remember that

[shaftking]

Basically I’m not against people getting circumcised as a concept im pretty neutral on body mods as a general concept but i am against doing it to infants and children who cannot consent and would not be able to keep that wound clean while it heals risking infection due to it being contaminated by the obvious. If adults want to modify their body for religious or aesthetic reasons they shouldn’t be restricted from doing so, but it’s not like you can reverse the removal of a part of the body like that and it’s been shown to have no actual benefit outside of aesthetics which are subjective anyways.

[loving-n0t-heyting]

I am opposed (vehemently opposed, in fact) to infant circumcision and the mutilation of intersex children, but appealing in these contexts to the sacrosanct “bodily autonomy” of neonates seems… off? To begin with there’s the obvious point they don’t consent to keeping unmutilated genitals either. And if yr drawing a distinction between omission and commission as the salient difference (which many of these ppl are otherwise averse to, as an alleged betrayal of the pro-autonomy spirit), there are plenty of active impositions on the bodies of infants I think almost everyone can get on board with (surgeries for those born with immediately life-threatening defects, eg). In fact christian scientists etc who prohibit such care for their kids are often themselves charged for this very reason with undermining the babies bodily autonomy!!

I don’t think you can really get around the fact you are making decisions on behalf of the newborns. Which is fine, there’s not really an alternative here, as in a billion other contexts. But one should at least be honest about it

[religion-is-a-mental-illness]

The right to bodily integrity, like all human rights, is non negotiable.

It cannot be applied just in-part, or in some areas, or to only certain members of society.

It cannot be superseded by any religious faith, nor by the wish of a parent, women’s preferences, or by cultural expectations.

The right to one’s body, belongs to the individual.

No “ifs” or “buts”, no asterisks, and no compromises.

Much of the modern world has come to understand this when it comes to girls’ bodies, as FGM continues to be criminalised and rightly punished, falling out of favour, and slowly into the history books.

In most countries FGM is universally illegal, no matter the extent, or context.

Even just a prick is forbidden, because really, the extent of violation needn’t matter, if that procedure is being done on an unconsenting baby.

But not for boy babies.

And I don’t care what people say about circumcision’s so-called “medical or hygienic benefits”, because the medical benefits are virtually non-existent, and we don’t cut off body parts to avoid cleaning them.

Do we cut off our head to stop us getting dandruff?

What about lopping off our feet to rid the world of athletes’ foot?

I mean, why not go the whole way, and cut off the whole penis, if you’re not a fan of cleaning it?

The fact is, there are very few good enough reasons to remove half the nerve endings of a baby boy’s penis, as well as its most sensitive parts.

There is no reason to subject a boy to the risk of erectile dysfunction, desensitisation, PTSD, sexually transmitted disease, or even death…

No reason to tie a baby boy’s limbs down, and as he screams, slice away at his penis, without anaesthesia.

Nobody’s first few days of life should be welcomed by that, and no journey of parenthood should begin with child abuse.

So when will we treat circumcision with the same universality as FGM, where we say “no”, regardless of the severity, scale, or context?

When will a boys bodily integrity supersede religious faith?

When will we give our boys the same rights as girls?

When will we ban infant male circumcision?

-

National medical organisations against circumcision: https://circumcision.org/circumcision-policies-of-international-organizations/

--

https://sci-hub.scrongyao.com/10.3149/thy.0401.71

Baby boys can and do succumb as a result of having their foreskin removed. Circumcision-related mortality rates are not known with certainty; this study estimates the scale of this problem. This study finds that approximately 117 neonatal circumcision-related deaths (9.01/100,000) occur annually in the United States, about 1.3% of male neonatal deaths from all causes. Because infant circumcision is elective, all of these deaths are avoidable. This study also identifies reasons why accurate data on these deaths are not available, some of the obstacles to preventing these deaths, and some solutions to overcome them.

[blackwoolncrown]

also while I'm on the subject of cleanliness: I hate that foreskin circumcision is a norrm in the west for 2 main reasons (though I have more):

they do it to babies who can't chose. If you want your prepuce cut off later on once you're actually capable of comprehending the process go for it

the bullshit logic! "It's cleaner" only if you don't wash?????? that is a bathing issue not a surgery issue. every issue irt smegma and whatever that could be said to apply to foreskin inherently applies to labia minora to the exact same degree but ppl don't expect to do genital surgery on (non intersex for that matter) babies, do they?

it's stupid and I've thought it's really fucked up esp since I found out there are whole groups of men who feel horribly violated by the surgery and who try to 'regenerate' their foreskins. I have a lot of other thoughts on the matter but I also think it's notable how violently men who protest infant circumcision are harassed by both men and women.