I read the section two definition of “chemical and surgical mutilation” and it mentions altering sex organs to remove their biological functions. One of the biological functions of a penis is to produce sperm. So could this mean no more federal coverage for vasectomies as well as stuff like tubal litigation or hysterectomies? And yes, I know that people under 19 don’t usually get permanent sterilization procedures anyways, but I still wonder about this interpretation.
The phrase “chemical and surgical mutilation” means the use of puberty blockers, including GnRH agonists and other interventions, to delay the onset or progression of normally timed puberty in an individual who does not identify as his or her sex; the use of sex hormones, such as androgen blockers, estrogen, progesterone, or testosterone, to align an individual’s physical appearance with an identity that differs from his or her sex; and surgical procedures that attempt to transform an individual’s physical appearance to align with an identity that differs from his or her sex or that attempt to alter or remove an individual’s sexual organs to minimize or destroy their natural biological functions. This phrase sometimes is referred to as “gender affirming care.”
Other issues: no more circumcision, even if medically needed, and no more other medical procedures that make the tradeoff of saving a life over surgery.
If infant male genital mutilation ends, I see that as a win.
Yeah; but does Trump’s base?
Well they do have an obsession with gay stuff, so maybe they prefer their young twinks cut?
Mutilation is a strong word for it.
I don’t think so. It’s a pretty barbaric practice, so it deserves strong language. I suspect the only reason it’s still prevalent in America is the momentum of long-standing tradition. There’s no reasonable justification for performing unnecessary surgery on a newborn’s genitals.
I would say tradition yeah. A lot of women also don’t like uncircumcised genitals.
In some cultures, men don’t like women who haven’t had their labia and clitoris removed. Does that preference justify the practice?
Removing the foreskin removes thousands of nerve endings and desensitizes the glans.
I don’t recall advocating for it. I’m just saying it’s a thing, it won’t go away either and in the US it’s more of a traditional thing than religion thing. A it was only a few decades ago where it was considered “more hygenic”.
ackshually circumcision doesn’t minimize or destroy their natural biological functions
That’s probably the MAGA line, yes. Despite the scientific papers on the topic.
The inner part of your foreskin and glans are a mucous membrane, similar to the inside of your mouth or eyelids, when you remove the foreskin the glass is exposed, dries out, and keratinizes.
The skin of your penis is also supposed to be mobile and slide along the shaft, it’s sort of like a bearing, if a circumcision is done tightly it can’t do that and you may need lube for masturbation or sex that wouldn’t necessarily be needed otherwise.
The frenulum is often removed in circumcision and is one of the most sensitive parts of the penis, so removing that obviously loses some sensitivity
Definitely seems like it minimizes or destroys some normal functioning to me.
I like to ask these people how they’d feel about having an eyelid removed
your eyeball will still work ‘fine’ without it
It’s less penis, so literally minimizes it
This is incorrect. If you lower your hood, does your body get smaller?
If you cut the hood off your jacket, do you have less jacket?
And does your hoodie lose some of its functionality?
That’s a false claim as well you don’t lose sensitivity or function.
So then why bother? Just wash it the shower like every other part of you. There is no convenience factor.
There’s certainly an argument to be had there. Circumcision comes with permanent changes to sexual functioning