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?
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.
-
-
I see you're still struggling with basic math. Not every human on earth is male. Less than half are. Also, 0.006% = 1/16,671 = 0.00006. So, the N of males x the real rate = 3324047000 * 0.00006 = 199,442 males = an overestimate on your part by 41.8 million people. Bravo...
-
Lmao sorry forgot only half were male and I’m doing the statistics. Anyway, 0.006% of 3.5 billion is 210000, sorry. That’s still a good fair few people we want to kill.
-
3324047000 * 0.00006 = 199,442 males != 210,000. And that's an overestimate on the number of males, plus rounding up from 0.000059662311318.
-
Dude whatever it's 1 AM and remember we dont even disagree just stop buzzing my phone
-
False. I disagree with you on many things: 1. misrepresenting my position, 2. misrepresenting statistics to engage in fear-mongering regarding the necessity of male genital mutilatioin 3. ignoring the downsides of genital mutilatioin, 4. and engaging in sexist double standards.
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.