Home
Log in / Sign Up
    Private Messages   Advanced Search   Rules   New User Guide   FAQ   Advertise   Contact Us  
Forum -> Interesting Discussions
Will Humans want to alter their bodies to become 4 legged?
  Previous  1  2  3 13  14  15  Next



Post new topic   Reply to topic View latest: 24h 48h 72h

marina




 
 
    
 

Post Mon, Jun 08 2015, 2:15 pm
here's an article about how many infants are rushed to the hospital in Israel per year b/c of circumcision. About 30 yearly. So no, I'm not really overstating the risk. It is a very small risk, but it's there. http://www.ynetnews.com/articl......html
Back to top

DrMom




 
 
    
 

Post Mon, Jun 08 2015, 3:31 pm
marina wrote:
here's an article about how many infants are rushed to the hospital in Israel per year b/c of circumcision. About 30 yearly. So no, I'm not really overstating the risk. It is a very small risk, but it's there. http://www.ynetnews.com/articl......html

A very very small risk.
In 2013, there were 127101 Jewish babies born in Israel. Assuming half are boys, that means the risk of going to the hospital due to suspected circumcision complications is 0.047%. And most of these and up fine, as the article you linked notes:

Quote:
Most of the infants mentioned in the report were hospitalized for one day following the complication, while two were hospitalized for three days – a total of 19 hospitalization days in 2013. Two babies were operated on, two required stitches and 15 only received conservative treatment. Seven babies were discharged without hospitalization, including three who did not require any treatment at all.

... in most of the mentioned cases the complications were not significant, but rather common problems which do not require evacuation to hospital or special treatment – as shown in the report. Many of the cases took place on Shabbat or in the periphery, where not many mohelim are available, and the babies were taken to hospital to be on the safe side.


Anyhow, what is the point of discussing this topic on this thread? I lost track of how we got onto this topic.
Back to top

PinkFridge




 
 
    
 

Post Mon, Jun 08 2015, 4:43 pm
DrMom wrote:
Anyhow, what is the point of discussing this topic on this thread? I lost track of how we got onto this topic.


Because there is a feeling that if one is to be intellectually honest, if one is pro circ one can't so blithely be against gender reassignment surgery. Not if you don't want it to backfire on your right to circumcise your kids.
Or something like that.
Back to top

amother
Lime


 

Post Mon, Jun 08 2015, 4:56 pm
Exactly. I noted upthread that, flipping this, it is rather interesting that the opponents of circumcision--which is extremely safe and medically beneficial--are also the supporters of legalizing all sorts of self-destructive behaviors when it comes to s*xual matters.

Marina was taking issue, I think, with my calling circumcision safe, and said some are bothered that infants can't give informed consent.

ETA, even if there were a small risk associated with circumcision (nothing is risk-free), there's a difference between opposing a law that compels parents to take that risk, and seeking to enact a BAN that wouldn't permit parents to take that risk
Back to top

fmt4




 
 
    
 

Post Tue, Jun 09 2015, 9:38 am
This article expresses many of the things that made me uncomfortable about the whole Caitlyn situation, from a feminist point of view. Very interesting read.
http://mobile.nytimes.com//201......html
Back to top

sequoia




 
 
    
 

Post Tue, Jun 09 2015, 10:09 am
fmt4 wrote:
This article expresses many of the things that made me uncomfortable about the whole Caitlyn situation, from a feminist point of view. Very interesting read.
http://mobile.nytimes.com//201......html


That's a great article.

However, not all trans women are "girly." Jessica Durling discussed this on her facebook page a couple of days ago.
Back to top

fmt4




 
 
    
 

Post Tue, Jun 09 2015, 10:20 am
The scariest part for me was the part about referring to v-aginas as "front- holes" so as not to offend transgender people. Are you freaking kidding me???? That's what stupid immature girls used to call it in elementary school while giggling behind their hands. Don't take away the right for women to refer to their own body parts in order to not make trans women feel excluded. That is just too far.
Back to top

iluvy




 
 
    
 

Post Tue, Jun 09 2015, 10:21 am
sequoia wrote:
That's a great article.

However, not all trans women are "girly." Jessica Durling discussed this on her facebook page a couple of days ago.


Yes, the article was a great summary of the issue. It's not specifically about "girliness." Instead of transgenderism being framed as a standard mental illness, the language is that "he realized he was *really* a woman." I am very uncomfortable with the idea of "womanness" being extended beyond the biological. Until transgenderism became mainstream, this idea was something that feminists rightfully fought against.
Back to top

princessleah




 
 
    
 

Post Tue, Jun 09 2015, 10:56 am
The paradox about all of this is, while transgendered people are fighting for recognition and fair treatment, right now you can only have the surgery by seeing a psychiatrist and being diagnosed with Gender Dysphoria-- which is in the DSM. So the paradox is, usually people who want to change their bodies surgically have to be assessed to make sure that they are NOT mentally ill and are of sound mind to make the decision (for example, with bariatric surgery). In this case, you MUST be mentally ill in order to qualify for the surgery! As if the surgery is the treatment for the illness.
Back to top

princessleah




 
 
    
 

Post Tue, Jun 09 2015, 10:58 am
On another note, there are many discussions in the Gemara about the halachic status of an androgynous (no s-exual organs) or a hermaphrodite (both organs). So they already recognized that there are some people who are not so easily classified as male or female.
Back to top

PinkFridge




 
 
    
 

Post Tue, Jun 09 2015, 11:12 am
princessleah wrote:
On another note, there are many discussions in the Gemara about the halachic status of an androgynous (no s-exual organs) or a hermaphrodite (both organs). So they already recognized that there are some people who are not so easily classified as male or female.


But this was based on physical realities.
Back to top

m in Israel




 
 
    
 

Post Tue, Jun 09 2015, 11:29 am
marina wrote:
here's an article about how many infants are rushed to the hospital in Israel per year b/c of circumcision. About 30 yearly. So no, I'm not really overstating the risk. It is a very small risk, but it's there. http://www.ynetnews.com/articl......html


Actually, this article supports the accusation that you are overstating the risk. You said "Children die from circumcision yearly". You have brought no evidence to support ANY deaths as a result of circumcision, certainly not "yearly" deaths, either in Israel (where the procedure is nearly universal) or in the U.S.
Back to top

Barbara




 
 
    
 

Post Tue, Jun 09 2015, 11:35 am
m in Israel wrote:
Actually, this article supports the accusation that you are overstating the risk. You said "Children die from circumcision yearly". You have brought no evidence to support ANY deaths as a result of circumcision, certainly not "yearly" deaths, either in Israel (where the procedure is nearly universal) or in the U.S.


You have to go to anti-circ sites to get the information, but there are apparently a good number of circ related deaths each year, over 100 in the US alone according to this article http://www.circinfo.org/USA_deaths.html

Why are we talking about this, anyway?
Back to top

princessleah




 
 
    
 

Post Tue, Jun 09 2015, 11:38 am
PinkFridge wrote:
But this was based on physical realities.


yes, I'm just pointing out that Halacha has dealt with this topic, and it's not a new idea to not fit into a binary gender category
Back to top

PinkFridge




 
 
    
 

Post Tue, Jun 09 2015, 11:40 am
princessleah wrote:
yes, I'm just pointing out that Halacha has dealt with this topic, and it's not a new idea to not fit into a binary gender category


And I suggest that not everyone finds the two situations analogous.
Back to top

amother
Lime


 

Post Tue, Jun 09 2015, 12:04 pm
Barbara wrote:
You have to go to anti-circ sites to get the information, but there are apparently a good number of circ related deaths each year, over 100 in the US alone according to this article http://www.circinfo.org/USA_deaths.html

Why are we talking about this, anyway?


That's like going to anti-vax websites to find proof of deaths caused by vaccines. Those claims of over 100 deaths per year have no basis in fact.
This NYT article cites the CDC on mortality rates, that there were NO US deaths during the years the matter was studied, from 2010-2012
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08......html

Why we're talking about this was explained further up on the page
Back to top

amother
Lime


 

Post Tue, Jun 09 2015, 12:05 pm
fmt4 wrote:
This article expresses many of the things that made me uncomfortable about the whole Caitlyn situation, from a feminist point of view. Very interesting read.
http://mobile.nytimes.com//201......html


Brilliant piece
Back to top

PinkFridge




 
 
    
 

Post Tue, Jun 09 2015, 12:11 pm
amother wrote:
Brilliant piece


If anyone could cut and paste it I'd appreciate it. Thanks.
Back to top

marina




 
 
    
 

Post Tue, Jun 09 2015, 12:43 pm
amother wrote:
Exactly. I noted upthread that, flipping this, it is rather interesting that the opponents of circumcision--which is extremely safe and medically beneficial--are also the supporters of legalizing all sorts of self-destructive behaviors when it comes to s*xual matters.

Marina was taking issue, I think, with my calling circumcision safe, and said some are bothered that infants can't give informed consent.

ETA, even if there were a small risk associated with circumcision (nothing is risk-free), there's a difference between opposing a law that compels parents to take that risk, and seeking to enact a BAN that wouldn't permit parents to take that risk


Circumcision is cutting off a body part. It's not plausible to say that this is extremely safe. It's not. Even if kids don't die, they get harmed. It's a risk, and I don't know that it's any greater than the risk of harm during tonsil surgery or whatever other surgeries many kids often get.

And I certainly don't agree with the government banning circumcision, so not sure what that's all about.

But I don't understand why you don't get the difference: circumcision is what one person decides to do to someone else. Transgender surgery is what you do to yourself. It's a huge difference.
Back to top

amother
Lime


 

Post Tue, Jun 09 2015, 12:53 pm
PinkFridge wrote:
If anyone could cut and paste it I'd appreciate it. Thanks.


Try typing What Makes a Woman New York Times into google
Back to top
Page 14 of 15   Previous  1  2  3 13  14  15  Next Recent Topics




Post new topic   Reply to topic    Forum -> Interesting Discussions

Related Topics Replies Last Post
Do you alter your babies/toddlers clothes?
by amother
31 Tue, Feb 13 2024, 6:37 pm View last post
Bow legged
by amother
7 Wed, Feb 07 2024, 9:45 pm View last post
Please daven for Rebbi Alter
by amother
13 Sat, Feb 03 2024, 7:20 pm View last post
by cbsp
How to become a social worker
by amother
0 Sun, Jan 28 2024, 2:41 pm View last post
How do you become an interior designer?
by amother
4 Wed, Jan 03 2024, 2:30 pm View last post