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.
-
-
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 -
Replying to @tesslatweets @KyleChenIntact and
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 …1 reply 1 retweet 1 like -
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 -
Replying to @tesslatweets @KyleChenIntact and
The fact is Type IV
#FGM, objectively considered, is not as extensive or invasive or harmful as male#circumcision. Quit being disingenuous in order to CYA for mutilating your sons.#i21 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cooney21 @KyleChenIntact and
You’re the one who is disengenous! Or maybe just ignorant...Type 4 is more than just a nick! It’s anything uncategorizable by type 1, 2, & 3! It is designed to harm but you wish to give it a pass because circumcision is performed carefully in the US? Hypocrite!pic.twitter.com/wNM0otn4Wk
This media may contain sensitive material. Learn more
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Read the following slowly so you'll understand:
I am opposed to Type IV #FGM and all child genital cutting.
You say you're opposed to Type IV #FGM, but that only shows the complete hypocrisy of your support for forcing male #circumcision on healthy boys. #i2
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.