For an MTF SRS patient, skin from the penis is primarily used (penile inversion) usually combined with skin from the scrotum (testicle sack), although in some MTF cases where there is insufficient penile and scrotal skin to produce a satisfactory neo-vagina (perhaps where circumcision or an orchiectomy [castration] has previously been carried out), a skin-graft will also be taken. It should be noted that the donor sites from where grafts originate can be prone to scarring which can be unsightly and painful later, so care needs to be taken by the therapist, especially with regards post-operative care to ensure that this is minimised.I know that trans women who have been circumcised and don't have a big enough wang for a satisfactory surgical outcome without additional skin grafts with their own lists of potential complications aren't exactly a large segment of the population, but they are out there and I've personally known several people have this problem. You can't, after all, magic tissue out of nowhere.
Do you have any cites for this? You do realize that pre-antibiotics or sanitary procedures it was quite likely that some percentage of circumcized infants got infections and died, right? But then infant mortality in general was so high that it probably didn't make all that much difference.That might be true, but it's also true that people back then didn't have access to daily showers and soap and so it's probably the case that uncircumcised people had a higher chance of getting an infection, which could kill them, over their entire lifetimes.
Americans are the last holdout for routine circumcision, but that's clearly changing with each new generation.Except for all of the middle east. And It's popular in Korea for some reason, apparently
I think it's a lot to ask that people who feel they have to circumcise their kids because God told them to would give a shit about transexuals. I could be proven wrong though. Anyone here who believes their religion requires circumcision, who also supports surgery to reassign gender? Really wondering what your god would think of that...The Union of Reform Judaism has produced a list of blessings to be said on the occasion of sex reassignment surgery. More surprisingly, sex reassignment surgery is legal in Iran. So no, Jews and Muslims are not universally hostile to transsexuals or SRS.
"This is an advocacy campaign taken to a new low. This is a sensitive, serious issue where good people can disagree and which the Jewish community feels is an assault on its values and traditions going back thousands of years and centered in the Hebrew Bible. It is one thing to debate it, is another thing to degrade it. 'Foreskin Man,' with its grotesque anti-Semitic imagery and themes, reaches a new low and is disrespectful and deeply offensive.The movement isn't antisemitic. The comic is openly antisemitic. But I do think an initial knee-jerk defensive reaction by some Jews is to be expected. Legislation against Jews has historically been a common expression of antisemitism. The recent push in some countries (Holland, etc.,) to ban animal slaughter via kosher guidelines has been a point of concern for some.
"The comic book portrays mohels -- those specially trained to perform the traditional Jewish circumcision ceremony -- as rapacious, bloodthirsty and bent on harming children. Some of the imagery calls to mind age-old anti-Semitic canards such as the blood libel, the accusation that Jews ritually murder Christian children. Another comic in the series also calls up more subtle anti-Jewish themes, such as when a character complains that the 'pro-circumcision lobby' has 'all of the well-connected doctors and lawyers.'
"We would have hoped those backing the anti-circumcision effort in San Francisco would know better than to use this type anti-Semitic imagery to advance their cause. No matter what one's personal opinions of male circumcision, it is irresponsible to use stereotypical caricatures of religious Jews to promote the anti-circumcision agenda."
Some might say that you've been culturally indoctrinated to think that a penis in it's original uncut configuration is "bad" whereas a surgically modified penis is "good".So what? The fact that people are whipping themselves into a froth trying to indoctrinate people the other way doesn't mean they're somehow more correct.
The World Health Organisation estimates that as of 2006, 30% to 33% of males aged 15 or older (or approximately 661.5 million men or boys) are circumcised worldwide. Estimates of the proportion of all males that are circumcised worldwide include one sixth, one third, and between 30 and 40%. Canada and the United Kingdom have seen a decline in male circumcision while there are indications of increasing demand in Southern Africa. The Centers For Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports that circumcision rates were stable in the United States between 1979 and 1999,[6] and Australia has reported a 5% increase in circumcisions in its most populous state, New South Wales, over the past ten years.
I wouldn't be that bothered by a tribe that cut off infant's earlobes. Am I the only one?What's weird about that is that there are cultures in the Amazon that practice some (to me) pretty weird body modifications on children. I can't figure out if the argument is a pro-outlawing-circumcision (because we'd all be in favor of forcing the Zo’é to stop piercing kids' lips) or anti-outlawing-circumcision (because we would all be in favor of respecting the Zo’é's right to cultural autonomy.)
Despite a worldwide campaign for circumcision to slow the spread of AIDS, the rate of circumcision among American baby boys appears to be declining.Shifting that cultural consensus away from routine, non-medically/-religiously indicated mutilation.
A little-noted presentation by a federal health researcher last month at the International AIDS Conference in Vienna suggested that the rate had fallen precipitously — to fewer than half of all boys born in conventional hospitals from 2006 to 2009, from about two-thirds through the 1980s and ’90s...
Several state Medicaid programs stopped covering circumcision after the academy issued its current policy in 1999, and Dr. Brady said that may be one reason fewer parents opt for the procedure. Other possible reasons include a growing Hispanic population that has traditionally been disinclined to circumcision, as well the anti-circumcision movement and a broader trend among parents to spurn medical interventions like vaccination.
Some 80 percent of American men are circumcised, one of the highest rates in the developed world. Yet even advocates of circumcision acknowledge that an aggressive circumcision drive in the United States would be unlikely to have a drastic impact on H.I.V. rates here, since the procedure does not seem to protect those at greatest risk, men who have sex with men.
And while studies in Africa found that circumcision reduced the risk of a man’s becoming infected by an H.I.V.-positive female partner, it is not clear that a circumcised man with H.I.V. would be less likely to infect a woman.
"Chopping chunks off of babies's genitals, leaving them permanently scarred, permanently incomplete. If that's not mutilation, what in the hell is it? There are far more loaded descriptors that could be used. Physical and sexual assault of an infant, for example. A permanent assertion of parental dominance, say.Not to mention the whole Catholic Priest molestation thing you mentioned in a subsequent comment.
I admit, it's not the most tactful angle to attack the issue, but to me, that is the issue. The word "mutilation" is already watering it down plenty."
« Older Anti-comic Neil Hamburger used his column in Vice ... | SkateBang, TJ Hooker Intro, Wo... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by two or three cars parked under the stars at 10:29 AM on June 5, 2011