[sarchertech]

I’m not going to get into debate on the ethicality of infant circumcision, but there are zero counties that have outlawed it, so there isn’t a jurisdiction on earth that considers it genital mutilation.

As far as their risk tolerances go, ignoring ethical considerations their stance is that the medical benefits slightly outweigh the risks. The view of most European medical associations is that the risks slightly outweigh the benefits.

Neither position is very far from the other in terms of risk analysis.

> For example, is the AAP incorporating the fact that many babies today have greatly reduced access to another adult or older kids to watch and listen to? What if (some) "screen time" is better than the minimum from a tired mom and dad for them?

Do you have kids? Babies require constant adult supervision, so there should never be a time when they don’t have access to an adult.

TV under 2 is detrimental to language development. Is it possible that a parking a baby in front of a TV all day is better than parking a baby in front of a gray wall with no stimuli or interaction and letting them scream? Sure. But no one has that data, or ever will. And no medical agency anywhere in the world is going to issue advice like that.

Smoking is probably protective against Parkinson’s disease but no one is going to add a disclaimer to their PSAs to tell you that. That’s not how public health agencies work.

[lotsofpulp]

> so there isn’t a jurisdiction on earth that considers it genital mutilation.

It is a political fight not worth losing, hence no jurisdiction considers it genital mutilation. But the simplest evidence is that if it didn’t already exist, and someone were to propose it, they would be excommunicated from any community for suggesting unnecessary surgery on a baby.

> Do you have kids? Babies require constant adult supervision, so there should never be a time when they don’t have access to an adult.

Yes, I do.

> Is it possible that a parking a baby in front of a TV all day is better than parking a baby in front of a gray wall with no stimuli or interaction and letting them scream? Sure. But no one has that data, or ever will. And no medical agency anywhere in the world is going to issue advice like that.

These are irrelevant scenarios. The AAP says zero screen time. It seems like an arbitrarily restrictive suggestion when almost all kids grow up with more than zero screen time for many decades now. And almost all parents will let their kid under 2 have some screen time, so it leads to an assumption that the other AAP recommendations can be overly strict also.

[sarchertech]

> But the simplest evidence is that if it didn’t already exist, and someone were to propose it, they would be excommunicated from any community for suggesting unnecessary surgery on a baby.

But it does already exist. If ear piercing didn’t exist, people would think you were insane for having someone shove a wire through your kid’s ear. We do all kinds of weird things to our kids that aliens from another planet would fine insane without any cultural context.

Edit: turns out the AAP recently updated their policy

>Infants under 18 months learn best from real-world interactions. Heavy solo screen use can affect their developing language and social skills, for example. Outcomes depend on how many hours a day little ones spend on digital media and how adults use screens to calm or entertain them. But misuse of digital media can cause:

[lotsofpulp]

I feel the same about ear piercing.

That AAP guideline makes more sense to me.