Two of the authors @DrZuhdiJasser and @shaazmahboob are on twitterhttps://twitter.com/briandavidearp/status/1006506869521899520 …
-
-
When you say "any form of male circumcision" you are obviously excluding the most dangerous and deadly forms, which are in fact deadlier than any form of FGC (e.g., circumcision among the Xhosa in South Africa): see Box 1 of http://sro.sussex.ac.uk/72712/
-
Your citation of the AAP statement without mention of the major critiques of it, and the fact that all other international equivalent bodies have reached a different conclusion, is unconscionable (my summary here: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/316527603_Cultural_bias_in_American_medicine_the_case_of_infant_male_circumcision …)
-
Your statement re: the WHO recommendation concerns adult, voluntary circumcision - that is not what anyone ethically objects to. The objection concerns involuntary circumcision of male children and babies. Conflating the two is misleading.
-
Your statement that male circumcision has never been divided into types is false https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1525/maq.2007.21.3.301 … ... and the range of damage of differnt types of MGC ranges extremely widely (see Box 1 again https://www.academia.edu/35591618/The_law_and_ethics_of_female_genital_cutting …)
-
The statment that all types of FGM involve female genital destruction is false: pricking or nicking without removal of tissue does not 'destroy' genitals. The statement that profound psychological harm follows from FGM regardless of severity is not supported by your reference
-
Of course any form of genital cutting - male, female, or intersex - CAN (and often does) cause profound psychological harm depending on how it is done, when, in what context, etc., so this does not ground a sex-based categorical distinctionhttp://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/135910530200700310 …
-
You state that "even the nick" can cause a high rate of complications, but there are NO data on the complication rates of the nick! The list of complications you include in the next sentence represent a conflation of ALL types of FGM with the nick - this is medically incoherent
-
For what it's worth, I agree the nick shouldn't be performed without consent (consent is the issue!) & that a person could rationally tolerate zero risk for such cutting, but making up risk rate claims for the nick with no evidence is not ethicalhttps://quillette.com/2017/08/15/female-genital-mutilation-health-benefits-problem-medicalizing-morality/ …
-
"The stated equivalency of male circumcision and FGM by some people is medically false and is a dangerous attempt to normalise obvious gender violence toward women." No, pointing to the overlap (physical, symbolic etc.) is an attempt to de-normalize violence toward all children
-
For a direct and extended argument against the central claim of your article, seehttps://www.dovepress.com/female-genital-mutilation-and-male-circumcision-toward-an-autonomy-bas-peer-reviewed-article-MB …
- 1 more reply
New conversation -
-
-
A sensory threshold can be objectively measured. The object of measurement is the exact amount of pressure required for the person to feel a given stimulus. Of course they could lie about their internal experience or something but how does that bear on the findings?
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
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.