[ SECRET POST #2122 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #2122 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.


__________________________________________________



09.


__________________________________________________



10.


__________________________________________________



11.


__________________________________________________



12.


__________________________________________________



13.


__________________________________________________



14.


__________________________________________________



15.


__________________________________________________



16.


__________________________________________________













Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 034 secrets from Secret Submission Post #303.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 1 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

Re: So, tough week or so for Republicans, eh?

[anonymouslyyours]

How do you get that from the above comment?

If anything the above comment could be interpreted to mean parents shouldn't have a say in circumcision and it should be left to the child to make the decision in adulthood but not "Only menz should decide what to do with baby penis".

And really parents making a decision about their child =/= government making medical decisions for all women.

Re: So, tough week or so for Republicans, eh?

[ill_omened]

The government is making the decision in the case of circumcision though.

Just in the opposite direction.

Because you could be damn sure they'd have something to say if you started tattooing or ritual scarification of your kid.

Re: So, tough week or so for Republicans, eh?

[anonymouslyyours]

I'm sorry?

Are you saying the government is leaving the choice up to parents and not intervening so they are directly involved?

And I fail to see how preventing parents from tattooing a child is equivalent to legislation preventing women from having access to safe abortions.

Re: So, tough week or so for Republicans, eh?

[ill_omened]

By choosing not to act the government is explicitly making a choice about protecting the bodily autonomy of a group of people (young boys in this case) and the ability for them to make the choice themselves - or rather removing that choice.

I'm not intending to suggest it's equivalent, but rather they exist in the same ideological framework and I could see why one would rankle at the supposed hypocrisy there.

Re: So, tough week or so for Republicans, eh?

[anonymouslyyours]

Ah, not on top of my game tonight so I just wanted to be sure that's what you were saying.

I'm actually against circumcising babies personally and can sort of see your second point.

I was just confused as to how the anon I replied to took "FFS can we just make it a rule that you can only police body parts you physically possess?" to mean the first anon's belief logically translated to only men should make decisions about circumcising infants and that the first anon would get ticked over them pointing out the "flaw" in their logic.

Re: So, tough week or so for Republicans, eh?

[(Anonymous)]

I agree with your positions but I can totally see how someone could get that from the comment above- that was actually how I read it the first time around, and I probably would have gone off snarking at them if I hadn't had the foresight to read the rest of the thread first.

Basically, the hiccup is whether you're reading "body parts you physically possess" individually (no policing other people's parts) or categorically (stay out of the discussion if you're not a stakeholder).

Re: So, tough week or so for Republicans, eh?

[anonymouslyyours]

Again, little off tonight but... I don't know anyone who would claim they "physically posses" their child's foreskin.

And the second comment explicitly says "bodily autonomy". Which, unless I'm missing something, doesn't cover someone else's foreskin. I'm failing to see how bodily autonomy for an infant means the father can make a decision about circumcision but the mother can't. And the stakeholder thing doesn't adequately explain to me how a father would have more of a stake in circumcising a child than the mother.

Re: So, tough week or so for Republicans, eh?

[(Anonymous)]

Individual: Body parts you (personally) physically possess

Categorical: Body parts (of the kinds) you physically possess


The former is about autonomy, the latter is loosely along the lines of 'only (people with uteruses) have a place in the abortion debate' (which may fall short of autonomy but IS something I've heard more than once from people who are ID as pro-choice, so.)

Under the latter rhetoric, men/people with penises are the stakeholders in the circumcision debate as they'd be the ones who have (or had) foreskins and can speak from personal experience.