ephemera

December 2, 2012

ephemera: macaroni-overlord: colchoneria: macaroni-overlord: You guys know…

macaroni-overlord:

colchoneria:

macaroni-overlord:

You guys know what’s not okay? Slut shaming, routine infant circumcision, use of ableist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic/racist language, body shaming, rape jokes, victim blaming, claiming friendzoning is real, and ya know,…

Actually, circumcision is not “cutting the genitals off” - it’s removing a flap of skin that the kid does not exactly need, and in the way that is least painful. (And, actually, waiting until a kid is older means that the procedure will probably be more painful.) There are health reasons to do it, too (e.g. reducing STD risks later in life).

This is a pretty well-balanced article on the issue: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/27/science/benefits-of-circumcision-outweigh-risks-pediatric-group-says.html

Well, first, let’s point out that you blatantly misquoted me in an attempt to make your argument sound better. What I said was “cutting the genitals of children”, not “cutting the genitals off children”. My foreskin is part of my genitals; as the owner of said junk, I’m not willing to hear arguments to the contrary.

Also, you may not be aware, but those supposed “health benefits” are pretty much matched by practicing basic hygiene. In other words, you could cut part of your child’s penis, or you could teach him to wash himself. There’s an obvious moral gradient between these two choices. Not to mention the fact that the evidence for those health benefits isn’t actually all that strong.

More basically, if you think a parent has the ethical and moral right to order unnecessary medical procedures performed on their child who is unable to consent, I think you’re fundamentally missing the basic goal of most of western law—that is, protecting those who have no voice and few rights from those who have both. Should your parents be able to remove parts of your body for dubious and marginal health benefits that mask the actual reason (i.e., centuries-old cult beliefs)? No; that’s obviously idiotic. The same principal applies here.

But here’s what I don’t get: why in the name of all that’s sane and sacred would you advocate for this? The ultimate breakdown of what’s happening in circumcision is that adults are unnecessarily removing part of an infant’s genitals in a non-consented procedure that can lead in some cases to shock or, in the case of botched circumcisions, to the unnecessary and violent amputation of the penis.

What possible acceptable reason could you have for saying, “Yes, this is a good idea”? You wouldn’t be okay with it if massive numbers of people in the US suddenly started having their daughters’ clitoral hoods removed for no valid medical reason shortly after birth; why are you okay with this?

9:34am | URL: http://tmblr.co/ZnopayYVDV2A

(Notes: 13)