A woman's lifetime chance of developing ovarian cancer is 1 in 78. Women, you should have your ovaries removed. Transgenders do it, and you don't think that's any big deal. And then some people say male circumcision is good for "health", will remove the risk of penile cancer (however small that is). So why not remove those ovaries?
Ye gods but I am sick and tired of people making rubbish up to try and make some weird point https://www.cancer.org/cancer/types...k of developing ovarian,years of age or older. Estimated number of new cases of ovarian cancer (incl. serous carcinomas of the fallopian tube) diagnosed in 2022 1,815 females Estimated % of all new cancers in females diagnosed in 2022 2.5% Estimated number of deaths from ovarian cancer in 2022 1,016 females Estimated % of all female deaths from cancer in 2022 4.6% Chance of surviving at least 5 years (2014–201 49% People living with ovarian cancer (incl. serous carcinomas of the fallopian tube) at the end of 2017 (diagnosed in the 5-year period 2013 to 2017) 5,035 https://www.canceraustralia.gov.au/cancer-types/ovarian-cancer/statistics https://www.canceraustralia.gov.au/...ale has a,diagnosed with ovarian cancer (incl. Since America’s life expectancy for women is only 79.3 years and the average life expectancy in Australia is 84.5 years and risk of ovarian cancer rises with age I would suggest the stats above are a probable overestimation for America https://www.worlddata.info/life-expectancy.php Now let’s look at that Cancer risk factors again https://www.cancer.org/cancer/types/ovarian-cancer/about/key-statistics.html Mainly older women………. Not uncommon for women past menopause to have total hysterectomies and that usually includes bilateral oopherectomies. But bottom line - why not develop a simple test which can be done on women post menopausal? I mean here in Aus every Aussie past the age of 50 gets a free bowel cancer test kit every two years we get a reminder for Pap smear test (free) every 5 years……… Bowel cancer is waaaaaaaay more common than ovarian cancer and strikes at a younger group
Most ovarian cancers actually arise in the fallopian tubes. That's why it has become more common to do a salpingectomy rather than just a tubal ligation for sterilization procedures. Removing the fallopian tubes is not a bad idea if the woman is past her reproductive years, as it's unlikely to occur during the reproductive years anyway. There is some risk of having any kind of surgery in general, but I think it would be worth it for most people. It's definitely worth it if they're already doing surgery in the area for another purpose, kind of like how they do incidental appendectomies to prevent future appendicitis, but wouldn't do the surgery by itself prophylactically. The ovaries provide a better quality of life for women before menopause as it's the source of their hormones. Preventing ovarian cancer: Should women consider removing fallopian tubes? - Harvard Health Oh and the primary benefit of circumcision isn't lowered penile cancer (it's a benefit, just not a big one). It's lowered risk of getting most STDs and UTIs. Easier hygiene is a bonus, especially since it's males we're talking about.
I wonder if there have been any studies looking at whether women have lower rates of STDs if their labia minora is cut off. I strongly suspect it would lower rate of infection by STDs, by some small amount like 5 or 10%, if male circumcision does so. But I think it would be absurd to try to argue that this would justify it.
You are aware that those two pieces of anatomy are comparable? I mean from a developmental point of view, before sexual differentiation?
Off topic much? And yes there ARE studies because female circumcision is still practiced in parts of the world https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/165...atively,protects against pre/extramarital sex. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3654279/
Those studies would probably not be very valid to answering the question because in those areas, female sexual activity outside of marriage is not commonplace. (She probably risks a stoning)
It probably wouldn't do much to reduce STDs.. Data is worth more than suppositions, but it just doesn't seem like it would make a big difference. The procedures are really quite different. Male circumcision does not strongly interfere with a normal sex life. There are debates on whether it makes a difference in sensitivity (not that I would want more), but it's really not the same as removing a part of the body to prevent the main type of orgasm. The purpose of female circumcision is to make women more controllable by blunting their sexual desire/pleasure. The purpose of male circumcision has some cultural origins as well, but it comes with the benefit of lower STDs, lower UTIs, easier hygiene, and a low complication rate in qualified hands. Really, if anything, the European trend against male circumcision is more cultural than scientific in itself.
Though testicular cancer is pretty treatable in comparison to how ovarian cancer usually presents. The benefits would be lower.
Indeed. What a ridiculous thread. So basically with this 1 in 78 women will get ovarian cancer number, why would the 77 women who won’t develop ovarian cancer have a surgery that is totally unnecessary? What about the risk of one in 8 women will get breast cancer, maybe all females should have their breasts removed because after all it doesn’t bother a trans male to get debreasted. Oh and let’s go for 1 in 3 will get some type of cancer. How should that be dealt with? Perhaps all men should opt to have their prostates removed with a chance of 13 in 100 men developing prostate cancer.
What makes you think female fidelity prevents the risk of STD? Men are not always “faithful” to their wives. I provide links, research links which explain methodology - did you not read them?
Yes but unfortunately men are not encouraged to examine thier balls the way women are encouraged to examine thier breasts. A comparable cancer for men though is prostate cancer
It does. I'll borrow from my post in a prior thread last year: What's useful about it in the modern context? I wanted to show actual numbers for benefits. Actually the cdc has the numbers: " Health benefits: Male circumcision can reduce a male’s chances of acquiring HIV by 50% to 60% during heterosexual contact with female partners with HIV, according to data from three clinical trials. Circumcised men compared with uncircumcised men have also been shown in clinical trials to be less likely to acquire new infections with syphilis (by 42%), genital ulcer disease (by 48%), genital herpes (by 28% to 45%), and high-risk strains of human papillomavirus associated with cancer (by 24% to 47% percent). While male circumcision has not been shown to reduce the chances of HIV transmission to female partners, it does reduce the chance that a female partner will acquire a new syphilis infection by 59%. In observational studies, circumcision has been shown to lower the risk of penile cancer, cervical cancer in female sexual partners, and infant urinary tract infections in male infants. Health risks: The overall risk of adverse events associated with male circumcision is low, with minor bleeding and inflammation cited as the most common complications. A CDC analysis found that the rate of adverse events for medically attended male circumcision is 0.4% for infants under 1 year, about 9% for children ages 1 to 9 years, and about 5% for males 10 years and older. More severe complications can occur but are exceedingly rare. Adult men who undergo circumcision generally report minimal or no change in sexual satisfaction or function. Stage of life: Circumcision is simpler, safer, and less expensive for newborns and infants than for adult males. Delaying circumcision until adolescence or adulthood enables the male to participate in – or make – the decision, but could diminish the potential benefits related to sexual health and increases the risks." https://www.cdc.gov/nchhstp/newsroom/fact-sheets/hiv/male-circumcision-HIV-prevention-factsheet.html
Each has their own kind of personality. Prostate cancer is weird. Most old men get it (80% by 80), and many never know they had it. Only a small proportion of them will go rogue and kill them. Biopsies really help, because the higher grade ones definitely seem to be much more likely to be aggressive. Historically, the treatments have been bad for quality of life, and actually castration is one of the therapies, given androgens encourage this cancer to grow.
