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.
-
-
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 -
Replying to @dlindenii @KhazWolf and
I know YOU aren’t saying you want it totally banned, but can you really speak for everyone in your movement? Even the one who advertised the term, “blanket ban”?pic.twitter.com/5PRiCvjiRm
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
Greg is one of the most radical (his own wording) among us. We share the same cause but we don't necessarily agree on everything. I think even he wouldn't oppose a necessary surgery, it's just a question of "what's necessary?". Would ANYone actually DIE without a circumcision?
-
-
Replying to @KhazWolf @_Undersized_ and
Hmm paraphimosis so bad it's cutting off the bloodflow to the penis and risking ischemic necrosis of the glans? Even then preputioplasty is likely to solve that though.
0 replies 0 retweets 1 likeThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.