This poll is to try to determine what relationship exists between people's views of (male) circumcision and trans puberty blockers in children. Two different issues, but issues with similarities. Obviously circumcision in children is usually done at birth, whereas puberty blockers in trans children might begin at age 11 or 13.
Puberty blockers can cause far too many irreversible problems in children too young to consent or understand the ramifications of the choice. Gender changes of any kind should only be allowed once a person reaches age 18(or whatever the age of "adulthood" is in their state if it's different).
It’s interesting to see the number of people that believe one body mutilation is fine without consent (likely because it is “normal” but another type where the child has an opinion but cannot consent isn’t ok.
FTR, I voted that NEITHER should be allowed. Circumcision is an abomination (as are puberty blockers).
Im opposed to male child circumcision, but I dont think it needs to be banned. More folks just need to know what it doesnt do (have any hyegenic benefits at all) and what it can do (sexual and erectile dysfunction). If they did know, almost no one would do it. The risks, while rare, far outweigh the benefits, which by most accounts are none. Female child circumcision is quite a bit worse. Its almost certain to have permanant detrimental effects as thats precisely what its intended to do- decrease sexual pleasure to make women more 'loyal' wives. Thats evil and abusive. Hormone treatments should be considered child abuse if the child isn't being treated for a life-threatenning condition.
That's not true at all. Perhaps you need to look up the circumcision rates in the U.S., Canada, and Australia.
In most of the world, sure. In the US, we still circumsize a little over half of our boys... Products - Health E Stats - Trends in Circumcision Among Male Newborns Born in U.S. Hospitals: 1979–2010 (cdc.gov) ...stupid Americans.
They're low in Canada and Australia (just as they are in Europe, and most of Asia). It seems the US is the only anachronism, being about 30 years behind.
No, you are wrong. Here are the statistics: U.S. - more than half of newborn babies are still being circumcised Australia - about 20 percent of newborn babies are being circumcised, and the percentage of much older Australians who were circumcised is as high as 80 percent Canada - 32 percent of newborn babies are being circumcised
Are you serious? You can't think of a reason why it would be a political issue? Um, maybe because sometimes government passes laws to protect children?
Of course those aged over 70 are more likely to be circumcised. That's because it was once like America. We're decades past that point now.
Circumcision is therapeutic. The US is right on this, though probably for the wrong (cultural) reasons. Circumcision - Wikipedia "There is strong evidence that circumcision reduces the risk of men acquiring HIV infection in areas of the world with high rates of HIV. This evidence is principally derived from three randomized controlled studies conducted in Africa in 2002.[19][69] Evidence among heterosexual men in sub-Saharan Africa shows an absolute decrease in risk of 1.8% which is a relative decrease of between 38% and 66% over two years,[19] and in this population studies rate it cost-effective.[70] Whether it is of benefit in developed countries is undetermined.[15]... Circumcision is associated with a reduced prevalence of oncogenic types of HPV infection, meaning that a randomly selected circumcised man is less likely to be found infected with cancer-causing types of HPV than an uncircumcised man.[76][77] It also decreases the likelihood of multiple infections.[12] As of 2012 there was no strong evidence that it reduces the rate of new HPV infection,[13][12][78] but the procedure is associated with increased clearance of the virus by the body,[13][12] which can account for the finding of reduced prevalence.[12]... Studies evaluating the effect of circumcision on the rates of other sexually transmitted infections have generally, found it to be protective. A 2006 meta-analysis found that circumcision was associated with lower rates of syphilis, chancroid and possibly genital herpes.[79] A 2010 review found that circumcision reduced the incidence of HSV-2 (herpes simplex virus, type 2) infections by 28%.[80] The researchers found mixed results for protection against trichomonas vaginalis and chlamydia trachomatis, and no evidence of protection against gonorrhea or syphilis.[80] It may also possibly protect against syphilis in MSM.[81]... Circumcision has a protective effect against the risks of penile cancer in men, and cervical cancer in the female sexual partners of heterosexual men... Circumcision does not affect sexual function, sensation, desire, or pleasure.[99][100][101][102][103][104] ... Severe complications are rare.[86] A specific complication rate is difficult to determine due to scant data on complications and inconsistencies in their classification.[3] Complication rates are greater when the procedure is performed by an inexperienced operator, in unsterile conditions, or when the child is at an older age.[21] Significant acute complications happen rarely,[3][21] occurring in about 1 in 500 newborn procedures in the United States.[3] Severe to catastrophic complications, including death, are so rare that they are reported only as individual case reports.[3][109] "
Some people can make a distinction between a trivial body modification and a highly damaging drug regimen. But not everybody, apparently.
I never said there was not a distinction but thank you for the strawmen. So you believe some mutilation is ok?
I don’t think children should be altered unless it is a last resort or dire need. That includes mutilating the foreskin.
And many medical professionals agree that puberty blockers are bad news, including the medical establishments of Sweden and Britain.
No clue. I disagree with placing children on hormone blockers as a general practice but I am also not a doctor or psychologist.