Comment by umvi | Hacker News Reader

Comment by umvi | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> Instead of accepting that a terrible thing was done to them, they convince themselves it's a good thing, and further the practice by in turn mutilating their children. This just perpetuates the problem ad infinitum.

Threads like these always make mountains out of molehills when it comes to male circumcision. You'll always find the words "mutilate", "brutal", "savage", "barbarian" in people's comments. And yet 99%+ of the billions of circumcised males in the world just don't really care that much. If they did, they would feel more strongly about not doing it to their own kids.

I'm circumcised. Do I believe I was terribly wronged? Not at all. Do I believe circumcised men are so much luckier than me? Nope. If I could travel back in time to restore my foreskin, would I? Sure, why not? But if time travel is a thing, preventing myself from being circumcised is a pretty low priority compared to other things I could do in the past.

I personally won't circumcise my future sons (if I have any) but I also won't condemn parents who choose to do so because IMO it's about as big a deal as piercing your baby's ears at birth. There are far worse things parents can do to mess up their kids without ever laying a finger on them.

So, I'm assuming like most of those circumcised males, you were probably circumcised at birth. Therefore you and others circumcised at birth really have no way to compare the experience of before and after.

Agreed that condemnation is not the right approach. Also, there are plenty of reason to discourage optional, unnecessary surgical procedures.

> So, I'm assuming like most of those circumcised males, you were probably circumcised at birth. Therefore you and others circumcised at birth really have no way to compare the experience of before and after.

As a male circumcised from birth, am I not allowed to hold an opinion on whether what I thought was done to me was a "terrible thing" or not? I dislike people telling me "you were wronged and what happened to you was terrible and you aren't allowed to disagree because you don't know what it's like to not have been wronged. Only me and my enlightened colleagues, who are either uncircumcised or were circumcised much later in life are allowed to hold an opinion on this."

> Also, there are plenty of reason to discourage optional, unnecessary surgical procedures.

Most parents, I suspect, are not strongly in favor of circumcision. What happens in American hospitals is this:

- baby is born

- doctor: "would you like me to circumcise this boy? Now is the time"

- parents: "do most parents circumcise their boys?"

- doctor: "yes"

- parents: "uhh... sure then"

> As a male circumcised from birth, am I not allowed to hold an opinion on whether what I thought was done to me was a "terrible thing" or not?

You're absolutely allowed an opinion, and everyone else is allowed to view it in context. Women in cultures that practice FGM (both the milder and the extreme forms) are often its most ardent advocates, that doesn't make the practice okay. And while it may have worked out fine for you, it doesn't for everyone, as this story shows.

Hear hear!

If you read my comment, you'll note nothing about opinions being invalid. Rather, the correct reading is purely positive, not normative, and solely observational: males circumcised at birth have no basis of comparison since the event is outside their memory.

In no way does it invalidate anyone's opinion.

> am I not allowed to hold an opinion on whether what I thought was done to me was a "terrible thing" or not?

You are, but you have done more than that, namely to minimize the experiences of others. When someone says, "I, for one don't mind", they typically want to use that to determine what the actions of others or accepted social mores ought to be. There's no problem with saying you don't mind (and merely that), but that doesn't mean you weren't grievously harmed, whether you realize it or not. Moreover, such an observation carries such exceedingly little weight wrt the broader issue, that it hardly seems worth mentioning.

So, which kind of female genital mutilation do you find acceptable, just the type 4, or more?

To be fair there is a difference between female and male circumcision.

The female one is clearly to assert dominance over women, ideally in a painful and traumatical way. Also preventing them from getting pleasure from intercourse, because this is a men's thing.

For boys it is a barbaric ritual attached to some religions. The difference is that it is usually done on babies and is not particularly impacting later on.

Both are in my opionions felonies, done in the name of retarded ideas. The consequences are however very different.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com