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 …
-
-
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 -
Replying to @tesslatweets @KyleChenIntact and
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.#i21 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @cooney21 @KyleChenIntact and
No it doesn’t. I don’t propose at all that we cut and scar a boys urethra, testicles, use acid or other home brewed corrosives, pierce or prick the dick, or otherwise maim the genitals. Circumcision accomplishes none of that.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @tesslatweets @KyleChenIntact and
You propose that half the surface area of the penis is removed, scarring the penis for life. That's actually worse than if you were to "pierce or prick the dick."
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @cooney21 @KyleChenIntact and
No because the ablated tissue helps to reduce mucus buildup and bacteria retention without reducing sexual desire or pleasure. Piercing would accomplish none other than breaking the skin.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
Nonsense. To the extent there's scar tissue that can create the very folds that can cause the bacteria retention that you think is such a problem for uncut men but which is easily dealt with - whether a man is cut or uncut - by basic hygiene
-
-
Replying to @cooney21 @KyleChenIntact and
Many times there isn’t really scar tissue. There’s a seam between flesh, not an excessive buildup of thick hardened skin.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @tesslatweets @KyleChenIntact and
False, as usual. There's always a scar.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like - 2 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.