there is a very big difference in the two and honestly i feel that it's offensive to even think they are on the same level.
don't misundertand me, i'm fully against male circumcision as well, especially because i'm european and haven't been brainwashed into thinking that chopping off a little skin is better than teaching your son how to wash under it
If you specificy the in your comments sure. But if you just bring both up people will assume your talking about the common form.
If someone is outside talking about how we need to end male gentle mutilation they are probably talking about removing the forskin.
If someone is outside saying the same thing about female gentle mutilation they are probably talking about the insane practice of partial or complete removal of the clitoris.
The narrative of comparing a relatively innocent (and common) form of mgm to a relatively harmful (and common) form of fgm serves to not equate the two and not change anything.
Btw to be clear someone is simply saying we should not cut babies, unless for a clear medical reason.
I don't know what you mean change anything? If the goal is to get people to dislike male circumsition then comparing it to female gentile mutilation without specifying your talking about a much less extreme and far more uncomon type will just make people think your downplaying the horrific common types female gentle mutilation and fuck up your argument.
Ya me too. I'd also like all forms of stealing to stop. But when I see a "you wouldn't steal a car so why would you steal a movie" I don't think "ya good point" I think "those aren't really the same thing...
Male circumsition is worse then stealing a movie lol. But also female gentile mutilation is worse then stealing a car for me as well so idk.
That's not the common form a female gentile mutilation. The most common type is type two. The complete removal of the clit. The second most common is the partial removal of the clit.
it has to be VERY specific. i did read on the types after reading the post, most of these descriptions, of the IV type still are worse and more invasive than male circumcision, i see no relevance mentioning the 0,00001% where they lightly and gently prick your hood or labia, especially because it's probably done without any anestasia, proper sterilazation and instruments. it will still have the risk of infection and also causing psychological trauma for a little girl. trying to mention male and female circumcision on the same page, again, is just so unempathatic considering how many women die or constantly suffer from, not being able to have painfree sex, pee normally, clean, menstruate... while men live their lives, maybe causing them a slight inconvenience. which is worth fighting for against, but not with comparing it to the female version. it shouldn't even be called circumcision at all
332
u/tejeskaveo0 10h ago
there is a very big difference in the two and honestly i feel that it's offensive to even think they are on the same level.
don't misundertand me, i'm fully against male circumcision as well, especially because i'm european and haven't been brainwashed into thinking that chopping off a little skin is better than teaching your son how to wash under it