JK Rowling claims society is on brink of 'medical scandal' over transgender issues

submitted by [deleted] from independent.co.uk

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]Questionable 56 insightful - 4 fun56 insightful - 3 fun57 insightful - 4 fun -  (15 children)

Don't mutilate the genitals of children. This isn't hard to understand, you don't need to be a scientist to know this to be self evident.

[–]sproketboy 12 insightful - 9 fun12 insightful - 8 fun13 insightful - 9 fun -  (10 children)

Jews and Muslims would disagree.

[–][deleted] 31 insightful - 4 fun31 insightful - 3 fun32 insightful - 4 fun -  (7 children)

Any religion, culture or tradition that practises infant or adolescent genital mutilation is barbaric. Whether some indigenous African tribe, Judaism, Islam or the American culture of circumcision built around John Harvey Kellogg's anti-masturbation nonsense--it's all barbaric and should be treated as such.

It's baffling that there are those in some parts of the Western world that quietly condone mutilating the genitals of their males while screaming barbarity at cultures who mutilate the genitals of their females, as though there's even the slightest difference in terms of violating someone's bodily integrity for batshit and utterly spurious reasons without their consent.

Your sexual integrity ruined for life, why? Because some idiot thinks it's good for you, wants you to look like your father/mother, or believes in pseudoscience.

[–]sproketboy 4 insightful - 10 fun4 insightful - 9 fun5 insightful - 10 fun -  (1 child)

And who elected you genital king of cutting?

[–]beermeem 2 insightful - 5 fun2 insightful - 4 fun3 insightful - 5 fun -  (0 children)

Us Jews.

[–]ghostprototype 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

to be fair, there's a huge difference between female genital mutilation and circumcision

the equivalent of circumcision on a female would be trimming the skin at the tip of the clitoris and maybe the labia. Instead they remove the clitoris and labia altogether. That's the equivalent of cutting off the entire head of the penis but leaving the rest of the shaft intact (if such a thing were possible)

FGM also leads to lifelong complications and pain and usually doesn't allow for regular sex without surgical 'reopening'. Then sex is its own nightmarish painful physical trauma since the new opening is much smaller after healing

[–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

No, there is not. As one of the rare few who underwent circumcision as an adult, I can tell you: IT'S A TERRIBLE MUTILATION.

[–]screeching-tard 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

Whats more amazing to me is that when you say "I was genitally mutilated (circumcision) people literally laugh at you." If a woman has the same thing done it is front page news.

[–]just_lesbian_things 10 insightful - 2 fun10 insightful - 1 fun11 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

FGM cuts off a lot more than circumcision, so no, it's not amazing to me that they're viewed differently. That's like saying losing a finger is comparable to losing an arm. Neither is great, but there's a difference in magnitude.

[–]beermeem 1 insightful - 3 fun1 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

Yep.

[–]galaxybrain 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

And we should respect that viewpoint because?

[–]beermeem 4 insightful - 4 fun4 insightful - 3 fun5 insightful - 4 fun -  (0 children)

Balls.

[–]Airbus320 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

😵

[–]peace_love_comfort 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I understand the foreskin argument. It's a weird thing. I am child-free. But live where circumcision is the standard. Would I opt for it as an adult? I don't know. I have put very little thought into it. Am I upset that I didn't have that choice, nah. I feel like it makes my dick look more aesthetically attractive.

I personally feel that foreskin makes dicks look more animal-like. I know that they are "supposed" to look like. There is something more appealing to me in a circumcised penis. I find the shriveled looking foreskin that look like they twist at the end to be kind of off-putting. There's also a hygiene factor involved. Foreskin traps and ferments sweat, urine and cum leakage. That will lead to way more smegma.

Smegma is the potent fishy slimy stuff that festers wherever skin folds in genital areas. Smegma is usually only an issue if you're overweight, sweat a lot and don't bathe on a regular basis. However with foreskin it seems to be much more difficult to control. Takes more maintenance. I understand foreskin is a valuable evolutionary tool to protect and possibly assist in reproduction. In our modern society, not having foreskin could have a net positive effect on a person's life.

[–]redditisacommie 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

I mean, the main reason it is being removed in religion is to make sex not about pleasure, removing it makes the dick less sensitive.

[–][deleted] 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

By about 99%, in my estimation.

It also changes the entire "sex" thing from one of man & woman in an act of communion, into one of frenzied, obsessive FRICTION. When your glans is 100 times more sensitive, you don't need that crazed pumping. The whole sexual life is transformed for the worse by circumcision. It prevents proper man-woman intimacy and connection.

IT IS A TERRIBLE MUTILATION.