You know what this makes me think of? When you’re having an actual debate in real life in a team, and the audience gets convinced you disagree with them too and joins in.
I said female *genital mutilation* doesn’t happen for medical reasons. Labiaplasty was never included. It’s exceptional, like male circumcision should be. Otherwise we’d be being sexist, wouldn’t we? Why would you want women getting surgery but not men?
-
-
As already explained to you, any form of cutting of female genitalia constitutes genital mutilation according to the WHO, including ceremonial pin pricks and including labiaplasties. The only difference is that in this case the labiaplasty was thereapeutic and therefore legal.
-
You shouldn’t have made me check. Labiaplasty doesn’t count. And by the way, once again, I disagree with non-therapeutic circumcision.pic.twitter.com/UOoil3vAXY
-
You literally just cited a definition demonstrating that non-therapeutic labiaplasties constitute FGM...
-
I thought we were talking about therapeutic labiaplasties? And therapeutic circumcision? So it’s totally relevant?
-
No! For the thirtieth time now, NO ONE HERE OPPOSES THERAPEUTIC SURGERY ON CHILDREN.
-
So why are you here then?
-
To fight disinformation by people like you who spread fear-mongering by overstating the rate of necessary genital cutting, fallaciously trivializing it for boys compared to girls, all by vomiting out unsubstantiated, fabricated factoids and misrepresneting other people's stances.
-
I mean I got the statistic right, 42 million men do have a legitimate need to be circumcised. I’ve also stated multiple times, if you remember, that we have a non-argument here because we both agree. So why are you here arguing in the back of the net on other people’s behalf?
- 7 more replies
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.