Language is a funny thing. There's "female genital mutilation" and "circumcision". The only thing different is the sex of the child. Neither practice is necessary in today's world.
-
Show this thread
-
I think I see something here. I didn't mean to give the impression that I equate the 2 procedures. I do not. One is clearly more damaging physically. I DO consider them both unnecessary. I DO consider it morally hypocritical to be okay with mutilating males.
3 replies 1 retweet 18 likesShow this thread -
My core point was that neither practice is necessary. We have to move away from this idea that doing this to boys is just some innocuous tradition. It's permanent. They have no say, and yes, it does have an effect on them.
3 replies 2 retweets 15 likesShow this thread -
Just because a practice is "normal" in our cultures doesn't make it right. We judge practices that are "normal" in other cultures but get awfully uncomfortable when its our own practices being questioned.
2 replies 4 retweets 22 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @rasmansa
I agree with your points on circumcision here. Comparing it to FGM is common in misogynist MRA-type discourse, which made my head snap when I saw you tweet this. They aren't the same at all. But I do agree with you on circumcision being a harmful cultural norm.
3 replies 1 retweet 1 like
"They aren't the same at all." #i2 So tell us all the ways in which this Yale bioethicist gets his analysis of this issue wrong, and please be specific: http://quillette.com/2017/08/15/female-genital-mutilation-health-benefits-problem-medicalizing-morality/ …
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.