Their chronic infections can’t be solved by operation. Male infections can. That’s why the law is different. Not an equality issue.
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.
-
-
First of all, we don't know if removing the labia would reduce female UTI rates. But we consider it unethical to study that. That's sexism. Also, my example wasn't UTI, but clit hood infection.
-
Labiaplasty is usually plastic surgery. There was a case study cited here by somebody showing it being used to treat chronic UTIs. That’s why I used it as an exception, because it is a legal exception to FGM occasionally used to treat abnormalities. Like circumcision is to MGM.
-
Two key points here you are missing: in this case the female cutting was therapeutic. Also, it was consensual. RIC is never consensual and never therapeutic. If male circ is therapeutic and ALL OTHER OPTIONS EXHAUSTED, then I'm OK with it. I doubt it's ever truly necessary.
-
I agree wholeheartedly. I think the way I’m arguing my point here is making people think I’m pro to all circumcision. I’m not. If there’s anything you can do other than surgery, that should be done instead. And yes, religious circumcision should be banned.
-
Then honestly, we all agree, this is really our point too, circumcision when there is actual medical need should be allowed, it should be banned for religious reasons, it should be banned to make him "look like dad" but instead it isn't banned, it's done before there is a problem
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
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
-
I’ve only found papers detailing how it improves rates. Weren’t you the one who quoted something like “Rates range from 1.73x to 10x reduction rate across a variety of papers”? Where are the ones showing it causing infection?
-
https://www.hindawi.com/archive/2013/109846/ … 4.13: "Langerhans cells are the first line of mucosal defense. Their presence in the mucosal portion of the prepuce may explain why the overall incidence and prevalence of STIs is lower in intact men." HPV specifically:https://www.healio.com/infectious-disease/stds/news/online/%7Bee2769c4-b9b0-4daa-8eef-943c7205ed6c%7D/circumcised-men-at-twice-the-risk-for-cancer-causing-hpv-study-shows …
-
Higher HIV risk when cut: http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0201445 … https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/22897699/ … http://www.cirp.org/library/disease/HIV/vanhowe4/ … Urinary tract infections, one really has to understand what they're saying here, as I explained before, tons of coufounding factors and not a huge deal:https://www.doctorsopposingcircumcision.org/for-professionals/alleged-medical-benefits/urinary-tract-infections/ …
-
factors such as: "Prematurity puts babies at higher risk of infections of all kinds due to their immature immune systems, and such infants are more likely to undergo catheterization ... increasing the infection risk. However, premature babies are also typically not circumcised"
-
"The model determined that, if there were no real difference in the rate of UTIs, intact boys would be diagnosed with a UTI 4.27 times more often than circumcised boys due to such confounding factors alone. /1
-
"The author concluded that “it is quite possible that the differences noted in the incidence of urinary tract infection between circumcised and non-circumcised boys are entirely due to confounding factors."" /2
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.