• TheRealLinga@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      1 year ago

      And cut off women’s breasts so they don’t get breast cancer! And cut off the criteria for some other reason!

      I’ll keep my foreskin and nerve endings thank you!

      • queermunist she/her
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        Usually, balanitis is not too serious.

        lol fuck off

        EDIT Okay, imagine that if you cut off the tip of your tongue you can never get the stomach flu. Would you do it?

        Would you do it to a baby?

        • ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          For reference, I’m circumcised. I don’t remember it. I doubt very few if any people actually remember their circumcision as a baby. Not saying circumcision is super great or something. But the US spent the last 100 years, and counting, doing it to people, so we might as well learn about it from a cost benefit angle with all the data we have. Whether or not anyone actually benefited from the practice seems like a worthwhile question to answer with data.

          Stomach Flu is an interesting one. Here are some stats for Norovirus which causes stomach flu.

          https://www.cdc.gov/norovirus/burden.html#:~:text=1 in 110%2C000 will die,go to the emergency department

          Norovirus does kill some people every year. I’m not sure what the threshold is for us all to cut off the tips of our tongues, but I’m guessing it’s greater than 900 people dying per year. I think it stands to reason if the mortality rate was high enough and cutting off the tips of our tongues saved a sizable portion of those people who would otherwise die, then people might do that to themselves, even babies. I guess it comes down to how we value our bodies and what is worth giving up for the sake of other people.

          • queermunist she/her
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Yikes.

            Actually! I’ve been having a different argument and I think your input would be interesting.

            What do you think about inoculating babies with an alpha gal allergy so they grow up allergic to red meat? Red meat has many health and environmental and humane costs, so there would certainly be a societal benefit if no one consumed it. Surely there’d be no problem with taking that choice away from babies before they’re old enough to even remember it!

            • ToastedPlanet@lemmy.blahaj.zone
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              I had to read up on what alpha gal allergy is and what causes it normally.

              https://www.cdc.gov/ticks/alpha-gal/index.html

              https://www.garvan.org.au/news-events/news/genetic-and-molecular-insights-into-dangerous-tick-bite-related-meat-allergy-revealed

              I also read about red meat and the various issues associated with red meat consumption. This included the nutritional benefits.

              https://www.diabetes.co.uk/food/red-meat.html

              https://sentientmedia.org/why-is-eating-meat-bad-for-the-environment/

              What do you think about inoculating babies with an alpha gal allergy so they grow up allergic to red meat?

              I don’t particularly like the idea of giving people a life threatening allergy. Nor do I like the idea of forcibly restricting a person’s diet, thereby restricting their personal autonomy. I try to stick with white meat and fish as much as possible. But I do like being able to eat red meat like pork, beef, and goat.

              Scientists have come up with ideas for circular food economies that incorporate animals that produce red meat. We could all have some red meat in our diets, a lot less than what is currently consumed, and the system as a whole could be less resource intensive than if we were all on a vegan diet. So I’m not convinced that introducing a food allergy for red meat is strictly necessary if the goal is reducing the health, environmental, and humane costs or red meat consumption. I found out about circular food economies in this article:

              https://knowablemagazine.org/article/food-environment/2022/how-much-meat-can-we-eat-sustainably#:~:text=The upshot is,the right amounts

              That being said, climate change is going take drastic action to course correct at this point. Our current societies are not sustainable and something about the way we all live is going to have to change if we want to avoid the worse effects of climate change. That change doesn’t have to be giving up red meat entirely, but it certainly could. I would rather we stop producing cattle entirely, then not be able to eat any form of red meat at all.

              • queermunist she/her
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                2
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year ago

                I’m in favor of it just because I think we need drastic action to not see the end of civilization due to climate change. I’d also favor other radical moves, like gasoline rationing.

                Nor do I like the idea of forcibly restricting a person’s diet, thereby restricting their personal autonomy.

                So! This actually brings me back to circumcision and is why I brought it up - because I am circumcised, it would be much harder for me to have vaginoplasty because there’s literally less material to work with. This, in fact, restricts my personal autonomy.

                About 1% of babies are going to be trans. Is whatever benefit you think comes from circumcision worth restricting their personal autonomy if they decide to transition and undergo genital reconstructive surgery?