NEWS: Sex Change for a Driver's License?

You are right, I was being flip about this. There has to be some better options though!

TheFox said:

Rush said:

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

Imagician said:

Scinge said:
I saw a picture in National Geo once of a middle eastern girl going through the happy coming of age ritual of being circumsized.

I'm probably going to get crucified for saying this, but I don't necessarily have a problem with female circumcision. At least, the fundamental principle behind it anyway... Who are we to pass judgement on someone else's cultural practices? Is it any different to a Jewish boy having his foreskin removed? I hear you screaming "But that's done when he's a baby, he doesn't know any better!" It still means he wasn't given a choice... Yet that's far more accepted than female circumcision. What about a young African woman having her lip sliced open and a plate inserted? What about rings being placed around her neck until her neck is so elongated and weak that if the rings were to be removed the sheer weight of her head would snap her neck? Yet, these also seem to be more accepted forms of cultural practice.

To qualify my view point, I must say that, if female circumcision is to be performed, it should be performed in a sterile environment with a local anaesthetic, not just a brutal hack and slash operation which seems to be the norm.

Oh, for fuck's sake. Do you even know what female "circumsicion" IS?

Handy diagram (click the picture for bigger version):

SPOILERS! (Click to view)

A foreskin is comparable to the clitoral hood. Also called the "prepuce" on both men and women. Figure B, description A would be comparable to a male circumcision.

Having the clitoris removed is like removing the entire penis. Sewing up the labia would be like, I dunno, wrapping the scrotum around the penis and sewing it up.

I do wish they would call it something other than "female circumcision" - it does imply something fairly innocuous. Thanks for posting a better version of what I was gonna.

Historically, it has been also called "female genital mutilation."

I think that's a better term and isn't as misleading.

I can't believe they still do this shit in some parts of the world.

From a website on Female Genital Cutting:

Seems I've touched a nerve with some. There are "facts" being thrown around that simply aren't true or, at least, are not as clear cut as they are being stated. However, I'm not going to keep repeating my argument as I've stated it about as clearly as I can and I stand by it. It's a hard line I'm taking, I know, but I honestly believe that Imposing one cultural/religious morality on another is simply universally wrong. It causes cultural/religious tension and is precisely the reason things like 9/11 and terrorism occur.

One point I will clarify though, is that not once have I said I agree with female circumcision. I do think it is unnecessary and, often, cruel. So, I think to come to the conclusion that I hate women is a little misguided and frankly not true. And, with that, I'm moving on My apologies for ninja'ing the original discussion.

those old cronies should leave their kids sensetive bits alone, fucked up or what!

The problem is not that you've taken a hard-line, it's that you've taken a philosophical laboratory concept and attempted to apply it to a real world situation.

In theory I agree with you - that one "culture" can't define the standards of another...and when it's just a concept in a lab (or debate chat room)...that's fine. But once one hits the real world, there are not-hard-to-define places where relativism stands, and places where it's absurd.

The concept that a theory or philosophy must stand in all circumstances or fails to stand in any is naïve. To say that if one takes a stance (or even steps in to prevent) an atrocity such as female circumcision...soon we'll be requiring everyone to wear flowered polo shirts and eat cheeseburgers is just unrealistic.

Don't fool yourself into thinking that 9/11 occurred because of the western world's attempts to stop deplorable human rights violations.

How about human morality?

I don't even agree with male circumcision unless the male is old enough to make the decision for himself. It is a useless and pointless surgical procedure, IMO, and one that has become far too common in this day and age.

Seems to me you're a giant douche.

Also: DOUBLE YOO TEE EFF? Stopping women from getting their clits chopped off=9/11? Holy shit...i don't even know how to respond to that.

Fixed.

FGM law.. a fucked up attempt to regulate our own culture through the guise of another's.....


I also agree that we shouldn't regulate other peoples cultures, mainly because the more power we allow ourselves to believe we have the more control our government has over us. By allowing them to enforce our laws and beliefs on other countries we aid our government in becoming a dictatorship. While any form of unwanted mutilation, cultural practice or oppression, especially to women, is awful and unfortunate the change needs to come from within that cultures people. Our only role as outsiders, if we feel the need to change things, should be to support their efforts if needed and wanted.

Unfortunatly, I am also very opposed to any sort of violence or oppression of women... so this makes it a tough issue to debate...

I think that's all myth. If I remember correctly, circumcisions were originally a religious ritual.

I think the religious reasons were later replaced with the belief that a circumcised penis is cleaner or easier to clean.

In fairness, it was considered to be for health. Even in the religious sense, a huge portion of the old testament's guidelines and rituals were based in cleanliness and the prevention of disease. Circumcision was considered the covenant with God, but was also represented heavily in the sections for disease prevention.

In the early modern era, it was continued because it was believed to reduce the risk of infection...however, all evidence has since shown that to be untrue.

We don't want you to repeat your argument...we want you to defend it against very reasonable criticism. Inability to do so simply means it wasn't well thought out in the first place.

Here is the thing:

Your position posits that "it's okay because it's their culture."
So all cultures have equally valid cultural beliefs.
Then a culture that believes only it's own ideals are valid has an equally valid position.

Your position is contradictory and therefore wrong. Unless you're going to break out Perspectivism, but I don't think that's what you're arguing.

It does however reduce the risk of contracting/spreading HIV

I love how y'all keep calling the freshly en-dude-ed dude "she".

Um, the subjugation of (and forcible injury) of one group by another is simply wrong, no matter what the culture. Try to defend slavery using your same, braindead "logic".

It's really not difficult to understand.