It’s an infant. The size of the penis as an infant has nothing to do with the size the penis will be when they are an adult.
It’s like the joke about the kid asking his parents why he has the biggest dick out of all the boys in the third grade and his parents tell him it’s because he’s 17.
Also, we know nothing about the situation at all. It's very likely that the extra penis wasn't functional or had some dangerous complication. The experts involved who know things about the situation probably had a reason. It kinda reminds me of Chesterton's fence. Theres probably a good reason the surgeons did this.
People with unusual genitalia like intersex people often have their shit cut off for no good reason too. You're right that there could have been a good reason, but I'm not too sure about that
Very true but honestly it's still not ethical to do that unless it was causing harm in some way. If it's not causing harm why do an entire painful surgery about a cosmetic defect nobody is going to see?
And if you read the actual article and not just the clickbait headline, it wasn’t just performed without a medical justification.
A age 2, doctors removed his left penis because it wasn't properly connected to his bladder.
further test revealed that the left penis didn't have a fully-formed urethra. If a urethra isn't fully formed and is untreated, it can lead to bladder infections, bladder tumors, and urine entering the kidneys which can lead to infection.
This wasn’t something that was done immediately after birth without proper medical testing
This still doesn't make logical sense. If the issue is the urethra, fix the urethra. In fact, if the penis wasn't connected -at all- (e.g. removing any partial connection) then it WOULD NOT risk bladder infections, tumors, or kidney infections.
Edit: Since there was a deleted comment, I'm going to append my reply here so that others can see.
With diaphilia, the issue ISN'T the presence of a second phallus. The issue is the anatomy of the urethral system. In -every- case here, the medical necessity is to terminate the non-functioning urethra. Urethostomy-is- a possibility in these cases IN GENERAL (in that the entirety of the non-functioning urethra is sealed and terminated, and one singular path created from bladder through one single penis). Typically the medical community finds it more complicated and challenging, and it's avoided. But it depends.
But specifically, modern practice is largely to avoid amputation if at all possible - though I can't say for certain if that was done in 'this' case.
maybe it's less expensive and less risky for the infant this way, like doing many reconstruction or operation on an infant is not better than amputating the second and useless penis. for me, one operation that the infant will feel only one time is better and has less danger than many operations that put the health of the infant in danger.
You're misunderstanding. The amputation of the non-functional penis does not fix the issue in diphillia cases. You have to look at the entire urethral system, trace from bladder to tip(s), and ensure that there are no blind branches or points where urine can collect. Amputation is not the necessary solution to this issue, in most cases where it is done on a fully formed penis, it is to make monitoring of complications and fissures -easier-. The situation IS highly variable, though.
And again, as I said, common advice is to preserve tissue where at all possible.
i don't know man, I am not a doctor. I was trying to understand why they did it, you are better than me in this, but I have trust in doctors, if they seem like a good one obviously.
sigh I could provide the case studies where they performed successful urethectomies on diphillia patients, but would there be a point? The end result being one working urethral system. But would you care? No, I didn't MISS that.
Basically the non-functional urethra can be completely sealed rather than removing the entirety of that penis. Sometimes they also end up degloving both and creating one single penis with one urethral system.
/uj the bigger one's urethra wasn't really hooked up right I guess, I don't remember if there was anything else wrong with it but I'd be pissed myself if it wasn't strictly necessary
This right here. If the argument is about the child not being able to consent, that’s valid. Immediately talking about how this can impact the infant’s future sex life (as several comments have already done) is VERY weird.
People do it all of the time. I was objectified constantly by the women in my family growing up because they knew that I was allegedly born with a large penis which they somehow believed would grow proportionally as I matured. I also received a lot of upsetting and problematic messaging on my future love life and sexual prospects (and how many "problems" it was going to give me) before I had even hit puberty.
A few years ago I also heard a comment from my teenage sister that indicated to me that my mother had been talking to her about it (I'm 22). And just as a stroke of bad luck, this all happened while I'm also ace and trans, so at no point in my life was it even remotely pleasant or perceivable as compliments.
Doctors rarely chop of functional Body parts just like that, that means the bigger one probably wasn't functional thats why they chopped it of. Plus it feels weird to feel bad for an infant to not have the bigger one for obvious reasons.
Why chop it off? Did they ask the infant? Was it stopping some bodily function? Hatmful?
Like why the fuck do adults think they can decide kid's bodily autonomy?
If you are that baby and you are reading this, you have the right to go extremely violent and devise a revenge plan that leads you, at the end of the movie, to kill the doctor who made that decision.
Well normally for this kind of thing it's legitimately detrimental for their well-being, you do have cases of fully functional growths like with doubledickdude. Then you also have cases that result in incontinence, issues with the urinary tract in general, double bladder, blocked/absent anus, and so on. Normally diphallia isn't treated immediately if it isn't life threatening or would result in a poorer quality of life.
You are right that abnormalities shouldn't always be treated, especially if they're fully functional which is normally the medical consensus on it too, however later in life people will opt to have them removed because it can cause massive psychological issues because they don't feel like they can fit in
Don't hold your breath for the gender critical crowd to show up preaching the dangers of "child genital mutilation", even though in this instance it's actually happening
Okay, so let’s talk about this legitimately.
It’s an infant. The size of the penis as an infant has nothing to do with the size the penis will be when they are an adult.
It’s like the joke about the kid asking his parents why he has the biggest dick out of all the boys in the third grade and his parents tell him it’s because he’s 17.
Also, we know nothing about the situation at all. It's very likely that the extra penis wasn't functional or had some dangerous complication. The experts involved who know things about the situation probably had a reason. It kinda reminds me of Chesterton's fence. Theres probably a good reason the surgeons did this.
It was bigger than the surgeons. That was the problem. /s
The real answer was they had a botched bottom surgery and they found a donor pretty quickly.
Is this the IRL cockroach scene from Ace ventura?
Couldn't step on him so good the next best thing
Reasonable
I’ve read the article, they removed what was determined to be the less functional one.
People with unusual genitalia like intersex people often have their shit cut off for no good reason too. You're right that there could have been a good reason, but I'm not too sure about that
This, sometimes doctors just pick a gender and remove the other parts which is insane.
Yeah, how could they accurately determine functionality when it's an infant.
They could just let the kid grow up and figure out what they want of their body themselves? (Unless there are serious health concerns obvs)
peter thats not a meme, thats just a grown man looking at childrens' bodies
Thats just a joke
Well it didn’t really happen.
Very true but honestly it's still not ethical to do that unless it was causing harm in some way. If it's not causing harm why do an entire painful surgery about a cosmetic defect nobody is going to see?
And if you read the actual article and not just the clickbait headline, it wasn’t just performed without a medical justification.
This wasn’t something that was done immediately after birth without proper medical testing
It's good that it was neccesary then because especially for intersex people some of these early interventions can be super messed up.
This still doesn't make logical sense. If the issue is the urethra, fix the urethra. In fact, if the penis wasn't connected -at all- (e.g. removing any partial connection) then it WOULD NOT risk bladder infections, tumors, or kidney infections.
Edit: Since there was a deleted comment, I'm going to append my reply here so that others can see.
With diaphilia, the issue ISN'T the presence of a second phallus. The issue is the anatomy of the urethral system. In -every- case here, the medical necessity is to terminate the non-functioning urethra. Urethostomy-is- a possibility in these cases IN GENERAL (in that the entirety of the non-functioning urethra is sealed and terminated, and one singular path created from bladder through one single penis). Typically the medical community finds it more complicated and challenging, and it's avoided. But it depends.
But specifically, modern practice is largely to avoid amputation if at all possible - though I can't say for certain if that was done in 'this' case.
maybe it's less expensive and less risky for the infant this way, like doing many reconstruction or operation on an infant is not better than amputating the second and useless penis. for me, one operation that the infant will feel only one time is better and has less danger than many operations that put the health of the infant in danger.
You're misunderstanding. The amputation of the non-functional penis does not fix the issue in diphillia cases. You have to look at the entire urethral system, trace from bladder to tip(s), and ensure that there are no blind branches or points where urine can collect. Amputation is not the necessary solution to this issue, in most cases where it is done on a fully formed penis, it is to make monitoring of complications and fissures -easier-. The situation IS highly variable, though.
And again, as I said, common advice is to preserve tissue where at all possible.
i don't know man, I am not a doctor. I was trying to understand why they did it, you are better than me in this, but I have trust in doctors, if they seem like a good one obviously.
Avoid amputation of regular organs, not amputation of tumors.
Yes? Are you trying to argue that the non-functional penis was a tumor? Because that's not medically correct.
I was making a comparison.
You compared two VERY different concepts. Quite literally, Apples and Oranges.
Did you miss “wasn’t connected to the bladder properly” you want work to risk making two fully functional dick when one doesn’t work at all.
sigh I could provide the case studies where they performed successful urethectomies on diphillia patients, but would there be a point? The end result being one working urethral system. But would you care? No, I didn't MISS that.
Im confused. How do we end up with one working system. Wouldn’t the person have two penis”s connect to their bladder
Basically the non-functional urethra can be completely sealed rather than removing the entirety of that penis. Sometimes they also end up degloving both and creating one single penis with one urethral system.
What do you mean nobody is going to see
“The size of the penis as an infant has nothing to do with the size the penis will be when they are an afult”
I dunno man, mine stayed the same as back then.
🤣
Mfers were jealous... Gotta eliminate possible future competition
In that case they should’ve chopped both off.
They also don't want a case against them
WHY??????
/uj the bigger one's urethra wasn't really hooked up right I guess, I don't remember if there was anything else wrong with it but I'd be pissed myself if it wasn't strictly necessary
I'd be pissed, but at least I would get to piss at all I guess
"It is better for one to be pissed than to be full of ones piss." - Sun Tzu
“Better to piss in the sink, than to sink in the piss.”
It didn't have a fully formed urethra and could lead to bladder infection, bladder tumors, and urine entering the kidneys which can lead to infection in the future. At least according to the article.https://www.businessinsider.com/toddler-born-with-diphallia-2-penises-larger-removed-rare-surgery-2022-4
Guess the doctors just really love a plot twist
More blood flow has now been directed to help the baby grow
right... cuz... baby boners? what?
Babys do get boners....
Sadly I read this story and the bigger one wasnt functional :/
Not functional for peeing
.... yeah... like... the more important thing..?
for you, not for us
That kid got dicked over.
Really hope they gave that poor boy penis-illin...
Hope the kid grows up, sues them and gets a willy big payout.
To be fair though, the doctors did what they had to do, can't be too hard-on them.
We should erect a memorial out of solidarity.
😭😭
actually, he was over-dicked
Yeah man i also hope that they put penicillin inside the system of an infant that just got here
Five lame dad jokes in a row, and somehow your only takeaway was to be a nonce about proper penicillin usage?
I wouldn't say giving an infant penicillin is proper usage. I simply hope that they did.
Its a joke, not a litteral statement...
So you're against giving newborns penicillin??
My dude, go outside.
It’s really weird that a small child with a medical condition is having the size of his penis commented on.
This right here. If the argument is about the child not being able to consent, that’s valid. Immediately talking about how this can impact the infant’s future sex life (as several comments have already done) is VERY weird.
Right? Like why did they even mention the relative sizes anywhere?
People do it all of the time. I was objectified constantly by the women in my family growing up because they knew that I was allegedly born with a large penis which they somehow believed would grow proportionally as I matured. I also received a lot of upsetting and problematic messaging on my future love life and sexual prospects (and how many "problems" it was going to give me) before I had even hit puberty.
A few years ago I also heard a comment from my teenage sister that indicated to me that my mother had been talking to her about it (I'm 22). And just as a stroke of bad luck, this all happened while I'm also ace and trans, so at no point in my life was it even remotely pleasant or perceivable as compliments.
Ugh, I’m so sorry. Those comments are terrible and should be shut down immediately by any decent person.
I also have a lot of problems due to my enormous hog.
Do not listen to your mom - 9cm is the norm
it’s not even a meme without the bottom part bro
this subreddit is losing the plot at this point
Most memes aren’t memes without the memes.
https://preview.redd.it/vm8q8w22nq4g1.jpeg?width=1440&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6f26e9cb0eecd62cb0ad8af00079c2ccb02ef0af
meme born with 2 images due to rare social media condition, redditor chops off bigger one
Thank you for your Surgery Doctor
That kid will have an absolute banger of an answer for 2 truths one lie
Doctors rarely chop of functional Body parts just like that, that means the bigger one probably wasn't functional thats why they chopped it of. Plus it feels weird to feel bad for an infant to not have the bigger one for obvious reasons.
Yeah, no, it wasn't. It was going to cause health issues in the future. I mean.... still lucky him, i don't even have one, And bro had 2
You don't know where on his body this was . . .
Forhead?
20 years later “you should have seen they one they cut off”
I’m just upset they removed one! I woulda kept both!
People said that it had health risk, later in life
The infant and their future partner
There he is,
Biggie Smalls
This will be a joke for Spanish speakers (because I don't know how to adapt it to English) :
Los doctores llegaron a la conclusión de que había que matarlo, porque se pasó de vergas
the 'bigger one' was on his forehead.
/s
Dick-head human form
Why chop it off? Did they ask the infant? Was it stopping some bodily function? Hatmful? Like why the fuck do adults think they can decide kid's bodily autonomy?
Please correct me on this but I'm pretty sure the size can indicate irregularities which can cause infections or even be some kind of tumor.
Yess yess, which is why they cut it
Some of y’all are fucking creeps and should seek mental help.
im only 17 and i still feel like this is just a harmless joke
Damn. Kid lived every man's dream. For a while at least.
Imagine all the double penetration possibilities
Sukuna reincarnated?
https://preview.redd.it/zdhkax2kqu4g1.jpeg?width=474&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=46513c70dc1fe6032f3a25761f25beca5ac26e5e
Why didn't they leave both?
They should have kept both. Would make for the greatest college party trick of all time
and it is a girl
I mean. The kid still got 1. But yeah, sure... if they identify as a woman. Sure
Ты че сделал
Born with 4 toes as well? How much did they chop off??
Went from double trouble, to one of us real quick.
Life is all about, the strongest.... Surviving...
sobs
Haha
The rare medical condition being that he's a klingon
For a moment I'm legitimately wondering if it might have been better for him to keep both. Could you imagine
I'd like to have two(
Indians
Same thing happened to me
If you are that baby and you are reading this, you have the right to go extremely violent and devise a revenge plan that leads you, at the end of the movie, to kill the doctor who made that decision.
Sexy time after a future date: - The date: uh! You have a big D! - The boy: you should have seen the other one.... Starts to cry.
Why the fuck do people cut off non-threatening abnormalities ? Some people I know had an extra finger that was cut off at birth. Why ??
It's actually because the bigger one couldn't urinate properly or smth
yeah but it's like it's not life threatening
Well normally for this kind of thing it's legitimately detrimental for their well-being, you do have cases of fully functional growths like with doubledickdude. Then you also have cases that result in incontinence, issues with the urinary tract in general, double bladder, blocked/absent anus, and so on. Normally diphallia isn't treated immediately if it isn't life threatening or would result in a poorer quality of life.
You are right that abnormalities shouldn't always be treated, especially if they're fully functional which is normally the medical consensus on it too, however later in life people will opt to have them removed because it can cause massive psychological issues because they don't feel like they can fit in
wasnt doubledickdude a fraud
She will thank them later.
I mean. They still have 1. But, sure... if they identify as a woman later
All the threesomes the poor guy has lost
HE WAS THE CHOSEN ONE!
Don't hold your breath for the gender critical crowd to show up preaching the dangers of "child genital mutilation", even though in this instance it's actually happening
yap yap yap
Jealous ass motherfuckers