Tennessee poised to ban public drag shows, hormone therapy for children

[Foxi4]

WHO still recommends it because it lowers risk of STD transmission and UTis

I find that rather suspect, to be honest - I’d love to see some studies on the subject. I imagine some debris collects under the foreskin, but it’s not exactly something that can’t be addressed with a bar of soap. I imagine foreskin cheese is a very potent contraceptive, in the sense that it should prevent one from getting laid 9 out of 10 times, and that 1 time is probably while plastered. Once we get to the point of STD transmission, you probably should be wearing a condom anyway. UTI seems counter-intuitive as well - the urethra is fully exposed on a circumcised penis. Then again, I suppose a foreskin does provide a moist environment for bacterial growth. Sounds like baloney to me still though.

 

[RichardTheKing]

WHO still recommends it because it lowers risk of STD transmission and UTis

In developing countries, maybe, but in America?

And regardless, I didn't say "ban circumcision outright" - just for babies and teens under 18, who really shouldn't be having sex much anyway.

 

[x65943]

I find that rather suspect, to be honest - I’d love to see some studies on the subject. I imagine some debris collects under the foreskin, but it’s not exactly something that can’t be addressed with a bar of soap. Once we get to the point of STD transmission, you probably should be wearing a condom anyway. UTI seems counter-intuitive as well - the urethra is fully exposed on a circumcised penis. Then again, I suppose a foreskin does provide a moist environment for bacterial growth. Sounds like baloney to me still, though.

Not at computer, but it's very easy to find the evidence with a Google search

It's a mucus membrane attached to very flimsy skin, very easy site of blood contact compared to keratinized skin that replaces it after circumcision

The urethra itself is pretty resistant to pathogens because of the urine and general direction of flow

You might ask why nature kept it around if there is a survival advantage without it, and the answer is probably that std incidence was much lower in small groups of hunter gatherers

 

[Foxi4]

Not at computer, but it's very easy to find the evidence with a Google search

It's a mucus membrane attached to very flimsy skin, very easy site of blood contact compared to keratinized skin that replaces it after circumcision

The urethra itself is pretty resistant to pathogens because of the urine and general direction of flow

You might ask why nature kept it around if there is a survival advantage without it, and the answer is probably that std incidence was much lower in small groups of hunter gatherers

Nature didn’t give me a hoodie, but I wear one when it’s cold anyway - little Foxi is keeping his. You keep those scissors to yourself, good doctor!

EDIT: I Googled what you’ve said and it seems you’re right - circumcision does reduce your risk of UTI’s and contracting STD’s. That being said, good hygiene reduces your risk of UTI’s anyway, and wearing a condom provides better protection against STD’s, so I think I’ll be sticking to those two - seems like a better idea than chopping off a part of my body for very limited protection.

https://www.webmd.com/sexual-conditions/guide/circumcision

 

[Xzi]

It is ignorant to fulfil a child’s every wish, including self-destructive ones.

That's not what we're talking about here, every parent knows the difference between their kid just being a kid and when they're in genuine distress or anguish.

In my view, introducing young children to most any religion is akin to child abuse and grooming, not to mention inflicting mental illness on them. That doesn't mean I should push for the practice to be banned federally. The state has no business making medical, religious, or other deeply personal decisions for the individual.

 

[x65943]

That's not what we're talking about here, every parent knows the difference between their kid just being a kid and when they're in genuine distress or anguish.

In my view, introducing young children to most any religion is akin to child abuse and grooming, not to mention inflicting mental illness on them. That doesn't mean I should push for the practice to be banned federally. The state has no business making medical, religious, or other deeply personal decisions for the individual.

Ah yes Daoism, Buddhism, Hinduism - abject child abuse!

How silly, I mean I can understand thinking telling a child they are evil is bad, but many religions are very benign

 

[Xzi]

Ah yes Daoism, Buddhism, Hinduism - abject child abuse!

I did say "most," and you'd probably be pretty surprised by some of the atrocities committed in the name of those anyway. "You're going to burn in hell if you don't think, act, walk, and talk in one specific way" is a cheat code for turning your kid into one big ball of psychological disorders, or even worse, a Fox News viewer.

 

[lolcatzuru]

That's not what we're talking about here, every parent knows the difference between their kid just being a kid and when they're in genuine distress or anguish.

In my view, introducing young children to most any religion is akin to child abuse and grooming, not to mention inflicting mental illness on them. That doesn't mean I should push for the practice to be banned federally. The state has no business making medical, religious, or other deeply personal decisions for the individual.

if thats true, why introduce them to LGBT, its the same thing.

 

[Xzi]

if thats true, why introduce them to LGBT, its the same thing.

Kids pick up on "adult stuff" really quickly without the need for explanation. Getting angry because a little bit of information from the outside world sneaks its way into their peripheral every now and then is dumb as hell.

 

[lolcatzuru]

Kids pick up on "adult stuff" really quickly without the need for explanation. Getting angry because a little bit of information from the outside world sneaks its way into their peripheral every now and then is dumb as hell.

thats kind of a lazy argument though because a real adult would be all for the idea of trying to mitigate it as much as possible. I dont disagree theyll figure it out, but whatever "little bit" doesnt need to be.

 

[Xzi]

thats kind of a lazy argument though because a real adult would be all for the idea of trying to mitigate it as much as possible. I dont disagree theyll figure it out, but whatever "little bit" doesnt need to be.

With the insane amount of people out there, left and right, who just let an iPad do all the parenting, it is what it is. Seeing a rainbow won't turn your kid gay, neither will explaining the concept of gender and sexual identity to them.

 

[lolcatzuru]

With the insane amount of people out there, left and right, who just let an iPad do all the parenting, it is what it is. Seeing a rainbow won't turn your kid gay, neither will explaining gender and sexual identity to them.

the latter half i disagree with, but its still a lazy argument, you owe it to do all you can to help.

 

[x65943]

I did say "most," and you'd probably be pretty surprised by some of the atrocities committed in the name of those anyway. "You're going to burn in hell if you don't think, act, walk, and talk in one specific way" is a cheat code for turning your kid into one big ball of psychological disorders, or even worse, a Fox News viewer.

About half of the world follows abrahamic religion, I would contend "most any" gives the impression that the overwhelming majority of religions are teaching damnation and hell fire

 

[Foxi4]

That's not what we're talking about here, every parent knows the difference between their kid just being a kid and when they're in genuine distress or anguish.

There are parents out there who would prefer their child to die than to have a pig’s heart valve surgically implanted, please don’t tell me that parents can act reasonably and in their child’s best interest 100% of the time, they’re not impartial arbiters. Heck, some parents are *the source* of their child’s anguish.

 

[x65943]

There are parents out there who would prefer their child to die than to have a pig’s heart valve surgically implanted, please don’t tell me that parents can act reasonably and in their child’s best interest 100% of the time, they’re not impartial arbiters. Heck, some parents are *the source* of their child’s anguish.

Same with Jehovah's witnesses who would rather their child die than get a blood transfusion

 

[Xzi]

the latter half i disagree with

Disagree all you want, it's an objective truth. There are no more or less gay people than there ever were, relatively speaking. The internet simply gives all groups greater visibility, and there's not as much stigma attached to being "out" any more.

There are parents out there who would prefer their child to die than to have a pig’s heart valve surgically implanted, please don’t tell me that parents can act reasonably and in their child’s best interest 100% of the time, they’re not impartial arbiters. Heck, some parents are *the source* of their child’s anguish.

I'm very aware, but now we're just chasing this conversation from one end of hyperbole to the next. You can value individual liberties and still recognize that some lines shouldn't be crossed, that's what we have laws and CPS for.

 

[lolcatzuru]

Disagree all you want, it's an objective truth. There are no more or less gay people than there ever were, relatively speaking. The internet simply gives all groups greater visibility, and there's not as much stigma attached to being "out" any more.


I'm very aware, but now we're just chasing this conversation from one end of hyperbole to the next. You can value individual liberties and still recognize that some lines shouldn't be crossed, that's what we have laws and CPS for.

actually its not really an objective truth at all, guess youve never been to prison.

 

[Foxi4]

Same with Jehovah's witnesses who would rather their child die than get a blood transfusion

My problem with @Xzi’s stance is very simple - he seems to be arguing two points that contradict each other. When it’s a medical decision that he agrees with, that’s good because the parents said so, but when it’s the school curriculum, or the content the children ingest, that’s bad because the parents are not qualified to make such decisions. Well, which is it then? I’ve been quite consistent so far - we do what’s good for the child 100% of the time until the child can decide for itself. I’m not interested in what special interest groups or magical space books have to say on the matter, I have a big problem with shoving medication into otherwise healthy kids because of how they “feel”. Statistically speaking, the gross majority of kids simply grow out of any gender confusion they might be suffering through, and it’s not an unusual symptom. Said symptom is *normally* relieved by puberty, but not always. Seems to me that the path to do least harm is not to block puberty for the benefit of the edge cases, but rather to reaffirm children in their identity and *try* to help them feel comfortable in their own bodies for the benefit of the majority. I don’t think pumping kids full of hormones is a reasonable answer to something that may or may not be a genuine health condition.

I'm very aware, but now we're just chasing this conversation from one end of hyperbole to the next. You can value individual liberties and still recognize that some lines shouldn't be crossed, that's what we have laws and CPS for.

How is it hyperbole? It happens in American emergency rooms every single day - people die for no reason whatsoever. I’m no atheist myself, but even I don’t allow a space book to dictate when I’m supposed to die. Forget the valve, give me three pig hearts and a transfusion of goat blood if it’ll work - never seen a priest successfully perform cardiac surgery, but I have seen doctors do that.

 

[lolcatzuru]

My problem with @Xzi’s stance is very simple - he seems to be arguing two points that contradict each other. When it’s a medical decision that he agrees with, that’s good because the parents said so, but when it’s the school curriculum, or the content the children ingest, that’s bad because the parents are not qualified to make such decisions. Well, which is it then? I’ve been quite consistent so far - we do what’s good for the child 100% of the time until the child can decide for itself. I’m not interested in what special interest groups or magical space books have to say on the matter, I have a big problem with shoving medication into otherwise healthy kids because of how they “feel”. Statistically speaking, the gross majority of kids simply grow out of any gender confusion they might be suffering through, and it’s not an unusual symptom. Said symptom is *normally* relieved by puberty, but not always. Seems to me that the path to do least harm is not to block puberty for the benefit of the edge cases, but rather to reaffirm children in their identity and *try* to help them feel comfortable in their own bodies for the benefit of the majority. I don’t think pumping kids full of hormones is a reasonable answer to something that may or may not be a genuine health condition.
How is it hyperbole? It happens in American emergency rooms every single day - people die for no reason whatsoever. I’m no atheist myself, but even I don’t allow a space book to dictate when I’m supposed to die. Forget the valve, give me three pig hearts and a transfusion of goat blood if it’ll work - never seen a priest successfully perform cardiac surgery, but I have seen doctors do that.

what if they are both?

 

[Foxi4]

Kids pick up on "adult stuff" really quickly without the need for explanation. Getting angry because a little bit of information from the outside world sneaks its way into their peripheral every now and then is dumb as hell.

I don’t know if I can agree with that, there are micro plastics in just about everything you consume, the meat you eat is full of hormones and the water supply is contaminated with various disrupters, for instance atrazine. I know we like to joke around when Alex Jones says “they’re putting chemicals in the water that turn the freaking frogs gay”, but they kinda are. Not only that, even in the absence of all that, the Y chromosome is progressively losing more and more genes over time, and the reason behind that is somewhat unclear. We don’t actually *know* what makes people gay - we say that they’re “born this way” because we’re accepting and tolerant, but we don’t know why they’re born this way at all. Of course this occurs naturally as well - plenty of animals engage in what would be described as “homosexual activity” in a human context, for instance dolphins. Heck, a dog will hump just about anything. The broader point is that saying “there’s a same amount of gays now as there has always been” seems like one of those [Citation Needed] factoids. You brough up Ancient Greece and Rome, but the context there was very different - perfectly straight men engaged in sexual activities on the regular, but often as a bonding exercise. It was very much cultural. Those same guys went straight back home to their wives right after whatever war they were fighting in has ended.

what if they are both?

Can you elaborate?