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
I mean, we amputated infected legs if there’s nothing else we can do. And tonsils, in cases of chronic infection. Sometimes in order to avoid doing more harm you have to do the surgery.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @_Undersized_ @KhazWolf and
Yes, but that's my point. Prophylactic (preventative) male circ is legal without any disease or condition. The same is not true for labiaplasty or any other surgery on female genitals. This is sexism & doesn't comply with medical ethics.
1 reply 1 retweet 3 likes -
Replying to @dlindenii @KhazWolf and
Ah, I see. I’m not sure if it was made to be sexist originally, I just think they thought cutting was better for men. So maybe a technical oversight, then?
4 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
No it wasn't sexist originally, as a medical procedure they recommended mutilating the genitals of both sexes, boys and girls, And in fact in the USA FGM was legal like MGM, circumcision, is now until the mid 1990s. They started at the same time, for the same reason, they >>
-
-
Replying to @ReyosB @_Undersized_ and
2> both should have ended as procedures done without therapeutic need, problem is the circumcision rate for infants in the USA is still over 50%, I am willing to bet that none of those are actually therapeutic, there's no time there for illness, diagnosis or other treatments >>
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @ReyosB @_Undersized_ and
3> to have been tried. Circumcision in the USA started to prevent masturbation and reduce sexual pleasure, that part was forgotten, though the effect is still very real, but it's still done just because a parent says they want it, not because a doctor says they need it.
0 replies 0 retweets 2 likes
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.