BayArea Intactivists

@BAIntactivists

Bay Area Intactivists is a human rights organization working to eradicate all forms of genital cutting of children including routine infant circumcision.

San Francisco Bay Area
Vrijeme pridruživanja: rujan 2012.

Tweetovi

Blokirali ste korisnika/cu @BAIntactivists

Jeste li sigurni da želite vidjeti te tweetove? Time nećete deblokirati korisnika/cu @BAIntactivists

  1. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    27. srp 2019.

    Last night Jeff Brown and I rode as Jonathon Conte’s Critical Integrity joining in San Francisco.

    Poništi
  2. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    22. srp 2019.

    Thank you, Brendan LaChance for covering today’s & Friends protest in Casper, Wyoming for Oil City News.

    Poništi
  3. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    18. srp 2019.

    FWIW, my position is that circumcision is an archaic obscenity, a violation of the rights of a child & the fact that it can be (and often is) conducted outside of clinical conditions and without anaesthesia is utterly abhorrent. >

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  4. proslijedio/la je Tweet

    Male genital cutting is unnecessary. It cuts off a functional and highly erogenous part of a male's genitals.

    Poništi
  5. proslijedio/la je Tweet

    are in Colorado raising awareness. Male genital cutting is unnecessary and harmful.

    Poništi
  6. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    12. srp 2019.

    P.S. Study thanking Tomlinson, inventor of "AccuCirc" device () & one of lead authors of manual for non-consensual circumcision touting his own device, recommending pre-qualification of AccuCirc for mass African scale-up:

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  7. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    12. srp 2019.

    then it should not publish manuals for removing 30-50% of motile, erogenous skin system of penis in non-consenting boys based on "health benefits" in consenting adults (in conjunction w. "religious & cultural" considerations) written by inventors of circ devices. Shame on .

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  8. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    12. srp 2019.

    has sacrificed all credibility on male & female genital cutting. If ritual nicking is human rights violation regardless of cultural/religious significance, & if 'cosmetic' labiaplasty is wrong to perform on infant girls even though it has WHO-scope "health benefits" in women

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  9. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    12. srp 2019.

    More claims of health benefits for "female circumcision" below. Even cosmetic labiaplasty in West is touted as conferring mental & sexual health benefits to women who choose it, well within definition of health. If conflates adults/infants in males, why not females?

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  10. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    12. srp 2019.

    Defenders of "female circumcision" now argue this, seeing that "health benefits" seems to impress Western arbiters of which forms of child genital cutting are permissible. You even see claims of "cleanliness" in parallel with male circumcision now raised

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  11. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    12. srp 2019.

    that definition of health is very broad. Not just absence of disease, but "mental & social" wellbeing included. Do social & religious benefits of having vulva modified to fit local cultural norms, avoid teasing, promote marriageability etc., count as health benefits then?

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  12. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    12. srp 2019.

    The "health benefits" used to bolster the latter claim come primarily from studies of sexually active adults undergoing *voluntary* circumcision. So what are the health benefits of voluntary vulva modifications & should these be extrapolated to non-consenting baby girls? Recall

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  13. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    12. srp 2019.

    now simultaneously claims Type IV ritual 'nicking' of vulva (which does not remove tissue) is *human rights violation* regardless of consent, culture, or religion, while decision 2 remove 1/3 or more penile skin system in non-consenting babies should factor culture/religion?

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  14. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    12. srp 2019.

    If such penile laceration & hemorrhage occurs even in developed countries with excellent training programs, using existing clamps and procedures, then surely Tomlinson's new device should be preferred for mass circumcision in developing countries with less excellent training?

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  15. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    12. srp 2019.

    How much money will Tomlinson earn from mass infant circumcision in African countries w. no existing tradition? In manual he touts his own invention to reduce risk of penile laceration & hemorrhage, which occurs "even in developed countries with excellent training programs."

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  16. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    12. srp 2019.

    Would it surprise you to learn that 's Tomlinson applied, in 2005, for a patent on a device he invented for removing "excess foreskin" (i.e., normal, healthy foreskin) from specifically the "neonatal" penis? - again, no evidence this reduces HIV risk.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  17. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    12. srp 2019.

    One of the lead authors of this new manual for American-style non-consensual circumcision of boys, now being introduced to countries with no such cultural practice -- citing studies of *adult* circumcision & conflating the two -- is David Tomlinson of .

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  18. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    12. srp 2019.

    Their manual 4 performing non-consensual circ argues "cultural & religious" factors should be considered, in contrast 2 policy on FGM which says even ritual nicking of the vulva is a *human rights violation* regardless of consent, culture, or religion

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  19. proslijedio/la je Tweet
    12. srp 2019.

    Wow. claims 2 have 'voluntary' medical male circumcision (VMMC) program, based on data from studies of sexually active *adults* - but now pushes non-voluntary circ of infants, for which there is no controlled evidence of a protective effect against HIV. Plot thickens ...

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  20. Male genital cutting and ear piercing are the only two permanent body modifications parents are allowed to do to their child. Permanent body modifications should be a decision a person makes for his or her own body, not a decision parents make for their son or daughter.

    Poništi

Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.

Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.

    Možda bi vam se svidjelo i ovo:

    ·