I'm saying all people with penises getting circumcised in the US may have saved some people financial hardship latter in life. I have no frame of reference to what I'm missing, so it probably isn't as hard to think this for me.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

We should cut off everyone's hands so they don't develop arthritis.

[–] ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

I think it would be more analogous to say cutting off part of the skin off the tips of our fingers to prevent arthritis, not that that would work. Like arthritis, balanitis mostly causes discomfort and not death. edit: typo

https://www.vinmec.com/en/news/health-news/complications-of-balanitis-of-the-penis/

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 0 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Usually, balanitis is not too serious.

lol fuck off

EDIT Okay, imagine that if you cut off the tip of your tongue you can never get the stomach flu. Would you do it?

Would you do it to a baby?

[–] ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

For reference, I'm circumcised. I don't remember it. I doubt very few if any people actually remember their circumcision as a baby. Not saying circumcision is super great or something. But the US spent the last 100 years, and counting, doing it to people, so we might as well learn about it from a cost benefit angle with all the data we have. Whether or not anyone actually benefited from the practice seems like a worthwhile question to answer with data.

Stomach Flu is an interesting one. Here are some stats for Norovirus which causes stomach flu.

https://www.cdc.gov/norovirus/burden.html#:~:text=1%20in%20110%2C000%20will%20die,go%20to%20the%20emergency%20department

Norovirus does kill some people every year. I'm not sure what the threshold is for us all to cut off the tips of our tongues, but I'm guessing it's greater than 900 people dying per year. I think it stands to reason if the mortality rate was high enough and cutting off the tips of our tongues saved a sizable portion of those people who would otherwise die, then people might do that to themselves, even babies. I guess it comes down to how we value our bodies and what is worth giving up for the sake of other people.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

Yikes.

Actually! I've been having a different argument and I think your input would be interesting.

What do you think about inoculating babies with an alpha gal allergy so they grow up allergic to red meat? Red meat has many health and environmental and humane costs, so there would certainly be a societal benefit if no one consumed it. Surely there'd be no problem with taking that choice away from babies before they're old enough to even remember it!

[–] ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I had to read up on what alpha gal allergy is and what causes it normally.

https://www.cdc.gov/ticks/alpha-gal/index.html

https://www.garvan.org.au/news-events/news/genetic-and-molecular-insights-into-dangerous-tick-bite-related-meat-allergy-revealed

I also read about red meat and the various issues associated with red meat consumption. This included the nutritional benefits.

https://www.diabetes.co.uk/food/red-meat.html

https://sentientmedia.org/why-is-eating-meat-bad-for-the-environment/

What do you think about inoculating babies with an alpha gal allergy so they grow up allergic to red meat?

I don't particularly like the idea of giving people a life threatening allergy. Nor do I like the idea of forcibly restricting a person's diet, thereby restricting their personal autonomy. I try to stick with white meat and fish as much as possible. But I do like being able to eat red meat like pork, beef, and goat.

Scientists have come up with ideas for circular food economies that incorporate animals that produce red meat. We could all have some red meat in our diets, a lot less than what is currently consumed, and the system as a whole could be less resource intensive than if we were all on a vegan diet. So I'm not convinced that introducing a food allergy for red meat is strictly necessary if the goal is reducing the health, environmental, and humane costs or red meat consumption. I found out about circular food economies in this article:

https://knowablemagazine.org/article/food-environment/2022/how-much-meat-can-we-eat-sustainably#:~:text=The%20upshot%20is,the%20right%20amounts

That being said, climate change is going take drastic action to course correct at this point. Our current societies are not sustainable and something about the way we all live is going to have to change if we want to avoid the worse effects of climate change. That change doesn't have to be giving up red meat entirely, but it certainly could. I would rather we stop producing cattle entirely, then not be able to eat any form of red meat at all.

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I'm in favor of it just because I think we need drastic action to not see the end of civilization due to climate change. I'd also favor other radical moves, like gasoline rationing.

Nor do I like the idea of forcibly restricting a person’s diet, thereby restricting their personal autonomy.

So! This actually brings me back to circumcision and is why I brought it up - because I am circumcised, it would be much harder for me to have vaginoplasty because there's literally less material to work with. This, in fact, restricts my personal autonomy.

About 1% of babies are going to be trans. Is whatever benefit you think comes from circumcision worth restricting their personal autonomy if they decide to transition and undergo genital reconstructive surgery?

[–] ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (1 children)

It restricts my personal autonomy too, since it would make it harder for me to get a vaginoplasty. I still kind of want to have kids though and womb transplants probably aren't going to ready in time for me, and I'm not sure if I want to go the extra mile. You're in luck though, they can grow another penis on your arm to give you more tissue to work with. Although, you might be the first person to get a new penis just to add to an existing penis to then make it a vagina.

https://www.aninews.in/news/lifestyle/quirky/man-lost-his-penis-had-new-one-attached-to-his-arm-for-six-years-now-is-a-real-man-again20220507152347/

Edit: Also this article claims it can be done with distal shaft skin for circumcised patients, but doesn't really go into the details. Circumcision still made for additional hoops for the surgeons to jump through.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30511988/

[–] queermunist@lemmy.ml 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

It all seems so pointless, when we could just stop mutilating baby penises. 🤨

Though tbh if they're just going to grow new tissue, why the hell can't they just grow a fkn vagina lol

[–] ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

The benefits seem to be too minimal to justify mass circumcision. Individuals should just make the call for themselves if they get infections.

Yeah, I think growing vaginas and wombs will happen at some point. It probably is less common to have a vagina fall off than a penis, so there hasn't been a demand for it. edit: typo

[–] sergio@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

I’m saying all people with penises getting circumcised in the US may have saved some people financial hardship later in life

Yeah wow, having a part of your body clipped away (often without anesthetics) is such a hardship saved. You're a piece of shit.

[–] ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone 1 points 1 year ago

6k is 6k more than some people have. No hard feelings. =)