this post was submitted on 18 Feb 2026
276 points (96.9% liked)
A Boring Dystopia
16369 readers
436 users here now
Pictures, Videos, Articles showing just how boring it is to live in a dystopic society, or with signs of a dystopic society.
Rules (Subject to Change)
--Be a Decent Human Being
--Posting news articles: include the source name and exact title from article in your post title
--If a picture is just a screenshot of an article, link the article
--If a video's content isn't clear from title, write a short summary so people know what it's about.
--Posts must have something to do with the topic
--Zero tolerance for Racism/Sexism/Ableism/etc.
--No NSFW content
--Abide by the rules of lemmy.world
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Good thing we only mutilate boys' genitals.
It's still shocking to me how most Americans consider genital mutilation a normal thing. My European mind can't comprehend.
If it shocks you farther, it's just a little check box when you have a baby boy. Just a little bit of the paperwork before discharge. You don't even have to be there, and it's "free". Very strange, all things considered.
Free? Free?!! In a hospital, in the U S of A?!!! Ok now I'm really shocked.
It's not free. It costs hundreds of dollars. The user above may have had it covered by insurance, but that's a different thing. Entirely NOT free
Oh, phew. I was worried for a minute there.
Well, it's "free" under insurance, yes. The bigger thing is that it's covered under every insurance and I think Medicaid, the public assistance healthcare. Not that it's all that expensive when a birth is like, tens of thousands of dollars sometimes.
I've never met anyone who paid for it, though. I wouldn't be surprised if it was in law that you had to cover it (while shit like birth control is still debated).
Insurance gets charged if it is done, but a friend told me there is no actual charge to the parents. She said there was a lot of pushback about not getting it done and that was one of their "selling points" when she said she wasn't going to pay for it. Seems like fraud of some kind.
I mean, if insurance fully covers it, then the parents don't get charged. That's not fraud. That's just how that works. It's weird the hospital was so pushy about it though
"Now that your son is born, would you also like us to cut off a bit of his penis? It's only $500 if you have a coupon!"
If it's done while inpatient it is covered by most insurances as part of labor and delivery. When you are discharged for the hospital it would be considered cosmetic surgery.
I watched my little boy like a hawk so they wouldn't "accidentally" whisk him away and mutilate him.
Do you get to keep the leftovers?
Ooooofff.....
I'm gonna let it slide, but I'm watching you.
Nah... they let you keep the placenta, sure, but the doc gets to keep the foreskin for their special baby skin leather doctor's coats.
My mutilated american dick thanks you for your concern 😔
Thank you for mentioning this. I don't even have that set of equipment, and it boggles my mind that this is normal and acceptable to anyone. Even using religion as a reason just seems ridiculous. Why the hell would you ever cause that much physical pain to a child for a cosmetic procedure?
"Oh, they're transing the kids!" Fucker, you asked your doctor to cut off part of your son's junk before he even developed the capacity to lift his own head. Shut the fuck up.
Haha, oh honey circumcision may be the most common genital mutilation procedure, but wait til you learn how those transphobic motherfuckers write exceptions for coercive intersex surgeries into their anti trans laws.
Really can't be overstated how different "female circumcision" is from the male version.
Like comparing ear piercings to ear cropping.
Saying they're the same is bad but comparing circumcision to ear piercing is even worse. Piercings heal, that foreskin is gone forever.
Speak for yourself. My dad gave me mine on my 18th birthday and i planted it in the garden.
You sprout some wood?
So do you think the mild forms of FGM should be allowed because those are pretty comparable to the male one? Personally I think both should be banned.
I think banning circumcision runs you into many of the same problems that are encountered with banning abortion or gender transition. Or tattoos and ear piercings, for that matter. Or drinking.
You can scare physicians/professionals into refusing to perform it. But then you deal with all the amateurs and their consequences.
Gender transition and abortion are also illegal to do without consent
They're illegal to do with consent.
Depends where, they are legal with consent in most western countries.
I think the point is that it's not a great comparison because the main argument against circumcision is that it's permanent and babies can't consent to it, I don't think many people try to say that no one should ever be allowed to get a circumcision.
Parents make a whole host of medical decisions for their kids that they don't formally consent to.
Just pounding on consent gets you in the same circle as the anti-vaxers
I see a desire to make false equivalency between two very different procedures, because they both have "circumcision" in the name.
Frankly I somewhat sympathize with those people because physical/medical autonomy is a topic that deserves respect. The only reason ignoring their choices is justified is because vaccines vault over a high bar of being important for public health and avoiding the clear and significant harm of disease. Also because that's again choices parents are making on behalf of their children in defiance of what is medically justifiable.
They aren't equivalent, but the difference is severity of harm, not the type of harm. Both procedures are intended and have the effect of inhibiting normal sexual function. If you want to only argue against FGM and draw the line at supporting a circumcision ban, that's fine because the former is especially horrible and deserves special attention, I just think most arguments for this position are a little bit incoherent.
They should both be banned
Please elaborate on how Type IIa (by World Health Organization standards) differs so greatly. e: Also, why comparison is even relevant here.
:-/
Hmm, since prepuce (foreskin) is a hairless, highly-sensitive cutaneous fold covering and protecting the glans, why is it okay to remove one, but not the other? Or, since they derive from the same zygotic tissue and are homologous, why is it not okay to excise the clitoral hood?
I keep asking these questions, and nobody ever has a good answer, and the only difference that I can divine is that one is okay because it's done to boys.
I don't think it is good, but idk if it should be banned. A lot of guys seem ok with it?
If it should be banned, there needs to be a public education push about why.
Guys are okay with what? Removing foreskin, or removing the clitoral hood?
Neither. OK with the fact that their own foreskin was removed. I'm not one of them.