Why are you so set on urinary tract infections when they're generally very easily treatable, and women get them far more often than any man cut or not? :/
-
-
Replying to @KhazWolf @_Undersized_ and
But if you insist on this point, then I believe I already explained, those who claim reduction in UTIs fully admit that ONLY applies to the first years of life, any "benefit" disappears after that. Probably because the only real way a foreskin increases UTIs is with phimosis?
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @KhazWolf @_Undersized_ and
Did I go over preputioplasty with you yet? I can't remember this has gone on too long
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @KhazWolf @Gregory_Malchuk and
Yes, you did. Chronic infection in the first years of life can lead to damaged immune systems. Preputioplasty doesn’t treat damaged immune systems or the infections. You’re assuming that UTIs are caused by phimosis without evidence, just so you can point to preputioplasty.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @_Undersized_ @Gregory_Malchuk and
How the fuck does circumcision treat a damaged immune system? :v
1 reply 0 retweets 4 likes -
Replying to @KhazWolf @Gregory_Malchuk and
It doesn’t, I never said it did. However, it lowers rate of further infection, preventing the immune system from being damaged in the first place. However, without treatment, the immune system gets damaged- technically doing harm through inaction. On a common infection, too.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @_Undersized_ @Gregory_Malchuk and
As if destroying the langerhans cells in the mucosal portion of the prepuce doesn't "damage the immune system"? I'm beyond the point where I can believe you're arguing in good faith. It's been fun being trolled but I have better things to do. Recommend you find a new hobby.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @KhazWolf @Gregory_Malchuk and
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
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
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
Foreskin isn't an anomaly, and not all forms of MGM are banned, since circumcision, by the definition is mutilation of the male genitals, foreskin is part of the penis, and shouldn't be removed without medical need, but 70+ million US men had it removed without need or consent.
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.