Some Progressives are refusing to circumcise their children and they are leaving them genderless...

[Glaucus]

...because the baby can't choose to have their private parts cut up, and because the baby can't yet tell us what gender they are.

Consent seems important to them.

And yet I wonder why they don't apply the same logic to vaccinations. After all, the baby can't consent to being poked and filled with substances; they didn't choose.

Why, it's almost as if they know that vaccinations are good for their child, so they choose for them.

 

[blackribbon]

...because the baby can't choose to have their private parts cut up, and because the baby can't yet tell us what gender they are.

Consent seems important to them.

And yet I wonder why they don't apply the same logic to vaccinations. After all, the baby can't consent to being poked and filled with substances; they didn't choose.

Why, it's almost as if they know that vaccinations are good for their child, so they choose for them.

What does circumcision have to do with a baby's gender ? It isn't mandated by God even for Gentiles.

They are both a decision based on benefits versus risk. A parent can authorized or refuse both vaccines and circumcisions.

Why is it important enough that you consider refusing it as abnormal?

 

[SkyWriting]

...because the baby can't choose to have their private parts cut up, and because the baby can't yet tell us what gender they are.

Consent seems important to them.

And yet I wonder why they don't apply the same logic to vaccinations. After all, the baby can't consent to being poked and filled with substances; they didn't choose.

Why, it's almost as if they know that vaccinations are good for their child, so they choose for them.

The vast majority of children have a female or male identity
that matches a clear gender biology. However, the process
does not always work out normally, and occasionally experts
are consulted to help identify why the babies are not normal.

Sex chromosome disorders - Wikipedia

 

[blackribbon]

The vast majority of children have a female or male identity
that matches a clear gender biology. However, the process
does not always work out normally, and occasionally experts
are consulted to help identify why the babies are not normal.

Sex chromosome disorders - Wikipedia

And what does this have to do with whether or not the child is circumcised?

 

[Joshua_5]

...because the baby can't choose to have their private parts cut up, and because the baby can't yet tell us what gender they are.

Consent seems important to them.

What are you saying? If female children were born with foreskins, we would probably have circumcision for females also. But we don't, because females aren't born with an unhygienic piece of excess skin impeding optimal function. We do have a name for Female Genital Mutilation, when barbaric people remove an essential part of the female anatomy, similar to castration of males.

And yet I wonder why they don't apply the same logic to vaccinations. After all, the baby can't consent to being poked and filled with substances; they didn't choose.

Why, it's almost as if they know that vaccinations are good for their child, so they choose for them.

So couldn't it be some parents know circumcision is good for their children, so they choose this? I'm not sure how the decision to circumcise or not means the parents have chosen their child to be genderless.

 

[blackribbon]

A boy is a boy with or without his foreskin. The circumcision or lack of doesn't change a thing about his gender identity.

 

[FireDragon76]

This has to be one of the most bizarre threads ever. It's not even clear to me what Glaucus' point is.

Some people object to the medicalization of normal male sexual anatomy and they have no religious reason to have their child undergo circumcision, so they opt out of the procedure. This is the case in most countries in the world today.

 

[JackRT]

This has to be one of the most bizarre threads ever. It's not even clear to me what Glaucus' point is.

Some people object to the medicalization of normal male sexual anatomy and they have no religious reason to have their child undergo circumcision, so they opt out of the procedure. This is the case in most countries in the world today.

I am still struggling to understand the thread title.

 

[Glaucus]

I think everyone missed what I was saying. I wasn't linking circumcision with gender identity. I'm saying that some Progressives refuse to circumcise their sons because their son has no say in whether or not he wants to have skin cut off his penis, while others are now leaving their children genderless on the birth certificate because the child is not yet able to tell anyone what gender "they" are. However, they do vaccinate, which is hypocritical because, going off their logic of consent, the child cannot say whether it wants to be vaccinated, to be poked with needles and filled with fluids (vaccines).

I support circumcision, vaccinations, and, in my mind, you are either male or female, excluding rare and extraordinary cases of a child being born deformed, both male and female.

However where I stand isn't the point.

They vaccinate - WE vaccinate - because it is good for the child and really all if society. We make a choice in this regard for our children, despite what they can or can't say or consent to, because it is for their good.

It's the same with circumcision. It is for the boy's good that he is vaccinated because it is unsanitary otherwise. It is good for a male to be a male and a female to be a female, not only and just because God made it so, but because leaving your child genderless and confusing them with nonsense from the start, indoctrinating them before knowing whether or not they will have the disordered thoughts of not belonging in their own skin. These people are pushing that from birth now. It is bad for children and society.

So maybe they can stop being hypocrites and thus stop vaccinating their children without their children's consent; or, even better, they can be normal functioning adults and make all the proper choices for their newborn baby.

 

[JackRT]

There is absolutely nothing "unsanitary" about a male being uncircumcised. There are only a few quite rare medical conditions that require it.

 

[FireDragon76]

Experience shows that it isn't wise to necessarily assign intersexed children to one particular sex. Children tend to have their own innate gender identity that will emerge that could be contrary to their assigned sex.

The case of David Reimer is a tragic example of this:
David Reimer - Wikipedia His parents raised him as a girl after a botched circumcision and it lead to psychological problems and a reassertion of his gender identity as male. At the time, some psychologists just assumed that gender was a learned behavior or performative.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I'm glad to see that the assumption wasn't that an uncircumcised male isn't really male. That's how I took the way it was written.

Circumcision aside (it's honestly more cultural than anything - it is possible for an uncircumcised male to be perfectly hygienic) ...

I agree that the vast majority of babies are born either male or female, and their birth records should reflect this. It is abnormal to raise a child with the teaching that simply by wishing or feeling, they can be either male or female. Children of a very young age don't have a strong distinction between fantasy and reality in their minds anyway, and I fear it does them a terrible disservice to strike at something so central to their personal identity as to not give them at least a logical framework. Society already accepts and permits people to be whatever they want - male, female, apparently even a cat or a Buick for crying out loud - so what is gained by not allowing children to have at least a fundamental understanding of being born male or female, when society won't lock them into it anyway?

Maybe we shouldn't be calling them human beings either, based on that logic. Perhaps they will choose to be a mermaid or unicorn.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Experience shows that it isn't wise to necessarily assign intersexed children to one particular sex. Children tend to have their own innate gender identity that will emerge that could be contrary to their assigned sex.

The case of David Reimer is a tragic example of this:
David Reimer - Wikipedia His parents raised him as a girl after a botched circumcision and it lead to psychological problems and a reassertion of his gender identity as male. At the time, some psychologists just assumed that gender was a learned behavior or performative.

By the way, I agree. A botched circumcision didn't turn that child into a girl.

I was taught that nonsense in academia too - that all gender identity was a learned social construct. Having children and being around children taught me that wasn't true (strangers always treated my daughter as a boy because she was bald until she was past 2, and she wore practical clothing most of the time - not frilly dresses and I never glued a bow to her head). She still was very much a girl from an early age.

 

[FireDragon76]

There have been other cases like that too, usually involving intersexed children. That's why alot of intersex activists groups emphasize just letting children figure out on their own who they are.

 

[TerryWoodenpic]

We are born with a physical gender. which is acknowledged on our birth certificates.
There are rare cases where the exact Physical gender is indeterminate. Up to recent times a choice had to be made between male and female.

Sexual or Gender identity is totally different and I would suggest totally unpredictable... even though the Physical Gender is in most cases accepted as the norm.
Contra gender identification appears to develop at a very young age and is poorly understood, it is generally understood to be irreversible.

Male and female Circumcision are totally unnecessary, and are a form of mutilation that became acceptable in some societies for males, but fortunately very few find it acceptable for females.

The USA is one of the few advanced countries that circumcises males as a social norm,
even there, it is decreasing year on year.

 

[~Anastasia~]

There have been other cases like that too, usually involving intersexed children. That's why alot of intersex activists groups emphasize just letting children figure out on their own who they are.

I would agree if there is a physical and genetic reason that make it impossible to determine the sex of the child, that in those rare cases it is acceptable to wait and see.

But the vast majority are born either physically male or female, and there is no benefit to confounding the issue with physical/genetic abnormalities with issues such as social tendencies to encourage "fluidity" and use these as a basis to deny a child's physical sex at birth.

I think this is what is being done. Throw in as many issues as you can and make it all seem confusing. When really it's not. Most times you can look at a newborn and know that it's a boy or a girl. This is a physical fact and ought not be obscured.

 

[blackribbon]

I think everyone missed what I was saying. I wasn't linking circumcision with gender identity. I'm saying that some Progressives refuse to circumcise their sons because their son has no say in whether or not he wants to have skin cut off his penis, while others are now leaving their children genderless on the birth certificate because the child is not yet able to tell anyone what gender "they" are. However, they do vaccinate, which is hypocritical because, going off their logic of consent, the child cannot say whether it wants to be vaccinated, to be poked with needles and filled with fluids (vaccines).

I support circumcision, vaccinations, and, in my mind, you are either male or female, excluding rare and extraordinary cases of a child being born deformed, both male and female.

However where I stand isn't the point.

They vaccinate - WE vaccinate - because it is good for the child and really all if society. We make a choice in this regard for our children, despite what they can or can't say or consent to, because it is for their good.

It's the same with circumcision. It is for the boy's good that he is vaccinated because it is unsanitary otherwise. It is good for a male to be a male and a female to be a female, not only and just because God made it so, but because leaving your child genderless and confusing them with nonsense from the start, indoctrinating them before knowing whether or not they will have the disordered thoughts of not belonging in their own skin. These people are pushing that from birth now. It is bad for children and society.

So maybe they can stop being hypocrites and thus stop vaccinating their children without their children's consent; or, even better, they can be normal functioning adults and make all the proper choices for their newborn baby.

Actually, a lot of people opt out of vaccinations too. I respect any parent that has put thought and research into their baby's health choices. However, the vast majority either just go with the flow and do what everyone else. There are a few who don't really put that much thought into their against the flow but just want to be against the flow. I am not sure what it hurts in the long run if you left the gender blank for a period of time but at the moment, I don't think anyone has that option in the US. It will require the parent then to jump through a lot of hoops and red tape to get it completed outside the hospital. Most people will just go with the flow, like they do with circs and vaccines. It is easier and there is research to back up those options.

 

[Glaucus]

Side note: This all sounded great in my head, and still does, I just cannot articulate it the way I want to, at all.

 

[blackribbon]

Side note: This all sounded great in my head, and still does, I just cannot articulate it the way I want to, at all.

The hardest point to understand about your post is that many people do exercise their right to make vaccine decisions...probably at least as many as those that don't choice circumcisions (actually, the "choice" is really TO circumcise and it requires a consent form). And right now, gender isn't an optional choice on a birth certificate.

 

[TerryWoodenpic]

Is circumcision Free in the Usa?
Why would any one want to pay for it..?
It is free in the uk but hardly any one has it done. Nor is it recommended very often.
Most Gp's do not even know how to do it. They have not been taught how.

We had a Jewish doctor in the 60's and not even he recommended it for our son.