But that’s not the tissue that female circumcision removes. I’m sure if you removed the whole female urinary tract it would remove the infection. And reduce risk of UTIs. Because they’d be dead. That isn’t a real operation, you’re making up a procedure.
-
-
-
Replying to @Gregory_Malchuk @ReyosB and
Those parts aren’t affected by infections, the tissue on the inside of the urinary tract is.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @_Undersized_ @Gregory_Malchuk and
How about under the clitoral hood? Why don't we cut off their prepuce and expose the clitoris for the same reason we expose the glans in males? It'd keep things in there all nice and dried out and desensitized, which y'all seem to think is a good thing for some reason.
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @KhazWolf @Gregory_Malchuk and
Doesn’t prevent infection though.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @_Undersized_ @Gregory_Malchuk and
How would you know that? lol. Have there been studies on it?
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @KhazWolf @Gregory_Malchuk and
I mean, from what I gather the clitoral hood isn’t a part of the urinary tract.
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @_Undersized_ @KhazWolf and
The clit hood can get infected. Surgery isn't done for this condition.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @dlindenii @KhazWolf and
Is what I’m saying. You can’t do surgery to reduce female UTI rates. Female circumcision has no effect. However, whilst nobody “agrees” on the number, there’s a fair few papers detailing how male circumcision reduces rates of further infection.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @_Undersized_ @dlindenii and
That's the thing, "disagreement" is not proof of a protective impact. Lots of papers say there is a positive effect, lots of others say there isn't, others yet say it makes you more vulnerable. Simply because MC has been studied more than FGM doesn't mean there is a real effect
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like
Conversely, because there have been no accepted studies into it, doesn't mean that FGM has no health benefits, but just like circumcision, we'd argue that the benefits are not enough to cut off a part of a child's body without medical indication.
Would you admit @_Undersized_ >>
-
-
2> that if such studies were done, there is a chance that removal of the clitoral hood and/or labia would show a reduction in UTIs in girls, as logically it would remove an analogous warm, moist area of the female genitals which is close to the urinary tract, like male foreskin?
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.