You didn't debunk anything. You regurgitated some of what the authors pointed out were limitations of their study, only adding your own unsupported views about "extreme bias." Polarized notions go both ways - there were undoubtedly many like you desperate to defend #circumcision
-
-
Replying to @cooney21 @KyleChenIntact and
You really think most men are just wholly clueless about circumcision? Give not one credit to the every day man, that he has sense enough to know it without reading through dissertation after dissertation?
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @tesslatweets @cooney21 and
Surprisingly, that’s been true for me. When I talk to men who are “fine” with being cut, I learn they either never thought about it or haven’t looked deeply into it. Some of them say outlandish things like assuming all men in the world are cut.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @KyleChenIntact @cooney21 and
It’s not outlandish to assume people are like yourself. Some men may not think about it, and so it would be in your best interest to explain it to men who would be interested in the topic, but I give credit that most men understand there is loss of flesh and nerve
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @tesslatweets @cooney21 and
It’s not just that but other details. I notice men who are “fine” with it also tend to think it’s smaller than it really is. One guy couldn’t believe it was 15 square inches. Another thought it was just an incision, not a removal.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @KyleChenIntact @cooney21 and
And again that all would say to me, if I cared about preserving the foreskin, I should find easy-to-digest ways to feed that info to the populous. The tactic of attacking the opposition doesn’t do much to prop up your points. Let your evidence speak for itself.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @tesslatweets @cooney21 and
The evidence is clear. Medically unnecessary surgery without patient consent is assault. This is a legal/medical norm, not something I made up.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @KyleChenIntact @cooney21 and
It’s not norm or we would ban it like we did FGM. Circumcision is normal.
2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @tesslatweets @cooney21 and
Your argument self-contradicts. It wouldn’t work before we banned FGM, which was also a norm in the US. https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/dec/02/fgm-happened-to-me-in-white-midwest-america …
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @KyleChenIntact @cooney21 and
In the US, FGM was practiced more commonly during a very experimental medical era, and only to treat patients with “abnormal” sexual drive, not as a routine or ritual. It was moved away from for good reason. Now only practices in communities that come from countries who practice
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes
To be clear, #FGM is practiced in the US today & is no longer banned by federal statute. In 2010, @AmerAcadPeds said of Type IV #FGM: "the ritual nick ... is not physically harmful and is much less extensive than routine newborn male genital cutting." #i2 https://theconversation.com/unconstitutional-us-anti-fgm-law-exposes-hypocrisy-in-child-protection-109305https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/pediatrics/early/2010/04/26/peds.2010-0187.full.pdf …
-
-
Replying to @cooney21 @KyleChenIntact and
There is no federal ban, but there are plenty of state bans. FGM is practiced often illegally by immigrant communities almost exclusively. Type 4 includes cauterizing, incising, piercing, an abrasions in other manners, not just nicks. Quit being deceptive
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes - 11 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.