• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Lets outlaw elective circumcision?

Mithrae

DP Veteran
Joined
Sep 15, 2013
Messages
8,230
Reaction score
4,065
Location
Australia
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Liberal
But let's do this

Lets outlaw circumcision.

Fine with me.

Why, you ask?

Simply to 'justify' discrimination against young trans people in terms of medical treatment options. There's an obvious and blatant hypocrisy between being okay with the unnecessary and nonconsentual disfigurement of babies' penises (with a ~10% regret rate among the still ~55% of American boys being circumcized), while being opposed to teenagers' right to make a necessary and informed decision on which development hormones to risk (with a ~1% regret rate among the ~1% of people who eventually undergo gender reassignment).

How much say parents should have in elective and necessary medical decisions for their children is a more nuanced discussion: But unless they have previously and even more strenuously advocated something similar against circumcision, advocates of blanket legislation restricting treatment options for transgender youth (rather than leaving that decision to the patients and their doctors under guidelines of the broader medical community) are obviously using 'protect the children' as a flimsy smokescreen for their own personal prejudices.

The rest of us knew this already, of course: But perhaps this contrast can be taken as an opportunity for some advocates against trans rights to reflect on their assumptions about 'normal' or 'acceptable' practices and why it is only transgender treatment options which have become the subject of such political acrimony.
 
Why, you ask?

Simply to 'justify' discrimination against young trans people in terms of medical treatment options. There's an obvious and blatant hypocrisy between being okay with the unnecessary and nonconsentual disfigurement of babies' penises (with a ~10% regret rate among the still ~55% of American boys circumcized), while being opposed to teenagers' right to make a necessary and informed decision on which development hormones to risk (with a ~1% regret rate among the ~1% of people who undergo gender reassignment).

How much say parents should have in elective and necessary medical decisions for their children is a more nuanced discussion: But unless they have previously and even more strenuously advocated something similar against circumcision, advocates of blanket legislation restricting treatment options for transgender youth (rather than leaving that decision to the patients and their doctors under guidelines of the broader medical community) are obviously using 'protect the children' as a flimsy smokescreen for their own personal prejudices.

The rest of us knew this already, of course: But perhaps this contrast can be taken as an opportunity for some advocates against trans rights to reflect on their assumptions about 'normal' or 'acceptable' practices and why it is only transgender treatment options which have become the subject of such political acrimony.
You got what you wanted.


Now my support for these laws can not be questioned
 
Why, you ask?

Simply to 'justify' discrimination against young trans people in terms of medical treatment options. There's an obvious and blatant hypocrisy between being okay with the unnecessary and nonconsentual disfigurement of babies' penises (with a ~10% regret rate among the still ~55% of American boys circumcized), while being opposed to teenagers' right to make a necessary and informed decision on which development hormones to risk (with a ~1% regret rate among the ~1% of people who undergo gender reassignment).

How much say parents should have in elective and necessary medical decisions for their children is a more nuanced discussion: But unless they have previously and even more strenuously advocated something similar against circumcision, advocates of blanket legislation restricting treatment options for transgender youth (rather than leaving that decision to the patients and their doctors under guidelines of the broader medical community) are obviously using 'protect the children' as a flimsy smokescreen for their own personal prejudices.

The rest of us knew this already, of course: But perhaps this contrast can be taken as an opportunity for some advocates against trans rights to reflect on their assumptions about 'normal' or 'acceptable' practices and why it is only transgender treatment options which have become the subject of such political acrimony.

Underage circumcision is mutilation and should be forbidden for anyone under 18.

Gender confirmation surgery should only be done in cases where the trans person has had years of compassionate, evidence-based counseling and is ready beyond any shadow of a doubt to undergo it. It is not mine to say what age that should be, neither is it the transphobes who haven't the slightest interest in trans people's well-being.
 
Underage circumcision is mutilation and should be forbidden for anyone under 18.

Gender confirmation surgery should only be done in cases where the trans person has had years of compassionate, evidence-based counseling and is ready beyond any shadow of a doubt to undergo it. It is not mine to say what age that should be, neither is it the transphobes who haven't the slightest interest in trans people's well-being.
Wow. A child cant have a small piece of skin removed from his penis but he can get it chopped off?



Priceless
 
Why, you ask?

Simply to 'justify' discrimination against young trans people in terms of medical treatment options. There's an obvious and blatant hypocrisy between being okay with the unnecessary and nonconsentual disfigurement of babies' penises (with a ~10% regret rate among the still ~55% of American boys being circumcized), while being opposed to teenagers' right to make a necessary and informed decision on which development hormones to risk (with a ~1% regret rate among the ~1% of people who eventually undergo gender reassignment).

How much say parents should have in elective and necessary medical decisions for their children is a more nuanced discussion: But unless they have previously and even more strenuously advocated something similar against circumcision, advocates of blanket legislation restricting treatment options for transgender youth (rather than leaving that decision to the patients and their doctors under guidelines of the broader medical community) are obviously using 'protect the children' as a flimsy smokescreen for their own personal prejudices.

The rest of us knew this already, of course: But perhaps this contrast can be taken as an opportunity for some advocates against trans rights to reflect on their assumptions about 'normal' or 'acceptable' practices and why it is only transgender treatment options which have become the subject of such political acrimony.

Circumcisions are no way in hell the same as gender assignment and you know it.

Parents have every right to determine their children's sexual state until they are legally old enough to decide on their own.

I would love to see you post some sexual reassignment regret stories.

I doubt that you have the courage to.
 
Underage circumcision is mutilation and should be forbidden for anyone under 18.
To be fair, mine was for medical reasons when I was five. There's also the consideration that it's a longstanding religious requirement for some folk, originally based on environmental practicalities. And while a 10% regret rate is significant, it's not particularly high. I wouldn't advocate outlawing even elective circumcisions - mainly because the medical side is borderline enough that the religious thing carries weight - though there's a case to be made for encouraging parents against it.

Gender confirmation surgery should only be done in cases where the trans person has had years of compassionate, evidence-based counseling and is ready beyond any shadow of a doubt to undergo it. It is not mine to say what age that should be, neither is it the transphobes who haven't the slightest interest in trans people's well-being.
That seems to be the generally accepted medical guidance: Social transitioning for young trans kids, puberty blockers after the onset of puberty for those who are still experiencing gender incongruence, hormone replacement therapy starting a few years after that if still desired and finally the option for surgical treatment as adults. Unsurprisingly, the medical community seems to be favouring the lowest-impact, lowest-risk treatment progression.
 
Circumcisions are no way in hell the same as gender assignment and you know it.

Parents have every right to determine their children's sexual state until they are legally old enough to decide on their own.

I would love to see you post some sexual reassignment regret stories.

I doubt that you have the courage to.
so parents can get that gender re-assignment surgery for their child. parents on board, its all good to go?
 
Circumcisions are no way in hell the same as gender assignment and you know it.
I did highlight some key differences: Circumcisions are generally unnecessary and nonconsentual, whereas treatment for trans teens (puberty blockers and eventually hormone therapy if still desired) involves the necessary decision of which development hormones to use/risk - those produced by their body or those more in line with their experienced gender - made by the patients themselves with doctors' advice.

Parents have every right to determine their children's sexual state until they are legally old enough to decide on their own.
So you support medical treatment for trans teens with their parent's approval? And even without their parent's approval if the law determines they can make that decision on their own?

I would love to see you post some sexual reassignment regret stories.

I doubt that you have the courage to.
Talking about 'courage' might look a little more impressive if you had taken the initiative to first do this 'scary' thing that you're demanding from others, such as posting the story of a successfully transitioned adult whose attempts to get treatment as a child were blocked... or the story of a person whose attempts to get treatment were blocked and ended up succumbing to depression and suicide as a result.
 
I did highlight some key differences: Circumcisions are generally unnecessary and nonconsentual, whereas treatment for trans teens (puberty blockers and eventually hormone therapy if still desired) involves the necessary decision of which development hormones to use/risk - those produced by their body or those more in line with their experienced gender - made by the patients themselves with doctors' advice.


So you support medical treatment for trans teens with their parent's approval? And even without their parent's approval if the law determines they can make that decision on their own?


Talking about 'courage' might look a little more impressive if you had taken the initiative to first do this 'scary' thing that you're demanding from others, such as posting the story of a successfully transitioned adult whose attempts to get treatment as a child were blocked... or the story of a person whose attempts to get treatment were blocked and ended up succumbing to depression and suicide as a result.
Children, even teens, can not give informed consent
 
Children, even teens, can not give informed consent
If so then they can't consent to the developmental hormones produced by their body either. Heck, they never consented to being brought into the world in the first place... maybe you should advocate outlawing not only circumcision, but procreation itself! If not, if we're going to bring them into the world without their consent, we can at least allow them as much choice as reasonable as they grow up - which obviously includes the choice of which developmental hormones to use, if they express concern on the subject.
 
If so then they can't consent to the developmental hormones produced by their body either. Heck, they never consented to being brought into the world in the first place... maybe you should advocate outlawing not only circumcision, but procreation itself!
You dont know what medical informed consent is....do you? Lol
 
Let's outlaw your interference in my family's life. If you want to change your child's sex? I don't care.

But you're not going to change MY child's sex against my wishes, behind my back, or without my consent.
 
Children, even teens, can not give informed consent
You dont know what medical informed consent is....do you? Lol
Evidently you do not.

The mature minor doctrine is a rule of law found in the United States and Canada accepting that an unemancipated minor patient may possess the maturity to choose or reject a particular health care treatment, sometimes without the knowledge or agreement of parents, and should be permitted to do so.[1] . . . .
Jurisdictions may codify an age of medical consent, accept the judgment of licensed providers regarding an individual minor, or accept a formal court decision following a request that a patient be designated a mature minor, or may rely on some combination. For example, patients at least 16 may be assumed to be mature minors for this purpose,[3] patients aged 13 to 15 may be designated so by licensed providers, and pre-teen patients may be so-designated after evaluation by an agency or court. The mature minor doctrine is sometimes connected with enforcing confidentiality of minor patients from their parents.[4]

Gillick competence is a term originating in England and Wales and is used in medical law to decide whether a child (under 16 years of age) is able to consent to their own medical treatment, without the need for parental permission or knowledge.
The standard is based on the 1985 judicial decision of the House of Lords with respect to a case of the contraception advice given by an NHS doctor in Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority.[1] The case is binding in England and Wales, and has been adopted to varying extents in Australia, Canada, and New Zealand.[2][3] . . . .

As a matter of law the parental right to determine whether or not their minor child below the age of sixteen will have medical treatment terminates if and when the child achieves sufficient understanding and intelligence to understand fully what is proposed. — Lord Scarman[1]

Of particular interest - since they seem a little extreme - as of 2013:
By statute, Alaska provides that minors regardless of age are able lawfully to consent to medical treatment when their parent is either unavailable or unwilling to consent. Ak. Stat. Ann. 25.20.025

By statute, Delaware provides that minors regardless of age are able lawfully to consent to medical treatment where reasonable efforts have been made first to obtain parental consent. De. Stat. Ann. 707(b)(5)

By statute and opinion of the state’s attorney general, Louisiana allows any minor to consent to any treatment she or he believes to be necessary. La. Stat. Ann. 40:1095; 76 Op. Att’y Gen. 454 (Mar. 30, 1976)

Perhaps the reasoning in those "regardless of age" cases was that if the child (regardless of capacity) agreed to the treatment and the doctor as an informed, responsible adult considered it appropriate, allowing it to be blocked by a generally less-informed parent against their child's wishes would be ethically dubious? Subject to the doctor still being liable for malpractice if the treatment really wasn't in the child's best interests and hence a reasonable presumption of good faith on their part, there's a case to be made that even those extreme-looking statutes are not entirely unreasonable. Still, it would seem safer to have more moderate standards such as a refutable presumption requiring parental consent for preteens, and statutory requirement for the doctor to ascertain the mental competence of teenagers and affirm the unreasonableness of acquiring parental consent.

On the other hand, your apparent belief that under-18s have no capacity to give informed consent is even more extreme and absurd than those "regardless of age" statutes! Kids are not property or animals or slaves. The right to self-determination is not based on an IQ test, it's based on the ability and desire to choose - even poorly - and should be limited as little as possible. Allowing medical consent to teenagers isn't going to destroy society or drastically increase crime or disease or death rates (more likely the opposite), so it seems that most jurisdictions have wisely recognized that it's not an area where self-determination rights should be unilaterally abridged.
 
Last edited:
Evidently you do not.

The mature minor doctrine is a rule of law found in the United States and Canada accepting that an unemancipated minor patient may possess the maturity to choose or reject a particular health care treatment, sometimes without the knowledge or agreement of parents, and should be permitted to do so.[1] . . . .
Jurisdictions may codify an age of medical consent, accept the judgment of licensed providers regarding an individual minor, or accept a formal court decision following a request that a patient be designated a mature minor, or may rely on some combination. For example, patients at least 16 may be assumed to be mature minors for this purpose,[3] patients aged 13 to 15 may be designated so by licensed providers, and pre-teen patients may be so-designated after evaluation by an agency or court. The mature minor doctrine is sometimes connected with enforcing confidentiality of minor patients from their parents.[4]

Gillick competence is a term originating in England and Wales and is used in medical law to decide whether a child (under 16 years of age) is able to consent to their own medical treatment, without the need for parental permission or knowledge.
The standard is based on the 1985 judicial decision of the House of Lords with respect to a case of the contraception advice given by an NHS doctor in Gillick v West Norfolk and Wisbech Area Health Authority.[1] The case is binding in England and Wales, and has been adopted to varying extents in Australia, Canada, and New Zealand.[2][3] . . . .

As a matter of law the parental right to determine whether or not their minor child below the age of sixteen will have medical treatment terminates if and when the child achieves sufficient understanding and intelligence to understand fully what is proposed. — Lord Scarman[1]

Of particular interest - since they seem a little extreme - as of 2013:


Perhaps the reasoning in those "regardless of age" cases was that if the child (regardless of capacity) agreed to the treatment and the doctor as an informed, responsible adult considered it appropriate, allowing it to be blocked by a generally less-informed parent against their child's wishes would be ethically dubious? Subject to the doctor still being liable for malpractice if the treatment really wasn't in the child's best interests and hence a reasonable presumption of good faith on their part, there's a case to be made that even those extreme-looking statutes are not entirely unreasonable. Still, it would seem safer to have more moderate standards such as a refutable presumption requiring parental consent for preteens and statutory requirement for the doctor to ascertain the mental competence of teenagers and affirm the unreasonableness of acquiring parental consent.

On the other hand, your apparent belief that under-18s have no capacity to give informed consent is even more extreme and absurd than those "regardless of age" statutes! Kids are not property or animals or slaves. The right to self-determination is not based on an IQ test, it's based on the ability and desire to choose - even poorly - and should be limited as little as possible. Allowing medical consent to teenagers isn't going to destroy society or drastically increase crime or disease or death rates (more likely the opposite), so it seems that most jurisdictions have wisely recognized that it's not an area where self-determination rights should be unilaterally abridged.
You need a court order for that. You can do whatever you want with a court order. But without one a child may not give informed consent
 
You need a court order for that. You can do whatever you want with a court order. But without one a child may not give informed consent
Jesus, I hadn't even finished my first proof-read. Less than two minutes: As usual, you're just spouting ignorant one-liners off the top of your head... and are obviously and specifically proven to be wrong by what I just posted.
 
Jesus, I hadn't even finished my first proof-read. Less than two minutes: As usual, you're just spouting ignorant one-liners off the top of your head... and are obviously and specifically proven to be wrong by what I just posted.
Jesus read my post and tell me it is inaccurate


I guess I just read faster than you
 
Informed consent means I can get a full body tattoo and no one in government can stop me


Children can not give such consent
 
Back
Top Bottom