Now, that doesn't support any of Holmes' other claims or citations (or discount any of yours), but, if WHO is using "faulty" research to support certain claims (but not others) then doesn't that also throw the WHO cite into question (even tho they are a respected entity)? You know, Legos...
If by "the WHO cite" you mean, "the website that I linked to", then no.
(Just for clarification, I linked to an Amnesty site that referenced a WHO report.)
The WHO report is not a scientific study. So the LEGO thing isn't really applicable.
But, "consider the source", yes?
In Message 121, I cited this:
Genital mutilation can make first intercourse an ordeal for women. It can be extremely painful, and even dangerous, if the woman has to be cut open; for some women, intercourse remains painful. Even where this is not the case, the importance of the clitoris in experiencing sexual pleasure and orgasm suggests that mutilation involving partial or complete clitoridectomy would adversely affect sexual fulfilment. Clinical considerations and the majority of studies on women's enjoyment of sex suggest that genital mutilation does impair a women's enjoyment.
At least a half a dozen cites I've posted (including the latest re: FGM and adverse health effects) support the WHO's contention that the majority of mutilated women are unable to climax.
H got his panties inna wad because the Amnesty website used Lightfoot-Klein's data to support an entirely different point.
H also got his knickers bunched because it mentioned Lightfoot-Klein's data in reference to the inability to climax.
Not that they used it to make the claim that the majority of mutilated women are able to climax (as H is doing). Instead, Amnesty tried to offer an explanation for the problematic data (in a ham-handed way, I might add).
I made it quite clear to H that the WHO concludes that the majority of FGM victims are anorgasmic. I also made it clear that in no way whatsoever do I support Amnesty's use of Lightfoot-Klein's data. (Earlier I said the WHO used that data. That's wrong. Amnesty did.)
That said, their "transgression" doesn't invalidate their conclusion:
The majority of mutilated women are unable to climax.
It's no secret that the media (if one considers a WHO report and the Amnesty site "media") does a piss poor job explaining science to the general public.
That doesn't mean the original science is invalid. It just means that the nimrods who write reports and websites aren't scientists.
Not only to those debating you, but to those lurkers (like me) who cannot follow your arguments because we cannot read your cites.
I'm sorry that you were unable to follow my line of reasoning.
I try to make a point of posting enough information from the papers to make myself clear.
If you have any questions, I would be more than happy to dig into the papers and find whatever you need.
... but the arrogance associated with the expectation of everyone here debating having access to technical papers is appalling.
I don't "expect" "everyone" to have access to the literature.
That's why I quote papers. So folks can see what I'm talking about.
Also, it is quite irritating to ask for full scientific paper references in a debate on an internet forum with laypeople (especially in cultural anthropology when the main focus of the forum is biological science) and then say that those who have no access to your papers are SOL.
This is the Coffee House, not a science thread, so discussing anthropology isn't out of bounds.
And I asked H for full cites (over a hundred posts ago) because I assumed he had access.
When he said he didn't, I suggested he find some other source of supporting evidence.
However. He didn't. Instead, he chose to use abstracts to support his nonsense (and I told him to cut it out).
Then he tried to critique the methodology of my cites, using only the abstracts (and I told him to cut it out).
If that is "condemnation", then so be it.
H did finally manage to find some other sources online (Dr. Bell's work, for example -- and btw -- I did some googling this evening and found out she's a PhD -- my apologies to Dr. Bell for alla the Ms. Bell stuff).
Had he done that in the first place, then we wouldn't have had a problem.
It might make you feel vindicated, but it doesn't help your argument in a public forum.
It also might make the point to those who lurk that it's a really bad idea to try and argue an untenable position by using only the abstracts of technical literature.
Edited by molbiogirl, : awkward wording
™ Version 4.2
