Just no banning the medical side of circumcisions and I guess we all agree. Maybe I’ll be seeing the intactivist movement later when all their arguments and views are defined. Have a good one
-
-
Replying to @_Undersized_ @KhazWolf and
FYI, our views are well defined and our approach solid, in general. We have moral, ethical, and medical evidence to back up our point-of-view. If female cutting is banned, then so should male. Medical treatments are different than RIC.
2 replies 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @dlindenii @KhazWolf and
And hey, male genital mutilation is banned as it falls under child protection laws. Circumcision isn’t banned for the same reason a labiaplasty isn’t banned. They *should* be used to treat abnormalities that can damage someone’s health.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @_Undersized_ @KhazWolf and
All forms of female cutting are considered "mutilation". Why aren't male forms considered that way. There is a difference between medical surgeries that treat a condition (therapeutic) and cosmetic ones (non-therapeutic). Male circ is rarely therapeutic.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @dlindenii @KhazWolf and
Labiaplasty is rarely therapeutic and is not considered FGM. Male circumcision is rarely therapeutic and is not considered MGM. What’s sexist about that? And by rarely I mean 0.006% of the planet’s population. Or 42 million people. Who would die without it.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @_Undersized_ @KhazWolf and
Non-consensual female genital cutting is always considered genital mutilation. Non-consensual male genital cutting is generally not considered mutilation. That's what is sexist. Far more die from male circ than "die from not having it".
2 replies 1 retweet 4 likes -
Replying to @dlindenii @KhazWolf and
Just by the way, somebody pointed out that it’s actually ~210000 people not 42 million, sorry, it was 1 AM so math error, but the point still stands, a lot of people need the procedure.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @_Undersized_ @KhazWolf and
Doubtful, but even at that, you don't cut before the disease or condition. That's not how medicine works. Medicine treats.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @dlindenii @KhazWolf and
What if Gregory’s 1000 follower movement snowballs and gains traction? I don’t want the slogan “ban male circumcision like FGM is banned- completely” advertised or the wrong thing is going to happen and some people will die. And even 210000 people isn’t ok.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @_Undersized_ @KhazWolf and
I don't understand your point. Nobody wants to ban it completely. Nobody is saying that. The ban would have medical exceptions just as labiaplasty is allowed as a medical treatment today. Not cutting for no therapeutic reason.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
Another thing to bear in mind is the normalization of circumcision impacts physicians' determination of whether to recommend it or not. It's seen as "no big deal" in America so they're far more willing to jump to that as treatment than, say, the equivalent for girls.
-
-
Replying to @KhazWolf @dlindenii and
If you banned nontheraputic circumcision, and society acknowledged the -value- of foreskin... I think you'd see a culture shift in medicine. Patients and doctors alike would push harder to avoid it, new techniques might even be developed... yaknow?
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @KhazWolf @dlindenii and
I don’t disagree. I think if surgery can be avoided, then don’t do it.
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.