Threaded index Date index FAQ
Re: Immediate responses here...
Posted by diogenes on 2026-October-29 10:00:02, ThursdayIn reply to Immediate responses here... posted by LaudateAgno on 2026-October-25 18:50:04, Sunday
|
I have known men who have been circumcised and deeply resented it. In fact the very first youth with whom, as an adult, I had full sexual congress was a 17 year old (therefore above the current aoc in my country) Pakistani Scot with a thick Scottish accent, who, not identifying with the faith of his parents, was deeply resentful that he had been irreversibly diminished. So I shall always be on the side of men having the option of being whole. Anyway, for the rest, everything you write is just a mess of contradictions, as I am sure would have been obvious to any attentive reader. Female "circumcision" is a "horror" (and you rightly put "circumcision" in inverted commas because we are dealing with genital mutilation) whereas male genital mutilation is not. The foreskin has a function, as much as the labia minora or the clitoral hood. Imagine if someone wanted to cut away the preputial sheath of their cat to expose the pink of the penis? Surely we would see that as the utter horror it is; and, yes, it does have something to do with respect for nature and reverence for nature -- not that I expect you Yanks to understand such a concept, of course; your whole culture is the polar opposite. (Hence, the obsession with "trimness" and avoiding anything suggestive of nature, and believing that you can improve on nature.) And if parents have a right to impose circumcision on their infant sons, then why shouldn't young children undergo gender transitioning? (Indeed, arguably the effects of puberty blockers are at least reversible, since they only need to be discontinued for normal puberty to begin.) In an earlier post, Sick Rose wrote: if I had the power, I would prohibit forcing it [circumcision] on anyone -- female circumcision included -- below full passage through puberty, for the same reasons that I would prohibit any medical intervention before full passage through puberty to effect what the trans activists like to call "transitioning."That, at least, is an intellectually coherent position. "the possibility that the anthropological intelligence of homo sapiens might have discovered a sort of key to human masculinity in this bit of flesh, and, therewith, a huge ontological resource in daring to snip off a bit of it." This is mystical nonsense. There is no objective reason why cutting male genitalia is "a key to human masculinity". Were Greek males less than fully masculine for not being circumcised? Are European males less masculine? And if one is going to go down the mystical route, then maybe gender surgery is also an "ontological resource" enabling us to align a child's gender with their gender identity. If this justification can be deployed in the one case, then it can certainly be deployed in the other, and with more reason, since at least the child seems to want to be the other gender.  |
Follow ups:
