Or researchers just examine circumcised individuals and report the medical results (positive or negative). Just because the results don’t match your expectations, doesn’t make it pseudo-science. Not everyone is mutilated from childhood-adulthood. The world isn’t monolithic. Facts
-
-
Replying to @maminapawa @dkingpower7
Interesting you mention results not matching expectations. We must remember
#circumcision as medicine is only about a century old; it has been a highly contested superstitious belief for much longer, 6,000 years or so. Religious belief may color expectations.#i21 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
A conviction to defend what has been a highly contested religious ritual since the time of the Maccabees presents a conflict of interest with a genuine concern for science, research and public health. Religious convictions may color expectations, hence creationism.
#i21 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Just because results don’t match doesn’t expectations doesn’t make research pseudoscience, it’s true. But how do we know the “researchers” are only publishing “results” that fit their expectations? And refusing to publish results that conflict with their religious beliefs?
#i21 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
There is a problem when the “reported medical results” fail to correlate with reality. (Lack of external validity.) And there is a problem when the most respected medical organizations look at these “results” and find them wanting.
#i21 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I come back to my original post; what are “researchers” looking for? Is it to solve a problem? To cure a disease? Or is it to safeguard and protect a contested superstitious ritual? There are already better ways to achieve the “benefits” circumcision is supposed to confer.
#i21 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Is the point of science to find newer, better ways to do things? Or to keep things the way they are? It should be obvious by now that the ongoing quest to vindicate
#circumcision is pseudoscience. It’s no different than “researchers” publishing the “merits” of bloodletting.#i23 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Other questions arise. How would we treat “research” and “trials” to find “medical benefits” in
#FGM? And how would we treat “studies” that actually found them?#i2 http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2017/08/does-female-genital-mutilation-have-health-benefits-the-problem-with-medicalizing-morality/ …2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
It looks like some people will not have any of it. Yes, talk about “expectations.”
#i2https://allafrica.com/stories/201106280259.html …2 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @Joseph4GI @dkingpower7
Lastly, it’s not just researchers, African women are actually SAYING we’re not negatively impacted by circumcision, and we know OUR bodies better than anyone. Just look at our cover photo/videos of women who reject the label “FGM.” Again, you’re choosing to deny facts/reality.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
I think we are actually agreeing. The excuse often given for male circumcision is that “males can still orgasm.” This is contrasted with #FGM where the claim is “it eliminates a woman’s ability to orgasm.” It’s simply not true. Males claim to enjoy sex; women do too. #i2
-
-
My argument is that, for the pro-human rights side is, it is a mistake to make the argument about how much people can still enjoy sex; even if it improved it, our contention is that forcibly cutting is a violation of basic human rights.
#i21 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @Joseph4GI @dkingpower7
What you’re doing is promoting a universal/uniform reality. There are no universal results from circ surgeries and research SHOWS that diversity whether you accept it or not. NOT everyone is mutilated, violated or believes cutting genitals is ANY DIFFERENT from ears, etc. Bye!
0 replies 0 retweets 1 like
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.