this post was submitted on 01 Jan 2026
222 points (99.6% liked)
World News
1130 readers
732 users here now
Rules:
Be a decent person, don't post hate.
Other Great Communities:
Rules
Be excellent to each other
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Intersex infants having surgeries forced upon them is morally wrong.
I am curious now, what is usually done in this case?
The doctor forces down vuvloplasty and calls the baby a girl because people are afraid of unique plumbing.
They essentially flip a coin and then go with one.
I guess you also disagree with doing any surgery on infants, for the same reason?
Here we go with the intentional misunderstanding. Stop mutilating the private parts of infants.
Talk about "intentional misunderstanding", when you're the one repeating white nationalist talking points used to promote anti-immigration policies in the EU.
Let me guess if someone critiques states persecuting women for having lifesaving abortions “that’s bigotry too”
Those are some mighty self-righteous words for somebody who advocates chopping off clitorises.
Nice false equivalence. I'm not talking about female circumcision.
You may not want to, but you are.
Umm, no. Female circumcision is nowhere near the same thing. If you think it is, then you should really do some more homework on the subject. But I suspect you don't actually care about the differences.
You're the one defending it.
Stop being a bigot, it's their culture after all.
Unnecessary procedures to mutilate the body are morally and ethically wrong regardless of the age of the patient.
For fucks sake. How on earth can you be in defense of this abuse? Please, explain why you support this.
Are you even aware of how common foreskin infections are among young boys? What you call an "unnecessary procedure" is considered a preventative measure for millions of fathers around the world. Why would you choose to risk your son's health and well-being, when a simple procedure at birth can effectively remove that risk entirely?
Read up
Like getting ears pierced?
Ears are predominantly pierced when age of consent is reached and no place will do it without that consent.
Parents doing this to their children without consent- are abusing their children.
So in a way, yeah- like ears being pierced.
Additionally, pieced ears heal back if left alone. Circumcision is permanent mutilation.
Man I love blowing up false equivalency fallacies! Thanks for this!
Not from what I've seen in n America - most girls under 16 already have their ears pierced. And such ear mutilation of girls without their ability to consent seems to be culturally fine.
Of course the two situations aren't identical, that's how analogies work and it's still a useful part of critical thinking.
The point is that it's not quite as black and white as many people think. If these boys at 16 want their diicks cut and it's part of their culture and done properly, I'm not going to say it's bad. Obviously in the case of this article, it was not done right. Circumcision just after birth is a separate issue; but I'm not particularly against it having had it done to me and not feeling that I am lacking anything as a result.
We’re going to agree to disagree on this.