Are you sure you aren’t too emotionally invested in a debate on circumcision on a good review channel?
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?
-
"42 million men do have a legitimate need to be circumcised" How do you figure?
-
I mean, that’s what you said. So let’s go with that. 0.006% of the population is 42 million. That’s 42 million people who would die if therapeutic male circumcision was banned like it was genital mutilation. Once again, I know that isn’t your point, it’s actually Greg’s.
- 5 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.