That and "it must never be compared to circumcision", as this has so far been successfully used in one legal case in Australia, and will likely happen in India.
-
-
-
In the sense that forms of FGM that are clearly less invasive than male circumcision have been defended on the grounds of "if this is legal to do to boys, why isn't something far less invasive on girls illegal?
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
The problem is no matter how much you point this exact thing out, no one wants to hear it. Particularly the double standard on medical benefits and harms.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
It's a matter of consent, not health. EVEN if any form of mutilation had any benefit (a ridiculous idea composed of straw arguments), it's just CRIMINAL.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
Eventually people are going to have to give up male circ if they're against FGC and want to have any logical consistency.
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.