I asked the Snapchat Artificial Intelligence Bot if I should circumcise my son and daughter. The responses were horridly biased.

[–]Ok_Night_7767 43 points44 points45 points 3 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]phoenician_anarchist 16 points17 points18 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]matrixislife 7 points8 points9 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]CarHungry 3 points4 points5 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]disayle32 43 points44 points45 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]IRowmorethanIBench 7 points8 points9 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]CrowMagpie 13 points14 points15 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Clemicus 7 points8 points9 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]CrowMagpie 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]phoenician_anarchist 6 points7 points8 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Worldly_Piano9526 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jacklshere 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]slicebucket -17 points-16 points-15 points 3 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]Clemicus 20 points21 points22 points 3 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]slicebucket 10 points11 points12 points 3 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

[–]Greg_W_Allan 9 points10 points11 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Clemicus 7 points8 points9 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TrilIias 5 points6 points7 points 3 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]phoenician_anarchist 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]matrixislife 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Clemicus 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]phoenician_anarchist 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

It's a "letter of the law" vs "spirit of the law" kind of thing. It seems to have been somewhat resolved since I last looked, but there was a time when a number of piercing parlours stopped doing the piercings due to the legal ambiguity.

The law doesn't define "mutilation" (which this article talks about) and there's no mention of consent (unless I'm blind) but Type 4 includes "piercing" and this article (potentially nsfw cover image? it's a woman in her knickers, presumably for those who are unaware of what "female" and "genital" mean... 🤣) says:

The Government has previously said the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003 does not contain any exemptions for cosmetic surgery and it has no plans to amend the legislation specifically to prohibit female genital cosmetic surgery.

So considering that genital piercings are non-medical cosmetic procedures that involve piercing...

I've also heard some feminists argue that "labiaplasty" should also be included too because apparently girls are feeling pressured into it due to patriarchal beauty standards presented in pornography...

An aside: The law is called "Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003" so they have no problem with the word "female", but throughout the text they stick to the word "girl" even though the text also states

(1) Girl includes woman.

in Section 6: Definitions.

[–]matrixislife 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]phoenician_anarchist 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

That's a particularly idiotic response from the government.

Business as usual, 🤣🤣🤣

no operations to fix damaged or congenitally malformed genitalia, and no way to undo the harm of previous fgm.

I believe both of those would be classed as medical procedures.

And I assume that the "no plans to amend the legislation specifically to prohibit female genital cosmetic surgery." is a cockup as well, seeing as it is prohibited, and that they meant to say "to allow cosmetic surgery"

No, that's an "I can neither confirm nor deny..." move, because doing either of them would require the government to actually do something... (and also allows them to classify it as FGM in the statistics but not pursue prosecution)

with a link, doesn't actually lead anywhere.

Pretty standard, most of the links in mainstream media articles tend to be links to other articles and not sources. Having links makes them look good and most people never bother clicking them anyway. Although this was a few years ago (2015?) so any links they would have had would likely be broken now like most of the ones in the other article.

It's difficult to find clear information on the topic, for example: https://files.digital.nhs.uk/18/643E66/FGM%202019%20Q1%20-%20Report.pdf

Are piercings included?
• Yes. While adult women may choose to have genital piercings, in some communities girls are forced to have them. The World Health Organisation currently defines all female genital piercings as a form of FGM. The data item FGM Type 4 Qualifier allows users to specify that the FGM was a piercing. Genital piercings are classed as FGM Type 4 - Piercing.

(emphasis added)

Because there's no mention of consent, or differentiation between "consensual" and "non-consensual" I can only assume that this means consent is irrelevant to the classification.

[–]maluminse 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]maluminse -13 points-12 points-11 points 3 years ago (26 children) | Copy Link

[–]matrixislife 5 points6 points7 points 3 years ago (16 children) | Copy Link

[–]maluminse -5 points-4 points-3 points 3 years ago (15 children) | Copy Link

🤪

Circumcision is Healthier - Mayo Clinic

Easier hygiene. Circumcision makes it simpler to wash the penis. However, boys with uncircumcised penises can be taught to wash regularly beneath the foreskin.
Decreased risk of urinary tract infections. The risk of urinary tract infections in males is low, but these infections are more common in uncircumcised males. Severe infections early in life can lead to kidney problems later.
Decreased risk of sexually transmitted infections. Circumcised men might have a lower risk of certain sexually transmitted infections, including HIV. Still, safe sexual practices remain essential. Prevention of penile problems. Occasionally, the foreskin on an uncircumcised penis can be difficult or impossible to retract (phimosis). This can lead to inflammation of the foreskin or head of the penis.
Decreased risk of penile cancer. Although cancer of the penis is rare, it's less common in circumcised men. In addition, cervical cancer is less common in the female sexual partners of circumcised men.

[–]matrixislife -1 points0 points1 point 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]intactisnormal -1 points0 points1 point 3 years ago (13 children) | Copy Link

I think the stats on the items listed by the Mayo clinic sheds great insight.

Hygiene: We have easy access to water for hygiene. It’s easy to wash body parts.
Lowers UTI: "It has been estimated that 111 to 125 normal infant boys (for whom the risk of UTI is 1% to 2%) would need to be circumcised at birth to prevent one UTI." Take a minute to think about how many 111 to 125 boys are. I would need to have 118 sons (!) and circumcise all of them to prevent a single UTI. And UTI’s "can easily be treated with antibiotics without tissue loss"
UTI con't: "...most experts believe that UTIs in children with normal kidneys do not result in long-term sequelae."
STDs and HIV: “The number needed to [circumcise] to prevent one HIV infection varied, from 1231 in white males to 65 in black males, with an average in all males of 298.” Condoms are an actually effective transmission barriers to STIs and must be used regardless.
Penile Problems: "An estimated 0.8% to 1.6% of boys will require circumcision before puberty, most commonly to treat phimosis. The first-line medical treatment of phimosis involves applying a topical steroid twice a day to the foreskin, accompanied by gentle traction. This therapy ... allow[s] the foreskin to become retractable in 80% of treated cases, thus usually avoiding the need for circumcision."
Penile cancer: “Decreased penile cancer risk: NNT = 900 – 322,000”. That means between 900 and 322,000 circumcisions need to be performed to prevent a single case of penile cancer. It is incredibly rare.
Cervical cancer is from HPV which has a vaccine. Which is so effective that (turning to news) "Australia could become first country to eradicate cervical cancer. Free vaccine program in schools leads to big drop in rates."

These stats are terrible, it's disingenuous for these to be called legitimate health benefits. And more importantly, all of these items have a different treatment or prevention method that is more effective and less invasive.

The medical ethics requires medical necessity in order to intervene on someone else’s body. These stats do not present medical necessity. Not by a long shot.

And importantly the foreskin is the most sensitive part of the penis. (Full study.)

Also check out the detailed anatomy and role of the foreskin in this presentation (for ~15 minutes) as Dr. Guest discusses the innervation of the penis, the mechanical function of the foreskin and its role in lubrication during sex, and the likelihood of decreased sexual pleasure for both male and partner.

Benefits outweigh risks.

I can address this in more detail if you want, but for now I'll highlight the medical ethics.

The medical ethics requires medical necessity in order to intervene on someone else’s body. The Canadian Paediatrics Society puts it well:

“Neonatal circumcision is a contentious issue in Canada. The procedure often raises ethical and legal considerations, in part because it has lifelong consequences and is performed on a child who cannot give consent. Infants need a substitute decision maker – usually their parents – to act in their best interests. Yet the authority of substitute decision makers is not absolute. In most jurisdictions, authority is limited only to interventions deemed to be medically necessary. In cases in which medical necessity is not established or a proposed treatment is based on personal preference, interventions should be deferred until the individual concerned is able to make their own choices. With newborn circumcision, medical necessity has not been clearly established.”

To override someone's body autonomy rights the standard is medical necessity. Without necessity the decision goes to the patient themself, later in life. Circumcision is very far from being medically necessary.

[–]maluminse 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]intactisnormal -1 points0 points1 point 3 years ago (11 children) | Copy Link

[–]maluminse 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (10 children) | Copy Link

[–]intactisnormal -1 points0 points1 point 3 years ago (9 children) | Copy Link

Nah plenty of health benefits

Already covered, the stats are terrible.

outway any potential risk.

Already covered, the standard to intervene is not benefits vs risks. It is medical necessity.

The medical ethics requires medical necessity in order to intervene on someone else’s body. The Canadian Paediatrics Society puts it well:

“Neonatal circumcision is a contentious issue in Canada. The procedure often raises ethical and legal considerations, in part because it has lifelong consequences and is performed on a child who cannot give consent. Infants need a substitute decision maker – usually their parents – to act in their best interests. Yet the authority of substitute decision makers is not absolute. In most jurisdictions, authority is limited only to interventions deemed to be medically necessary. In cases in which medical necessity is not established or a proposed treatment is based on personal preference, interventions should be deferred until the individual concerned is able to make their own choices. With newborn circumcision, medical necessity has not been clearly established.”

To override someone's body autonomy rights the standard is medical necessity. Without necessity the decision goes to the patient themself, later in life. Circumcision is very far from being medically necessary.

You keep saying basic hygiene.

Because you keep saying smegma. Like you just did. So here we are again: Basic Hygiene. Men that practice basic hygiene don't get smegma.

But if you want to circumcise yourself instead of practicing basic hygiene, you are free to circumcise yourself. Really. The standard to intervene on someone else's body is medical necessity.

And you're on to anecdotes. Yup. I give the medicine and the medical ethics, and you give anecdotes. Yup.

[–]maluminse 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]intactisnormal -1 points0 points1 point 3 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

Ill stick with advice from major clinics.

And you try to shut out medical information.

Uncut basic hygiene outcome < cut basic hygiene outcome

And back to it again: Basic hygiene is easy. There needs to be medical necessity to circumcise others, eg a newborn. So you can think whatever you want about hygiene and as such you are free to circumcise yourself. To circumcise others, eg a newborn, you must show medical necessity.

You keep deflecting from that

Addressed every time. BTW you are the one that posted the Mayo article, but when it's addressed you deflect from the actual medicine and medical ethics with anecdotes about hygiene - which again means you are free to circumcise yourself.

and trying to gas light as if the starting point is the same.

Says the guy that won't acknowledge the medical information when it's addressed.

The example said equally clean from the start 'proper shower'.

See, deflection to personal anecdotes. Deflecting away from the medicine and medical ethics.

Youre doing that to avoid the reality.

Says the guy that literally just admitted to shutting out medical information. You can't make this up.

Benefits outweigh risks. Didnt say medically necessary.

See, more deflection. I am the one giving the correct medical ethics that require medical necessity. The standard is not benefits vs risks, it is medical necessity. Say it with me, medical necessity.

Perhaps next time we can address the issues with the benefits vs risks, but for now we will establish the standard is medical necessity. Say it with me, medical necessity.

So you do you. More power to you. Ill be me.

That's the entire point. Without medical necessity the decision goes to the person themself. It's their genitals, it's no one else's business.

[–]Jacklshere 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (8 children) | Copy Link

[–]maluminse -3 points-2 points-1 points 3 years ago (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jacklshere 5 points6 points7 points 3 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]maluminse -2 points-1 points0 points 3 years ago (5 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jacklshere 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]maluminse 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jacklshere 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]maluminse 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

The point youre trying to make is to confuse terms so one can be related to others.

The main fgm which most people are aware is gouging the clitoris out.

But sure show me a less invasive procedure that has health benefits and I may change my mind.

Ill do it for you.

Labiaplasty. Entirely esthetic but its an operation on the vagina and by your analysis is therefore fgm. Totally safe and totally desirable by some.

Trimming pubic hair - fgm in your book.

The fgm where the clitoris is gouged out is barbaric and has zero health benefits.

The 'mgm'...no not going to call it that. The last m stands for mutilation.

Labiaplasty is not mutilation. Circumcision is not mutilation.

So play semantic games all you want.

Pointing out benefits of a procedure is a problem? Benefits are a positive description not a problem.

[–]Jacklshere -1 points0 points1 point 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]PrudentWolf -42 points-41 points-40 points 3 years ago (27 children) | Copy Link

[–]Fearless-File-3625 20 points21 points22 points 3 years ago (20 children) | Copy Link

[–]chupasway 9 points10 points11 points 3 years ago* (12 children) | Copy Link

[–]Fearless-File-3625 -4 points-3 points-2 points 3 years ago* (7 children) | Copy Link

[–]Clemicus 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Sininenn 3 points4 points5 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]Fearless-File-3625 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago* (4 children) | Copy Link

[–]Clemicus 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Fearless-File-3625 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Clemicus 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago* (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Fearless-File-3625 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]maluminse 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]chupasway 2 points3 points4 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]maluminse 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]chupasway 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[+]PrudentWolf -13 points-12 points-11 points 3 years ago (6 children) | Copy Link

[–]Fearless-File-3625 4 points5 points6 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]TrilIias 1 point2 points3 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]maluminse 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (3 children) | Copy Link

[–]Clemicus 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago* (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]maluminse 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

I did not know what smegma was until very recently. The fact its an issue is concerning. Nonetheless: Circumcision is Healthier - Mayo Clinic

Easier hygiene. Circumcision makes it simpler to wash the penis. However, boys with uncircumcised penises can be taught to wash regularly beneath the foreskin.
Decreased risk of urinary tract infections. The risk of urinary tract infections in males is low, but these infections are more common in uncircumcised males. Severe infections early in life can lead to kidney problems later.
Decreased risk of sexually transmitted infections. Circumcised men might have a lower risk of certain sexually transmitted infections, including HIV. Still, safe sexual practices remain essential. Prevention of penile problems. Occasionally, the foreskin on an uncircumcised penis can be difficult or impossible to retract (phimosis). This can lead to inflammation of the foreskin or head of the penis.
Decreased risk of penile cancer. Although cancer of the penis is rare, it's less common in circumcised men. In addition, cervical cancer is less common in the female sexual partners of circumcised men.

[+]PrudentWolf 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]odysseytree 8 points9 points10 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]maluminse 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]odysseytree -1 points0 points1 point 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

[–]DarkShadow4444 -3 points-2 points-1 points 3 years ago (2 children) | Copy Link

[–]Jacklshere 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (1 child) | Copy Link

[–]Clemicus 0 points1 point2 points 3 years ago (0 children) | Copy Link

Title	I asked the Snapchat Artificial Intelligence Bot if I should circumcise my son and daughter. The responses were horridly biased.
Author	ThiefOfNightTime
Upvotes	167
Comments	73
Date	April 17, 2023 5:04 PM UTC (3 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/MensRights/comments/12pp5yo/i_asked_the_snapchat_artificial_intelligence_bot/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/i-asked-the-snapchat-artificial-intelligence-bot.1214665 https://theredarchive.com/post/1214665

Comments