I read the section two definition of “chemical and surgical mutilation” and it mentions altering sex organs to remove their biological functions. One of the biological functions of a penis is to produce sperm. So could this mean no more federal coverage for vasectomies as well as stuff like tubal litigation or hysterectomies? And yes, I know that people under 19 don’t usually get permanent sterilization procedures anyways, but I still wonder about this interpretation.
The phrase “chemical and surgical mutilation” means the use of puberty blockers, including GnRH agonists and other interventions, to delay the onset or progression of normally timed puberty in an individual who does not identify as his or her sex; the use of sex hormones, such as androgen blockers, estrogen, progesterone, or testosterone, to align an individual’s physical appearance with an identity that differs from his or her sex; and surgical procedures that attempt to transform an individual’s physical appearance to align with an identity that differs from his or her sex or that attempt to alter or remove an individual’s sexual organs to minimize or destroy their natural biological functions. This phrase sometimes is referred to as “gender affirming care.”
Shit. That’s a declaration of war, if I’ve ever seen one. That has to be stopped. It goes against, blatantly, the most basic rights of self affirmation.
(a) The term “child” or “children” means an individual or individuals under 19 years of age.
Uh, fucking what?
This is almost certainly to set a precedent for it applying to adults as well so they can later increase the age.
That’s like the closest to a sane thing in there.
if you can join the military at 18…
Yeah but America already considers you a kid until what, 21? They’re a bit behind the times.
my issue isnt with the 21 or the 19
Well it should be.
Other issues: no more circumcision, even if medically needed, and no more other medical procedures that make the tradeoff of saving a life over surgery.
If infant male genital mutilation ends, I see that as a win.
Yeah; but does Trump’s base?
Well they do have an obsession with gay stuff, so maybe they prefer their young twinks cut?
Mutilation is a strong word for it.
I don’t think so. It’s a pretty barbaric practice, so it deserves strong language. I suspect the only reason it’s still prevalent in America is the momentum of long-standing tradition. There’s no reasonable justification for performing unnecessary surgery on a newborn’s genitals.
I would say tradition yeah. A lot of women also don’t like uncircumcised genitals.
In some cultures, men don’t like women who haven’t had their labia and clitoris removed. Does that preference justify the practice?
Removing the foreskin removes thousands of nerve endings and desensitizes the glans.
I don’t recall advocating for it. I’m just saying it’s a thing, it won’t go away either and in the US it’s more of a traditional thing than religion thing. A it was only a few decades ago where it was considered “more hygenic”.
ackshually circumcision doesn’t minimize or destroy their natural biological functions
That’s probably the MAGA line, yes. Despite the scientific papers on the topic.
The inner part of your foreskin and glans are a mucous membrane, similar to the inside of your mouth or eyelids, when you remove the foreskin the glass is exposed, dries out, and keratinizes.
The skin of your penis is also supposed to be mobile and slide along the shaft, it’s sort of like a bearing, if a circumcision is done tightly it can’t do that and you may need lube for masturbation or sex that wouldn’t necessarily be needed otherwise.
The frenulum is often removed in circumcision and is one of the most sensitive parts of the penis, so removing that obviously loses some sensitivity
Definitely seems like it minimizes or destroys some normal functioning to me.
It’s less penis, so literally minimizes it
This is incorrect. If you lower your hood, does your body get smaller?
If you cut the hood off your jacket, do you have less jacket?
And does your hoodie lose some of its functionality?
That’s a false claim as well you don’t lose sensitivity or function.
So then why bother? Just wash it the shower like every other part of you. There is no convenience factor.
There’s certainly an argument to be had there. Circumcision comes with permanent changes to sexual functioning
It tracks with their “Christian” beliefs. They don’t want abortions and they don’t want vasectomies. They want people to pump out kids like baby factories. Also, the birthrate in the US is dropping and they want to make sure there are enough workers to exploit in the future.
I wish they had anything with a long-term vision, even one as bad as that.
Parents with young children are very easy to exploit due to a lack of options. They can’t just quit/move/start a riot, because they have to worry about their child. They also tend to be very afraid (of many things), which is the Republican bread and butter.
It wouldn’t apply to anyone 19 or older, as that definition is an aspect of the order and the age range is defined.
If they passed a law that expanded the definition to all ages, then vasectomies, hysterectomies, mastectomies, circumcisions, etc. would all be banned due to the sloppy and imprecise language.
Fuck Donald Trump and MAGA. I want a vasectomy and will get one when I choose to. My body, my choice. ✊
I read it as creating a mandate for the government to reduce microplastics that get into the human body because those reduce fertility and sperm count. Except in these kinds of bills, there’s always an unwritten addendum that says that the bill doesn’t apply if a perceived obligation affects a company’s bottom line
Ha!
That’s how I read it…
deleted by creator
… castration … cut off all penises.
I think you’re confused.
Don’t leave out OP.
One of the biological functions of a penis is to produce sperm.
But that would inconvenience men! Why would they ever do THAT?!
