American politicians may be ignorant of female anatomy but American doctors are ignorant of male anatomy

a-man-from-earth · 2022-08-29T23:39:33+00:00

Of course, this is a generalization and not true for all American doctors.

SomeonePleaseKillMe1 · 2022-08-29T18:57:14+00:00

Willful ignorance at best. They would have to prove to me they don't know the basic idea of genital mutilation for me to believe they didn't know it was MGM. Since any and all forms of FGM are considered sexual assault and taboo by westerners, even if it was for the same reasons as male circumcision, ("hygiene, religion, culture etc.) That tells me the West has a very good idea of genital mutilation. Quite the freudian slip shows itself when MGM is involved.

Just call it what it is. It's sexism, not ignorance. That goes double for politicians and doctors/nurses.

Better_Repeat · 2022-08-29T17:18:00+00:00

No the cause of Meatal Stenosis is NOT normal genitals but the fracking surgery you forced on an infant!

I guess this could be the problem; I don't think it's fair to suggest that the researchers here are claiming that normal genitals are the 'cause', but that interrupting the normal function of the foreskin (through circumcision) could be the cause of increased health risks.

From the summarised discussion:

We believe that when the foreskin is fully attached to the glans, forced retraction of the prepuce most often causes a loss of the mucous membrane that covers the glans, making the glans less resistant to chemical attack, and therefore may play an important role in the development of meatal stenosis. However, This study is limited by the absence of a cohort of uncircumcised boys for comparison to see if the small diameter of the meatus is also present in this group.

They're saying that removal of the foreskin removes natural protection of the glans and could lead to the observed increase in incidences of meatal stenosis. Academic language is usually deliberately impartial/objective, so it may seem 'indifferent', but I think these researchers are providing evidence regarding the risks of circumcision, which is a good thing.

Don't get me wrong, it's appalling that medically unnecessary circumcision is ever performed. Even when necessary, it should only be performed on a vulnerable person in a case of medical urgency. Even if it was 100% guaranteed to be safe, it is a violation of bodily authonomy and, therefore, basic human rights. Doctors should be refusing to do it as a matter of principle, especially for 'aesthetic' reasons, and romantic partners who expect it should be ashamed of themselves. Religious tradition should never trump individual human rights, but it's a harder thing to tackle given how idiotic people are when it comes to 'religious rights'.

Grow_peace_in_Bedlam · 2022-08-29T22:16:31+00:00

Not in the US, but here in Mexico, I went to a clinic for a bacterial penis infection (not an STD but rather something like balanitis).

I asked the doctor a question about the foreskin and she was extremely confused, so she asked me what I thought the foreskin was, so I pointed it out to her. She said: "That's not the foreskin, this is the foreskin (pointing to the meatus)." I wondered if I had mixed up my Spanish anatomical terms for a moment, but I got on my phone and looked up the prepucio on Google Images and saw that it was indeed what in English is called the foreskin. I thought about challenging her about it, but the conversation had already moved on.

I wondered how someone so ignorant of basic human anatomy could have passed medical school, as well as how many men she may have harmed with that ignorance.

Numerous_Ad9810 · 2022-08-29T23:54:46+00:00

This happened to me. A piece of skin was left attached to my glans. The trauma of an ugly penis was terrible. Got it somewhat fixed in my 30’s. This skin bridge also kept my penis from extending when relaxed and painful when erected. I am sure it resulted in a shortened penis. I blame my parents for this child abuse. They should have had a doctor fix this. It is even traumatic just writing this.

DandyDoge5 · 2022-08-30T05:46:03+00:00

They not only are ignorant, but trivialize our anatomy and flesh.

DragonAdept · 2022-09-02T11:35:23+00:00

You ever want proof American doctor's don't know shit about the male genitals?

Well, you've found one paper which appears to be an outlier compared to the bulk of the available data, you have made some mistakes in interpreting the paper and you have at least one important factual misconception about the topic. So I probably wouldn't go waving this post around as proof that you know more about male anatomy than American doctors.

So I want to lay out what this means, To suffer from meatal stenosis (Meatal stenosis is a condition where the meatus — the opening of at the tip of the penis — becomes narrower.) You first have to have a circumcision, your foreskin has to be adhered to the glans (Normal to the 99.9%) and then had to use a healing product.

That is not correct. Those are risk factors. They are not necessary causal factors.

What you are doing here is like reading a study that finds that risk factors for obesity include a sedentary lifestyle, eating potato chips and playing Elden Ring and saying "to lay out what this means, to become overweight you first have to be sedentary, then eat potato chips, then play Elden Ring".

It does not say that circumcision is the only cause of meatal stenosis, because they don't know that, because they had no control group. A lot of people seem to think it is, but I did find another paper here that states that the largest meta-analysis available found much lower rates of meatal stenosis in circumcised boys than this study (0.65% rather than 17.9%) and also cited a Danish study where .121% of uncircumcised boys had meatal stenosis (compared to .99% of circumcised) so the rate in uncircumcised boys appears to be non-zero. That study also found that the rate of MS goes up in uncircumcised men as they get older, because a foreskin is a risk factor for infections that can cause MS, so that the total risk of MS was higher in uncircumcised men over 60 than circumcised men. There are limitations with that data so you can't take it to the bank but it's an open question whether circumcision increases or decreases your lifetime risk of MS when you take into account old age. It might increase the risk in your youth but decrease your total lifetime risk.

Complete adhesion of the foreskin to the glans doesn't seem like it's "normal" the way you say it is, because it was only noted in 5 of the 975 test subjects. But 4 of those 5 did get meatal stenosis so it is a big risk factor.

"Healing product" appears to be used to refer to some set of what I think are non-evidence based, traditional remedies. Again it's not "like usual", only 165 of the 975 got treated with "healing product". It's treated separately to antiseptics.

So your summary is substantially inaccurate. Something a lot closer would be "if you get circumcised you are perhaps ten times as likely to get meatal stenosis as a child, but some of that risk is associated with your foreskin being fully adhered to the glans (which happens about one time in 200, but gives you nineteen times the risk) OR if your parents used a 'healing product' like Beta-sitosterol and Hydrocotyl (which nearly doubles the risk)".

If you are interested in this kind of medical research, it's not a good idea to find one paper from Algeria which says something that resonates with you and stop your research there. You should try to find the most up-to-date source which synthesises the largest amount of the available literature and critically analyses it, to get the best possible big-picture view.

For what it's worth I am anti-circumcision and I don't think the literature supports circumcision as defensible except perhaps as an HIV protective measure in places where HIV is a major risk.

Title	American politicians may be ignorant of female anatomy but American doctors are ignorant of male anatomy
Author	lastfreethinker
Upvotes	139
Comments	20
Date	August 29, 2022 4:25 PM UTC (3 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/comments/x0t02v/american_politicians_may_be_ignorant_of_female/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/LeftWingMaleAdvocates/american-politicians-may-be-ignorant-of-female.1130849 https://theredarchive.com/post/1130849

Comments