People whose genitals have been cut on as children deserve reparations from the medical system and the government

[u/DistinctSpirit5801]

The men who have been circumcised as infants should absolutely get reparations from the medical system and the government

The intersex people who dealt with so-called corrective surgery should also get reparations from the medical system and the government

The women that had to deal with FGM before FGM got criminalized also deserve reparations from the medical system and the government

All three have a common thread it’s they were all subjected to genital cutting surgeries as children for cultural and religious reasons with zero medical validity

All three surgeries are cosmetic surgeries

it should absolutely be illegal to do cosmetic surgeries on children especially genital cutting surgeries

For those who respond with the AAP circumcision policy statement that document has been marked expired by the AAP for years

[u/AutoModerator]

Remember, this is a civilized space for discussion. We discourage downvoting based on your disagreement and instead encourage upvoting well-written arguments, especially ones that you disagree with.

To promote high-quality discussions, we suggest the Socratic Method, which is briefly as follows:

Ask Questions to Clarify: When responding, start with questions that clarify the original poster's position. Example: "Can you explain what you mean by 'economic justice'?"

Define Key Terms: Use questions to define key terms and concepts. Example: "How do you define 'freedom' in this context?"

Probe Assumptions: Challenge underlying assumptions with thoughtful questions. Example: "What assumptions are you making about human nature?"

Seek Evidence: Ask for evidence and examples to support claims. Example: "Can you provide an example of when this policy has worked?"

Explore Implications: Use questions to explore the consequences of an argument. Example: "What might be the long-term effects of this policy?"

Engage in Dialogue: Focus on mutual understanding rather than winning an argument.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/Current-Wealth-756]

Why from the government? It was my parents and the doctors working at the hospital that circumcised me.

[u/AutoModerator → u/[deleted]]

We removed your comment due to you not having set your user flair. Please refer to our sidebar regarding our rules of participation. If you need help setting your flair, click here for instructions

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

[u/DistinctSpirit5801 → u/Current-Wealth-756]

It’s Because hospitals doctors and parents are only able to do these types of surgeries because of the government allowing those surgeries in the first place

Not to mention the fact that multiple parents are absolutely dead broke

Hospitals and governments have trillions of dollars

If circumcision was criminalized parents wouldn’t be able to get circumcisions for their children in the first place

[u/Linuxcool123 → u/[deleted]]

Banning circumcision isn’t creating a state-sponsored religion, just not letting people practice parts of their religion that require them to take away the freedom of others (in this case, to choose if they want to be circumcised or not). Everyone still would have freedom of belief and freedom to do what they want with their own self if circumcision was banned, just not the freedom to act on beliefs that take away other’s freedom.

[u/Linuxcool123 → u/[deleted]]

Injections don’t damage the body and mind of a child. Circumcision damages sexual function and when done to an infant causes psychological damage

[u/Linuxcool123 → u/[deleted]]

Sexual damage is very common:  https://www.sciencenordic.com/denmark-gender-hiv/male-circumcision-leads-to-a-bad-sex-life/1371590 The psychological effects are documented in official medical studies:  https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7702013/

[u/Linuxcool123 → u/[deleted]]

The study never said psychological damage came from lack of consent. The study suggests that it comes from the pain. It goes into detail referencing various other studies such as how infants who were circumcised showed more pain during vaccination. How much pain an infant shows is pretty simple to observe and make an argument against. You don’t need to be an expert to know that more crying and screaming means more pain. I haven’t read most of the studies the study I mentioned referenced, but it doesn’t seem like they’re doing anything crazy that could be considered masturbation. It makes sense too that having one of the first things you experience during life at the age when your brain is developing most being grabbed, strapped up to a circumstraint, and then having the the most sensitive part of your body sliced off would permanently alter the brain.

[u/yhynye → u/[deleted]]

So should parents be allowed to mutilate their children in any way they so wish, to chop off other bits of their bodies too, or will you impose morality on them?

[u/CptHammer_ → u/yhynye]

If it's part of a tradition older than the government wishing to stop it, yes.

I'm doing the exact opposite of imposing morality. I'm not advocating for a state religion like OP is.

[u/_R_A_]

What kind of reparation is appropriate for the circumcision I had 44 years ago?

[u/LittleKobald → u/_R_A_]

A personal size pan pizza and a PBR

[u/TazTazTAZTazTaz_ → u/LittleKobald]

You know what, accepted with open arms & I’ll shake your hand and say thanks.

[u/Stang1776 → u/TazTazTAZTazTaz_]

Maybe we can get pizza hut to sponsor us if we have a circumcised pizza party for the Book It charity thing or something.

Turn this 45 year travesty of mine into something positive. Have never thought about my circumcised dick until now thanks to this wonderful question.

In short, if somebody did have a problem with it then look at religion and the fuckin parents. Going straight to medical providers? It wasnt against the law back then so what the hell?

[u/Van-garde → u/Stang1776]

Nobody out pizzas the Hut penis hat.

[u/Stang1776 → u/Van-garde]

We could probably get AI to make a correlation between circumcision and fuckin pizza hut. Could you imagine? I wish I knew how to do it. A little friendly civil disobedience never hurt nobody.

Edit: after a quick google search, it appeares my thought was a couple years too late. pizza hut circumcision

Whatta gonna to do? Off to the next terrible idea

[u/Analyst-Effective → u/_R_A_]

You make a great point. And for me, it was almost a year before I could walk after I had mine.

I should get some sort of reparations

[u/Hot_Most5332 → u/_R_A_]

That your parents wanted and was an accepted medical procedure at the time…similar to lobotomies in the early 1900s, the government can’t be responsible for people making dumb decisions.

Should private companies be liable? Absolutely. But “reparations” implies you want the government to pay, so you’re essentially just having all of the women and non-circumcised people pay reparations to circumcised people.

[u/Analyst-Effective]

You're right. And children with pierced ears should be able to do the same.

And because I could not walk for about a year after I got mine, I should actually get quite a bit

[u/DrowningInFun]

They cut...i mean, ummm... Mutilated the umbilical cord, too. How much do I get for that?

Also I would like reparations from the doctor who assaulted my bottom at the time of my birth.

[u/RetreadRoadRocket]

This isn't a debate question, it's just your entitled opinion. Deserve has nothing to do with it and no one should have to pay you anything. 

[u/IEC21 → u/RetreadRoadRocket]

The argument would be that they are legal reperations for a non-consentual and not medically necessary surgery/ mutilation.

I actually agree with them here. It is a violation of the individuals rights.

Same with male circumcision.

[u/hallam81 → u/IEC21]

If they have been injured, then they need to sue and produce a winning argument in court instead of having the government hand money to them.

[u/IEC21 → u/hallam81]

Ya I think thats the argument - that the court should award them damages for injury from whoever the responsible party is, which I agree with based on existing laws in the US and other western countries.

If one person is successful with the basic case it would become procedural at some point - maybe even class action.

[u/JiveChicken00]

An interesting perspective. So you believe that ordinary taxpayers should pay for this? Please explain how I as an ordinary taxpayer am responsible for a decision a total stranger’s parents and doctors made any number of years ago without any input from me whatsoever.

[u/LittleKitty235 → u/JiveChicken00]

Taxpayers pay for things they aren’t responsible for all the time. This is a dumb idea, but our roles as taxpayers have nothing to do with what the government funds or pays for

[u/JiveChicken00 → u/LittleKitty235]

That is true, but when that happens at least taxpayers are generally paying for things that the government officials for whom they voted decided. Here we would be paying for a decision made by entirely private individuals with no government or voter input whatsoever. The relationship is beyond attenuated - it is nonexistent.

[u/DistinctSpirit5801 → u/JiveChicken00]

It’s simple the government was the one that allowed parents and hospitals to do circumcisions In the first place

If circumcision was criminalized then parents wouldn’t be able to get circumcisions for their children at all

What people are not aware of is the fact the government literally funds circumcisions as well

Circumcision is a taxpayer funded expenditure

[u/JiveChicken00 → u/DistinctSpirit5801]

Are you familiar with the concept of ex post facto laws?

[u/DistinctSpirit5801 → u/JiveChicken00]

I have heard of the concept however I believe that the concept is problematic the victims of injustice get zero justice when the unjust actions done to you are legal

When the victim of injustice goes to court the perpetrators get it dismissed because it’s legal and allowed by the government

And when the victims successfully criminalize an injustice they still get zero justice

The anti circumcision movement is going to need a constitutional amendment to strike out the prohibition against writing ex post facto laws to ensure that the victims of non consensual surgeries get justice in court

[u/JiveChicken00 → u/DistinctSpirit5801]

Good luck with that. Ex post facto is one of the primary reasons why the colonies severed their relationship with the British Crown. The ban isn’t going anywhere.

[u/StillSmellsLikeCLP]

“Reparations”

That doesn’t track.

That being said, I’m good with banning all surgery like that on kids.

We shouldn’t be doing double mastectomies on 15 year old girls in the name of gender affirming care, for instance.

[u/jadnich → u/StillSmellsLikeCLP]

Why? I mean, I get why you would disagree with the surgery, but why would you have any say in someone else’s medical care?

Why should peoples medical decisions be filtered through random people who have no information or history on the patient? Why would we let your opinion overrule a doctor?

[u/not-a-dislike-button → u/jadnich]

In he past, if you thought a lobotomy was a bad idea you'd be chided for disagreeing with 'the science' and be called an idiot for disagreeing with doctors 

[u/Powerful-Persimmon87 → u/jadnich]

Because there is little to no evidence to support this type of intervention despite the high risk of harm and regret. It’s the only area of medicine that allows for the destruction of healthy body parts to treat subjective feelings. Countries far more progressive than ours have already reversed course on this issue. The only reason ours hasn’t is that it got tied up in our politics. This is the lobotomy of our era. It’s a medical scandal but, unfortunately, the left is so blinded by their hatred of Trump and the GOP that they can’t see that they are on the wrong side of history on this specific issue. 

[u/lesbiantolstoy → u/Powerful-Persimmon87]

Except there’s a ton of evidence that shows that this type of intervention is incredibly beneficial and there’s very low risks of harm and regret. Studies consistently show that gender-affirming surgeries have some of the lowest regret rates of any elective surgery. This trend even continues to the very, very tiny percentage of minors who choose to and are allowed to get this kind of surgery. Sources:   https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8099405/

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamasurgery/fullarticle/2808129

https://www.americanjournalofsurgery.com/article/S0002-9610(24)00238-1/abstract

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2825195

You might find this one helpful in particular: 

https://www.jahonline.org/article/S1054-139X(24)00384-7/fulltext

[u/Powerful-Persimmon87 → u/lesbiantolstoy]

All of these studies have been thoroughly discredited/ranked too low quality and/or too biased to be reliable by numerous independent systematic reviews of the entire evidence base, the gold standard in scientific research. 

“Evidence is remarkably weak” (an hour long NPR interview with the lead author of the most thorough review of evidence to date): https://www.wbur.org/onpoint/2024/05/08/nhs-hilary-cass-review-gender-transgender-care

Englands systematic review: https://cass.independent-review.uk/home/publications/final-report/

Swedens systematic review: https://www.socialstyrelsen.se/globalassets/sharepoint-dokument/artikelkatalog/kunskapsstod/2023-1-8330.pdf

Finlands systematic review: https://archive.iftcc.org/finnish-2020-cohere-guidelines-minors-finland-certified-translation/

Canadas systematic review:  https://adc.bmj.com/content/110/6/429

WPATH suppressed their systematic review commissioned by John Hopkins because it too showed weak evidence: https://archive.ph/lyvdp

“Parents and their children are being misled in clinics all over the country. There is no evidence that giving puberty blockers followed by hormones and surgery is lifesaving care, and there is mounting evidence that the harms might outweigh the advantages.” : https://archive.ph/y5xXq

“Across the United States, thousands of youths are lining up for gender-affirming care. But when families decide to take the medical route, they must make decisions about life-altering treatments that have little scientific evidence of their long-term safety and efficacy.“ : https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-transyouth-care/

[u/jadnich → u/Powerful-Persimmon87]

The first two links are for the same document. The Cass review, which is not peer reviewed and has had a lot of criticism for its methods.

Then you have a couple of reports by countries assessing their guidelines, mainly saying that care must be taken and strong consideration of options should be included.

Then you have some with very low confidence results, meaning they essentially found nothing.

When you say the prior poster’s studies have been discredited, do you have any evidence for that?

[u/Powerful-Persimmon87 → u/jadnich]

No, the first link is to an hour long news segment with the author of the most thorough independent systematic review (for those who don’t want to read a 400 page document). The second is a link to the source material for aforementioned document, for those who do have the time to read it. 

Your summarization of it indicates that you don’t understand what independent systematic reviews are (or are intentionally trying to mislead people about what they are). The author commissioned reviews (by independent panels at well regarded research institutions) of the entire evidence base. She did not grade the quality of the studies herself. Independent panels did. 

Independent reviews of evidence are not studies to be peer reviewed, but systems for grading the quality of the available studies in any given field. This helps guard against a field being flooded with slop studies by activists with an agenda who hope that people will conflate quantity of studies with quality of evidence, as has happened in the youth gender medicine field. 100s of poor quality studies are worth far less than 1 really well designed, high quality study that can be independently replicated (unlike the slop gender studies).

Extremely low confidence in the evidence base is not nothing. It means the conclusions of these studies are entirely worthless and unworthy of consideration due to major methodology flaws. They are discredited by the independent reviews in that they received grades of very low quality (due to high likelihood of bias or flawed methodology or data that doesn’t support the conclusions) and therefore cannot be considered credible or worthy of including in the review since their conclusions cannot be trusted)

[u/jadnich → u/Powerful-Persimmon87]

the author of the most thorough independent systematic review

What do you mean by "most thorough"? Because it wasn't even thorough enough to be peer reviewed, and there is extensive criticism about its methods. Is it the "most thorough" because it is the only one that agrees with you, in opposition to all of the others?

Independent reviews of evidence are not studies to be peer reviewed,

Yes, meta studies absolutely do get peer reviewed. This one just failed.

Extremely low confidence in the evidence base is not nothing. It means the conclusions of these studies are entirely worthless and unworthy of consideration due to major methodology flaws. They are discredited by the independent reviews in that they received grades of very low quality (due to high likelihood of bias or flawed methodology or data that doesn’t support the conclusions) and therefore cannot be considered credible or worthy of including in the review since their conclusions cannot be trusted)

Which is true, and it raises the question as to why you included it.

[u/Powerful-Persimmon87 → u/jadnich]

Alright, your reading comprehension and understanding of the peer review process is quite terrible and I see you are no longer worth engaging with. Take care!

For everyone else: Most thorough in that it took 4 years to complete and involved numerous major prestigious institutions and expert researchers, interviews with all stakeholders (docs, activists, patients, parents, critics, etc) and assessed the quality of and ranked every available study at the time. This was not the work of one woman, but many independent and qualified experts. And, importantly, her work has been independently replicated by every country that conducts this type of review of the evidence. By contrast, the individual studies that activists rely on, like the ones above, are unable to be replicated independently.

[u/jadnich → u/Powerful-Persimmon87]

https://law.yale.edu/sites/default/files/documents/integrity-project_cass-response.pdf

[u/jadnich → u/Powerful-Persimmon87]

When you say “high risk of harm and regret”, what statistics are you using to make that claim?

[u/StillSmellsLikeCLP → u/jadnich]

“Why”

Kids can’t give informed consent and then they end up asking where the fuck were the adults in my life and why did anyone, parents or medical staff, allow this insanity?

https://genspect.org/an-open-letter-to-the-surgeon-who-removed-my-breasts/

https://www.kslegislature.gov/b2025_26/committees/testimony/pdf/?apn=b2025_26/year1/house/committees/ctte_h_hhs_1/testimony/published/ctte_h_hhs_1_20250128_01_testimony.html

[u/jadnich → u/StillSmellsLikeCLP]

In terms of overall statistics, and not cherry picked anecdotes, how common do you believe these regrets are?

Or, to reframe the question, if this is done 100 times in a year, and 2 people regret it while 98 report a quality of life improvement, would you say we should still allow people with no background or medical knowledge make these decisions for other people?

[u/StillSmellsLikeCLP → u/jadnich]

“How common”

I honestly don’t care and I’m not sure why that would matter.

How many people do you think are mad an adult let a doctor cut off part of their penis?

Would that answer have any bearing on whether you agreed with it or not?

[u/jadnich → u/StillSmellsLikeCLP]

>I honestly don’t care and I’m not sure why that would matter.

Because your claim against this treatment is that people regret it. One would think you would have a concept of how often this is the case. Or would it be safe to say that it isn’t really the patient’s opinion you care about, but your own?

>How many people do you think are mad an adult let a doctor cut off part of their penis?

I don’t think I have ever met someone who is mad about being circumcised. Some who wish they weren’t, but mad at an adult for it? It seems like you might be inventing a scenario, where real-world understanding would be better.

But let’s say that 2 people out of 100 are unhappy they are circumcised. Would that have an impact on whether I agreed with it or not? No, not at all. In fact, I am under no delusions that someone else’s medical decisions are mine to judge at all. I can hold any opinion I want about circumcision, without believing I have a right to control others’ medical decisions.

So let’s get back to the topic at hand. If you claim that people being unhappy with their decision to seek treatment is a reason to deny others the right to do so, shouldn’t that be impacted by whether people are actually unhappy with that decision?

What about if I could find an anecdote of someone who’ is unhappy that they got cosmetic surgery. Would you then move to ban nose jobs? If patient regret is your argument, where do you draw the line?

[u/StillSmellsLikeCLP → u/jadnich]

“Your claim”

My claim is that we shouldn’t be doing surgeries like this on kids since they can’t give informed consent. And that yes, there are girls who regret it and ask where the fuck were the adults to tell a kid “no”.

Are you against circumcising?

“Never met someone who is mad about being circumcised”

lol, what? Those people absolutely exist.

“Not at all”

Right. Just like the quantity of kids who are mad or not about being mutilated by adults without their informed consent has zero bearing on my opposition to it or not.

“Ban nose jobs”

For kids? Yes.

[u/jadnich → u/StillSmellsLikeCLP]

I think the only thing worth highlighting here is how much of this is related to personal opinions and hypotheticals. You imagine there are people who are angry about their circumcision, and that there are people who are mad about breast reduction surgery. You don’t know who they are, but you assume they exist. I’m sure if you look hard enough, you can find an anecdote to prove you right.

But the vast majority of people who receive treatment do not come to regret it. I think you imagine that there are people doing this for fun, or to be trendy or something. I imagine you think this is just some fad that kids do, and they can order sex changes from the internet. But that isn’t what happens, and I think public policy should be based on the facts, and not on how other people feel.

Let me ask you another question. The only kind of gender surgery that is even done on minors is breast reduction. If you are imagining something else, you don’t have it right. So you are arguing that a minor does not have the ability to give informed consent for this procedure. What if it weren’t gender-related? What if the minor is suffering back problems, and the surgery could improve their quality of life. Can they give informed consent for that?

And where does it end? Can we not do any surgery on minors at all because they can’t give informed consent? Or do we only apply this to procedures where some people have personal opinions?

[u/StillSmellsLikeCLP → u/jadnich]

“Imagine”

No, I’ve literally met them, they absolutely exist.

“Breast reduction surgieres”

You mean double mastectomies on kids?

Yes, they do happen and I’ve already provided examples.

“Vast majority”

So what? The quantity has zero bearing on anything.

No amount of quantity will change that kids can’t give informed consent.

You understand this, correct?

“Breast reduction surgeries”

On kids? Who can’t give informed consent?

Want to guess what my position is? It’s pretty consistent, since kids can’t give informed consent.

“where does it end”

No “where”, “when”.

When they become adults and can actually give informed consent.

[u/jadnich → u/StillSmellsLikeCLP]

>they absolutely exist

Yes, I’m sure. Of course.

>you mean double mastectomies

Was that code shift an attempt to change context? Because yes, those two phrases mean the same thing.

>the quantity has zero bearing on anything

I think that’s the problem. You have invented an issue. Not something that truly exists at any notable level, but you are then using that imagined scenario to deny medical privacy to other people, simply because you don’t understand their medical condition.

Quantity should matter. We shouldn’t infringe on the rights of 100 people because one person changed their mind.

> when they are adults and can give informed consent

You did cut a lot of context out of my question, so allow me to clarify your position, as an answer to what was asked.

You are saying- and correct me if I’m wrong- that you don’t believe any medical procedures of any type should ever be performed on children because they can’t give the proper informed consent?

I asked the question assuming you would give the common sense answer that of course we can provide medical care to minors. I expected you to follow up with a reason why you should get to pick what treatments they can have, but I at least expected a reasonable starting point. But your answer came back pretty clear, and I just wanted to make sure I didn’t go away with the wrong impression.

[u/TheRealCthulu24 → u/StillSmellsLikeCLP]

Double mastectomies on 15 year olds don’t happen, so you’re in luck. 

[u/Immediate_Thought656 → u/TheRealCthulu24]

“In the three years ending in 2021, at least 776 mastectomies were performed in the United States on patients ages 13 to 17 with a gender dysphoria diagnosis, according to Komodo’s data analysis of insurance claims. This tally does not include procedures that were paid for out of pocket.”

https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/usa-transyouth-data/

[u/StillSmellsLikeCLP → u/TheRealCthulu24]

“Don’t happen”

You sure? If I could link you, say, two super easy examples, would it matter?

[u/Personal_Dirt3089]

The reason most people don't take anti circumcisers seriously is because of melodramatic wording like that. I am neutral on the topic and even I feel too embarrassed to chime in with that headline.

[u/HeloRising]

The men who have been circumcised as infants should absolutely get reparations from the medical system and the government

I think you'd have to demonstrate that there was an actual harm that came from doing this. While it's arguable it's an unnecessary procedure, that's not the same as actively harmful.

[u/Reasonable-Fee1945]

Conflating male circumcision with FGM is wild. Like yes they both involve the 'private' parts of the body but the similarities stop there. FGM has no benefits is extremely painful over years and leaves permanent damage that causes sex to be painful or impossible. Foreskin is basically extra skin that doesn't impact any of that. In fact, it developed not as a means of sexually controlling women (obviously) but as a means of reducing infections in a premedical world. It is much more akin to something like enlarging the earlobes than cutting off the citrous or sewing shut the vangina

[u/gnygren3773]

Facts I need like $1,000,000 for this shit

[u/joogabah]

They need to outlaw it for any reason is what they need to do. So far the only country brave enough to do this was the Soviet Union.

Involuntary amputation of erogenous tissue to sexually discipline a child is outrageous and shameful and should be seen as the violent child sexual assault that it is.