Human rights, cultural diversity, and moral relativity

no, remember my whole discussion of consent? but, just because it's non-consentual doesn't make it non-cosmetic. i am aware. but it's really not why people do it. it may become why people do it, but generally it isn't currently. just because someone is intellectually distant from you doesn't mean they're incapable of making responsible adult decisions. it does because i'm unaware of anyone who believes they won't go to heaven if they aren't circumcised. if that's not really your argument, then don't use it. not all of them do. ok, so that's a non-consenting medical procedure. great. i've already discussed that. then why are complications listed as less than 1%?
and, i know you don't want to hear this, but i've never been circumcised (and i don't have a penis) and i often get ulcers on my genitals. well. they're actually cystic acne. and guess when it started? bingo, puberty. guess what causes it. sebum. ewwwww. same crap that causes it on my fucking face. so. prove to me that circumcision causes these horrifying, debilitating sores. no. they treat adult males with foreskins and penile cancer by removing the foreskin.jerk ad absurdium. any reason a person gives for modifying their own body is acceptable and legitimate. i've already discussed non-consensual circumcision and you should stop bringing it up. it's no longer an issue. it can be difficult to clean between a babies fingers. but this isn't really an issue since i've already removed non-consensual circumcision from acceptable and proper procedures. depends on whether you consider penile cancer life-threatening. it can be if it metastasizes. and since penile cancer is treated with circumcision (i'm not talking prevention, try reading), then you're wrong, and you've been wrong. the complications may be equivalent, but since they do not occur at equivalent rates, it is an illegitimate claim. the procedures are not equivalent. period. no, you are. i'm not interested in comparing these procedures because they're not comparable. you're trying to equate them by using the same term. it's dishonest. there are things to be concerned about, such as consent and cleanliness. but i'm not convinced the procedure is inherently damaging and i'm not in a position to tell an adult man what he can't do with his penis, unless it involves me.

I'm lumping your two responses to #2 in this post...If all you say in a thread is that FGM is used to control women, and nothing else, and I cannot read your mind, then all you have PRESENTED is a feminist doctrinal analysis. I'm sorry but that is a fact. You may think all sorts of different things, but I can only go by what you present. In addition you used the word "barbaric" which is a common feminist usage for such practices and generally not an anthro one... at least not the stuff I had been taught.Intriguingly it was the act of NOT sticking words in your mouth, which resulted in my interpretation of the presentation you've given about FGM. Perhaps you'd like to explain what your actual position is now to avoid confusion.And finally on this point the charge was "reduction to", which does not mean "ONLY", the former means that the others are superfluous or inconsequential to the one. Well maybe I can after all. First you criticize me for claiming you said something, which you then make clear never believed. Then I point out that's actually what I thought... you didn't believe it... which must mean you were asking a question which was pointless.So what is it, did you think cultures can be destroyed? If so, how? And if you think they can't, then my insinuation was right. First, I never claimed that anthropologists use that term. I was claiming that it seemed ridiculous an anthropologist couldn't understand what the term meant or how it was being used. And as it is I showed that it was being used in the social sciences.This gets into your second post. Those articles are using it exactly how I used it. If you don't get that, then you are the one having a reading comprehension issue. I did not say that monoculture means American culture, and I don't even know where you got that idea. America can introduce monoculturalism, but as yet it hasn't. The link I gave explained all this.Now, since it IS in the dictionary, and it IS used in Social science journal articles, in the way I used it... its time to stop this game.Indeed... This is an examination of the effects of mechanisms used by monocultural communities to alter those from different cultures. Really, it is beyond me that you can pretend that cite in particular goes against my usage of the term. If anything it relates directly to the thread's topic (though on a nationally internal scale).And to conclude... if you actually read the original link I gave you will find that America is currently multicutural. I have NEVER claimed otherwise. The point is that there is a movement toward monoculturalism. Some nations have already switched their state's policies to monoculturalistic ones.Which means enacting laws and measures to maintain the dominance of the majority culture. Ironically the NATIONAL culture, which you previously claimed did not make sense, and now have let slide away...I'm tired of playing these games. The definition appears to be clear to you now, even if under pretense of telling me what it means. Now go back and figure out what this thread is about.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Whoops I missed this one. Correct me if I am wrong but you ARE criticizing FGM, right? And you are using one the main feminist critique of it, are you not?And as for mentioning anthropological FACTS, take a look at those lists you JUST provided. Where were they before? All you ever said up till now is ONE FACT... it's used to control women. Thus you reduced FGM to one issue... which is all I said... and that is the method of feminist criticism.Do you want me replay where that FACT was stated again, in your own words? It sure looked like a criticism to me.Edited by Silent H, : c s

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Women who practice FGM self-report that it is to control the sexual appetite of women.Are they using a feminist analysis as well? From Message 22: From Message 39: From Message 86: The papers which you cite do not use "monocultural" to mean "the averaging of cultures".In both the cites you provided, "monocultural" is used to mean "majority group". The Psychology of Group Perception
Vincent Yzerbyt, Charles M. Judd, Olivier Corneille
2004
Psychology PressMajority groups are composed of subcultures. This is a far cry from your definition of "monocultural".I found this definition which I rather like: Your idiosyncratic definition is useless as it has no basis in reality.

Yes, I a criticizing FGM.No, I am not using a feminist critique.Here. Let's put this in a fancy color so you'll notice: This is a fact. Not a critique.

Here you go, dear: Cultural Anthropology, Vol. 12, No. 3. (Aug., 1997), pp. 405-438.

You are absolutely right... you can't judge a paper from just its abstract. Isn't that what I was complaining about FIRST? But that is all you presented to me. Now answer the question, were those abstracts you posted meant to convince me or not? You said its SOOL for me if I don't have access to the originals, but actually that's SOOL for you. In this area we only have what we present. And I do find it funny that when YOU can't get access to something, its a mark against me as well. Actually that isn't true. One goes with the analysis of evidence, even if it is counter to current consensus. Otherwise science would never make progress. Also, you have not shown that there is a consensus at all. I pulled quotes from your own cites suggesting as much. The more current papers are certainly suggesting otherwise. I already said that it had methodological flaws. That does not make all of its findings incorrect nor able to pull into question the methodology and results of other studies. As it is other researchers have quoted her work. Bell's paper which I just cited, referenced her work and she is an anthropologist publishing in an anthro journal. Heck, Klein's paper (I believe the link I gave) is to an anti-FGM site which is putting it out there as a contrasting point of view, not a bullshit one.Your tendency to use personal attacks as an argument, is simply not convincing. And while I will not dispute your claim to have gathered and read all these things, I have to wonder why you fail to answer my questions about them. Certainly THAT isn't in violation of copyright laws. I can't believe you just tried to dodge the quote-mining charge by rewriting it as an issue about Klein (it had nothing to do with her) and providing more misinformation. Here is the Link you provided.1) Contrary to your claim above, the WHO actually USES Klein's paper to support their position. It is the first citation they give and it is her quantitative estimate of women needing cutting before first intercourse. That is not denouncing it as BS... again you're the one stinkin' up the place.2) As I stated in my previous post, this link is to a statement made in 1997. You cannot claim papers with contrary evidence made AFTER 1997 are indicated as "outliers" based on statements in that document. The nature of science is accumulating data and consensus can change over time based on newer and better info...3) While they do say a majority of studies (AS OF 1997!!!) indicate sexual enjoyment of women is negatively effected, that is not a claim about ability to have orgasms, it is not indicative of how much a majority, nor whether there are differences which might effect reliability beyond sheer numbers, and lastly... the whole subject is caveated! That is something you circumcised from the paper, and it is unethical to do that. The word "however" means something, and what they went on to say opens the door for exactly the kind of articles I mentioned. I want to repeat that section for everyone's edification... The yellow parts indicate the section you cleaved off. That section puts a totally different spin on what conclusion they are making. And that is to ignore the fact that they cannot comment on FUTURE STUDIES. Actually that's QUITE IMPRESSIVE to me. Perhaps you can tell me where WHO got their time machine so as to be able to judge all papers across time on the subject. As it stands, even the claim "majority" does not make all others "outliers". That has a totally different connotation which you've never brought evidence to prove (even on past studies). And then where does THAT come from? So by majority they meant VAST? Isn't that one of the questions I posed? How do you know this?On Bell's paper, it was meant to show the diversity of evidence and opinion regarding GM and its sexual effects. I did not offer it as solving the issue. In fact I thought I said otherwise. There is a lot of conflicting info. However, it can be said that more recent papers (particularly post 1997) have questioned the inherent physical risks, as well as effects on female sexuality. No, actually that might not be from Obermeyer. In fact that comes from your cited WHO/Amnesty source that I linked to above. Raising the question yet again in my mind what your reading comprehension skills are. Again with the reading comprehension skills. Since Bell didn't say the 15% had to do with clits getting chopped off, and clearly stated (in the quote you provided nonetheless) that it was about rates of infibulation... this seems like a manufactured issue on your part. That section of Bell's paper was not about sexual effects, that was about health effects. You might have noted that the quotes were not all about clits and orgasms. First of all it has been seen. Second of all, that kind of attitude is the exact focus of Bell's criticism. It's extremely hypocritical to state some practice is bad because it has inherent health risks under any circumstance, and then refuse to allow a change in circumstances! You have presented no evidence of the above... unless you are discussing older and quote-mined papers. I have no idea what you've read in your spare time, I can only speak to what you've presented. If mine were lacking, so much more were yours (since they were invariably older and less described).However, it does seem we can agree that evidence suggests some women do have the capability of achieving orgasm, even after infibulation. This pretty much gets at the proposed subject of this thread. Though tightly narrowed. If you are asking me... the answer is not inherently, no. No one has inherent rights at all. Do women have such rights in western nations, generally yes. Outside of western nations, sometimes yes. Must the others change? I don't think so, no.Different cultures have different ways of viewing the world. Some do not involve individuals as the focus of life, but rather communities, or codes of conduct. These are valid concepts, even if coming to vastly different conclusions vs what we call human rights.Further, you did not mention that this is about parental rights. Do children have a right to bodily integrity, even in the west? The answer is no, except in very specific cases which are usually inconsistent. The concept of children's rights are a patchwork quilt of supporting ethnocentric concepts.

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

brennakimi responds to me:

quote:

---

except that you claimed that more men die of circumcision than women who suffer fgm and i demonstrated that that's not true.

---

Well, no, you didn't. You assumed the experience in the West can be generalized to the world at large. Your numbers are vast underestimates. And even the numbers from the West are underestimates as cause of death is usually given as something else. F'rinstance, JAMA reports a case of death from tuberculosis but the actual cause was the circumcision...the baby died from the tuberculosis but never would have contracted it if he had never been circumcised. The New York Academy of Medicine has similar findings.

quote:

---

if the procedure is limited from infibulation and is done in medicalized, safe environments to individuals capable of and who have given consent, i cannot argue with it beyond "i don't think it's the right thing to do".

---

See, I can. We don't allow people to mutilate other parts of people's bodies, so why should there be special pleading for the genitals? Body Identity Integrity Disorder is a psychiatric illness where people want to have their limbs amputated. If it's a psychiatric problem to want to cut your arm off, why the special pleading for the genitals?

quote:

---

what isn't? death by circumcision? then find me a better source.

---

That's part of the problem: We don't keep good records. And the rest of the world is even worse. You continually project Western outcomes upon the rest of the world.

quote:

---

but it has to be one that doesn't use your genocidal language

---

Since the word "genocide" has yet to be introduced except by you, one has to assume that the problem is that you won't accept any evidence that contradicts you.Gairdner shows your one in 500,000 is off by a factor of at least a thousand. And that was in the UK. It's what caused the UK to stop routine MGM. Too many boys were dying.Part of the problem with trying to come up with a death rate from circumcision is that nobody keeps records of it. The cause of death is from the hemorrhage and/or infection that follows.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

i highly doubt that considering tuberculosis can spread through the air and does not require an open wound.i can only work with the information available.

No. They aren't presenting it as a critique. Further, there are usually more concepts stated around it than that.No matter how much you want to twist and turn, you did not present some anthropological assessment of FGM in this thread. You came in with a critique and used control of women as its negative qualifier. As I said you also used the word barbaric. What you presented was a feminist critique. I'm not even sure why we are arguing about this. Man you have zero reading comprehension skills. MONO=single. Single culture. That would be the definition of a community with a single dominant culture. A majority culture attempting to keep its status using laws and measures would be enforcing a monoculture. But force is not requisite for a monoculture to exist. And a person belonging to more than one culture, might be called bicultural, or multicultural.Those quotes you cited from my posts fit with that just fine, unless you simply want to read them some other way. That last quote is the only one which might (I suppose) be written in a way that could be misread... If I hadn't given all the other supporting commentary. It was not the "averaging of cultures" which I defined as monoculture. I guess I'd call that monoculturalization. In any case it was the "common norm" in that same sentence which I was defining as a monoculture.And the articles I cited were not only using it as majority group, they also used it as more than one. You know there were more articles out there, do you need me to get them? Even if I was coining the term, which I'm not, how hard is it for you to figure out what I am saying? Yes majority groups are composed of subcultures, I have said as much. That does not change the fact that communities tend to have some common culture which can be defined as the majority culture. I suppose one could call this the majority subculture? And nations may try to institute monocultural practices to reduce subcultural variation or public practices. Your psych did not conflict with my position at all. First of all anyone can make a new word and define it for sake of argument. If you cannot follow its meaning because it is new or not used in science, then you have a big problem. Second, it clearly is useful as I presented a whole wiki page that used it to discuss issues. Are you claiming that you didn't understand what they meant?Plus, I have just pointed to articles which have used it in the fashion I did... and which you originally claimed didn't exist at all.If you can't figure out we (that's me and all the cites) are using it in the same way, then YOU are the one who is having a problem, not me.Edited by Silent H, : nip/tuck Edited by Silent H, : tuck

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

brennakimi responds to me:

quote:

---

just because something is done wrongly doesn't mean it can't be done correctly.

---

How does someone flay a person alive "correctly"?

quote:

---

quote:

---

And the clitoris is even smaller. What does the size have to do with anything?

---

​

you haven't been paying attention. we're not talking about just the clitoris. only 5% of women undergoing fgm have only their prepuce or clitoris removed.

---

And thus, we show that you haven't been paying attention. I asked you a direct question:What does the size have to do with anything?

quote:

---

with proper medical care, a ban on infibulation, and a consenting adult recipient, i can't condemn it any more than modern labioplasty or vaginoplasty.

---

You don't understand the difference between reconstructive surgery and excision?We don't let people cut their arms off simply because they want to. Why the special pleading for the genitals?And since the decision to remove the genitals is overwhelmingly made by someone other than the owner of the genitals, this entire part of the discussion is irrelevant. How many people do you know who would voluntarily remove their genitals compared to those who had theirs removed?

quote:

---

the last one is clearly an example of non-consent.

---

So how does one consent to this? Why would somebody cut off perfectly functioning, non-diseased genitalia?

quote:

---

we do let people do other cosmetic procedures to their genitals.

---

Do you truly not understand the difference between cosmetic surgery and excision? The people who want to have their limbs cut off see it as cosmetic, but we don't let them do it because it is much more than cosmetic.

quote:

---

just because you don't agree with it doesn't mean you get to ban it.

---

Then why aren't you fighting to repeal the laws against FGM? They don't criminalize unsanitary methods or the coercion. They criminalize the act in and of itself.18 USCA 116: Illinois, Minnesota, Rhode Island, and Tennessee have outright banned the practice on both girls and women. In Illinois, it's a class X felony punishable by a stint in jail of 6-30 years.In the other 12 states that have laws, it is illegal to carry out the procedure on minors for any reason other than medical necessity. Parental directive is not a defense and the parents who make such a directive are liable, too.So I'm sure you want to have those laws changed. So long as it is a medicalized procedure, parents should be allowed to have their daughter's clitoris removed.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Sounds great. So? How does this alter what you were saying, and why you were presenting it the way you were?I didn't claim an anthropologist wouldn't say that FGM is used (to whatever degree) to control women. The point is YOU never said ANYTHING ELSE, and in a context of criticizing the practice. That means you reduced it to that issue in order to criticize it.Find an anthropologist calling it barbaric as part of their analysis... and I don't mean citing someone else saying it.Sheesh.Edited by Silent H, : to you

---

h
"Civilized men are more discourteous than savages because they know they can be impolite without having their skulls split, as a general thing." - Robert E. Howard

Wrong. I quoted the papers, as well as the abstracts. Here's an incomplete list of those that support mine (from Obermeyer's first paper): 780 v. 3.I would call that vast.And that's 11 years old. Methodological flaw = incorrect, by definition. Strike one. Strike two.Not re: sexual pleasure they don't. Strike three.As I pointed out earlier, I did not use the WHO site to determine that those 3 papers are outliers.YOU'RE OUT. Yes. It does. By definition. There are 277 pubmed cites from 1998-2007 for "female genital circumcision".There are 243 pubmed cited from 1998-2007 for "female genital mutilation".You have managed to dredge up ONE cite:Pleasure and Orgasm in Women with Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting (FGM/C).
Catania L, Abdulcadir O, Puppo V, Verde JB, Abdulcadir J, Abdulcadir D.
J Sex Med. 2007 Nov;4(6):1666-78.Your other cite ...The association between female genital cutting and correlates of sexual and gynaecological morbidity in Edo State, Nigeria
BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology
Volume 109 Issue 10 Page 1089-1096, October 2002... does not support your position.Here's the quote you pulled from the abstract. Here are the relevant section from the paper: What complete and utter bullshit!An STD is not an indicator of sexual response. Gee. My breasts are more sensitive than the keloid scar in between my legs.This study is completely useless.Let's take another look at that score:520 papers published since 1997.1 paper that supports your contention. No. The 15% is from Ms. Bell's paper.From YOUR quote in Message 143: Ms. Bell is specifically referring to the "complications" of "sexual health" (aka sexual response).And she is full of shit. Well. I'm glad you finally said it.No one has inherent rights of any sort.Care to back that up?

Perusing over the dialogue that I've missed, it seems that people are still hyper-focusing on female circumcision and bickering over minor details.From what I gather, everyone seems to be in agreement. It is a moral tragedy to do that to any woman. If we are to remain consistent with the OP, we need to get back on track.We all say that its wrong. Where we all seem to differ is why it is immoral, and why it could be construed as immoral.Most of you claim that objective moral values do not actually exist, but only that we use them in utilitarian or pragmatic ways for reasons of keeping cohesion.If that's true, then nothing is actually immoral-- even female circumcision. The qualifier then becomes whether something harms someone else.Well, sometimes people need their jaw broken in order to be reset. The benefits and overall philanthropy outweigh the temporal pain our ephemeral bodies feel. So they say, okay, then its unjustified pain that is the qualifier for what is moral.Here's the problem: What doe that mean? And how can anyone say that elucidates the morality of something? Unjustified pain first makes a moral declaration that incurring pain is morally wrong.Then they say that its true only if its unjustified. When you say something is unjustified, you are giving it a moral value. In reality, the adherent is simply taking away one moral with one hand, and then giving the moral back with the other.Its a sleight of hand.Now, some atheists assert that they do believe in objective moral values. And really, this makes sense, because what kind of society can be formed without them? Is that not where the turmoil lies?The problem is, there is no good reason why anyone would want to be moral in a totally atheistic world, devoid of God who supplies meaning.So, to the reader, I ask:If female circumcision is wrong, then why is it so? Don't tell me about pain or unjustification. These terms are absolutely useless until you can first understand why any such thing would exist to begin with.

---

“This life’s dim windows of the soul, distorts the heavens from pole to pole, and goads you to believe a lie, when you see with and not through the eye.” -William Blake

brennakimi responds to me:

quote:

---

no, remember my whole discussion of consent?

---

Do you remember my response? How does one consent to this?

quote:

---

but it's really not why people do it. it may become why people do it, but generally it isn't currently.

---

And cosmetic isn't really why people do it now. You don't know the history of circumcision in the West, do you? It was considered a cure for everything under the sun from masturbation to insanity to epilepsy to prostate cancer. That last was in 1965(!)

quote:

---

it does because i'm unaware of anyone who believes they won't go to heaven if they aren't circumcised.

---

Just because you don't know of them doesn't mean they don't exist.

quote:

---

quote:

---

So why do they do it?

---

​

not all of them do.

---

That doesn't answer the question. Let's try again:Why do they do it?Hint: Does the word "sunna" mean anything to you?

quote:

---

ok, so that's a non-consenting medical procedure. great. i've already discussed that.

---

So if we've established that it practically never happens by consent, I'm at a loss as to why you keep talking about "tiny little bit of flesh." Why, when the US outlawed FGM of any sort carried out on any female minor despite the fact that we have never found a case of it happening here in the US, didn't they decide to follow the Fourteenth Amendment and grant equal protection under the law for males?

quote:

---

then why are complications listed as less than 1%?

---

Because your stats are wrong. Did it not occur to you that perhaps your information is wrong? The complication rate is much higher than that. Part of the problem is that circumcision is considered so routine that when complications do arise, they aren't connected to the circumcision. When your baby comes down with encephalitis, tuberculosis, staph, etc., the cause of death is listed as the infection. But the only reason the baby was infected in the first place is because of the circumcision.With more than 10% of males who are circumcised needing to have a second operation to correct the mistakes of the first one, what does that tell you? Oh, but those aren't considered "complications" because they're considered part of the first mutilation.

quote:

---

and, i know you don't want to hear this, but i've never been circumcised (and i don't have a penis) and i often get ulcers on my genitals. well. they're actually cystic acne. and guess when it started? bingo, puberty. guess what causes it. sebum. ewwwww. same crap that causes it on my fucking face. so. prove to me that circumcision causes these horrifying, debilitating sores.

---

(*sigh*)That's what I get for trying to be discreet.When a man gets an ulcer on his penis, it isn't because of a sebaceous cyst. It has to do with the fact that he's been masturbating a little bit too roughly. You see, the foreskin covers the glans, providing cover. Too, with the mucosal membrane under the foreskin acting as lubricant, there is much less tearing friction.If you don't know how a man masturbates, perhaps you should refrain from making comments about a man's body.

quote:

---

no. they treat adult males with foreskins and penile cancer by removing the foreskin.

---

No, they tell parents who have just had a baby that they need to have their sons circumcised in order to prevent penile cancer. This despite the fact that penile cancer is so rare that their sons are more likely to come down with breast cancer. This despite the fact that there isn't really much connection between circumcision and penile cancer.And the reason for circumcision in the treatment of penile cancer is because of cancerous lesions. It isn't like circumcision will do anything for a tumor in the corpus spongiosum.

quote:

---

any reason a person gives for modifying their own body is acceptable and legitimate.

---

And this is where we differ. Sometimes, people aren't behaving rationally in their desire to "modify their own body." That's why we call it "self-mutilation."

quote:

---

i've already discussed non-consensual circumcision and you should stop bringing it up. it's no longer an issue.

---

But that hardly ever happens. Therefore, it is still the issue. You want to focus on trivial corner cases rather than the reality for the overwhelming majority.

quote:

---

it can be difficult to clean between a babies fingers.

---

I know...that's the point: We don't cut off a baby's fingers just because it's "difficult" to clean them.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Men who undergo MGM have no life-threatening disease or disorder.

---

​

depends on whether you consider penile cancer life-threatening.

---

Since an infant doesn't have penile cancer, why do we cut off their foreskins? That's the reason doctors say to do it: To prevent penile cancer. And yet, penile cancer is so rare that he's more likely to contract breast cancer. So if the rationale is "to prevent disease," why aren't we handing out radical mastectomies in the process?

quote:

---

and since penile cancer is treated with circumcision (i'm not talking prevention, try reading), then you're wrong, and you've been wrong.

---

But that isn't why 90% of the males in the US are circumcised. The reason why is because doctors tell parents that they have to do so to their sons in order to prevent cancer...a cancer they have hardly any chance of contracting...a cancer that occurs less often than breast cancer for which nobody suggests prophylactic mastectomy.And circumcision is only a treatement for penile cancer if the tumor is in the foreskin. If it's elsewhere, circumcision won't do anything. Therefore, you're wrong and you've been wrong.

quote:

---

the complications may be equivalent, but since they do not occur at equivalent rates, it is an illegitimate claim.

---

Since the complications are equivalent, any attempt to claim that they're not is illegitimate and nothing more than sexism.Dead male. Dead female.If they're not equivalent, then that can only be because his life isn't as valuable as hers.

quote:

---

you're trying to equate them by using the same term. it's dishonest.

---

And your attempts to disassociate them is dishonest and sexist.MGM is done for the same reasons as FGM from hygiene to ritual to religion to controlling of sexuality. So if it isn't legitimate to do it to a female, then it is just as illegitimate to do it to a male no matter how much more likely it is for him to survive.

quote:

---

but i'm not convinced the procedure is inherently damaging

---

Dead boys.How is that not "inherently damaging"?It isn't that you are dancing on their graves. You just don't care that they're dead.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.