EvC Forum: Human rights, cultural diversity, and moral relativity

Message 181 of 270 (436219)
11-24-2007 6:17 PM

Reply to: Message 174 by macaroniandcheese
11-24-2007 4:48 PM

brennakimi responds to me:

quote:
quote:
the baby died from the tuberculosis but never would have contracted it if he had never been circumcised.

i highly doubt that considering tuberculosis can spread through the air and does not require an open wound.

Ah, so JAMA was lying?

Hint: Tuberculosis is a bacterium, not a lung infection.

quote:
i can only work with the information available.

And did you bother to do any research at all or did you just armchair quarterback it?

Since you refuse to do your own homework:

Holt LE. Tuberculosis acquired through ritual circumcision. JAMA 1913;LXI(2):99-102.

Tuberculosis by direct wound inoculation while not a frequent method of contracting the disease has yet occurred often enough to demonstrate the fact that this is a real danger. In 1887 Willy Meyer collected reports of a number of such instances and added a report of a case of his own of tuberculosis acquired through ritual circumcision. Since that time many additional observations on this subject have been published but only two, so far as I am aware”one by Ware and one by Sara Welk-Kakels”in this country. From inquiries, however, I am led to the opinion that many cases occur which do not find their way into print.

Reuben MS. Tuberculosis from ritual circumcision. Proceedings of the New York Academy of Medicine 1916; (December 15): 333-334.

In the literature there are reported forty-two cases of tuberculous infection following ritual circumcision; of these twelve recovered and sixteen died, and of fourteen the results are not known. The most common cause of death in these cases is tuberculous meningitis or general miliary tuberculosis; those that die usually do so in six to twelve months after infection. The most rapid course was observed in a case of Holt's, in which the child died three and one-half months after infection. Those that recover invariably show other tuberculous manifestations in later life.

But tuberculosis isn't the only problem:

Rosenstein JL. Wound diphtheria in the newborn infant following circumcision. J Pediatr 1941;18:657-8.

Wound diphtheria following circumcision is reported by Hasbrouck6 in a 3-year-old child. The indication for circumcision was a tight prepuce with very little opening. Following the circumcision, 2 per cent carbolized oil was applied. About forty hours later an exudates was observed covering the wound area, and erysipelas was spreading rapidly to the abdominal wall. Cultures from the throat and wound proved to be diphtheria. The patient died on the eighth day.

Scurlock JM, Pemberton PJ. Neonatal meningitis and circumcision. Med J Aust 1977;1:332-334.

This paper presents four cases of fulminating neonatal sepsis with meningitis. In each infant, there was evidence of an infected circumcision wound. Two infants had Escherichia coli and two had Group B haemolytic streptococcus cultured from the cerebrospinal fluid. One infant died. The risk of introducing infection through iatrogenic portals of entry is a definite problem in the neonate. Circumcision is an unnecessary routine procedure, which puts the infant at risk.

Cleary TG, Kohl S. Overwhelming infection with group B beta-hemolytic streptococcus associated with circumcision. Pediatrics, Vol 64, no 3, (September 1979), pp. 301-303.

It would seem that a reasonable explanation for some of these infections in male infants is that they routinely have the integrity of their integument violated in a moist, warm, contaminated area. Much has been made of the umbilicus as a portal of entry for bacteria, partly because of its proximity to the perineum. However, few fears have been voiced that an iatrogenic perineal wound may pose a risk of potentially greater importance.

[That last is pointing out that newborn males are much more likely to become septic than females. The sepsis is attributed to the umbilical wound but the fact that males are so much more likely to become septic is pretty strong evidence that something else is going on...say, the circumcision.]

I guess they're all lying.

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.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 174 by macaroniandcheese, posted 11-24-2007 4:48 PM		macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 190 by macaroniandcheese, posted 11-24-2007 8:12 PM		Rrhain has replied

Rrhain

Member (Idle past 256 days)

Posts: 6351

From: San Diego, CA, USA

Joined: 05-03-2003

Message 182 of 270 (436224)
11-24-2007 6:29 PM

Reply to: Message 179 by Hyroglyphx
11-24-2007 5:47 PM

Re: This is all getting very silly

Nemesis Juggernaut writes:

quote:
If that's true, then nothing is actually immoral

Incorrect. Simply because morality is arbitrary and socially constructed doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

We're back to the Monopoly example again. Monopoly is a completely arbitrary and created game. And yet, the rules exist. If you break them, you will suffer the consequences.

quote:
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.

But the mere existence of atheists proves that conclusion wrong.

Or are you saying atheists don't have morals?

Or are you saying there aren't any "real" atheists?

Or are you saying that atheists are just deluding themselves, using the morality that was given by god and denying the source?

quote:
If female circumcision is wrong, then why is it so?

To quote from "The Life":

It's my body
Not your body
And my body
Is my business
My business
Is my business
And nobody's business
But my own

Rrhain

This message is a reply to:
	Message 179 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-24-2007 5:47 PM		Hyroglyphx has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 199 by Hyroglyphx, posted 11-24-2007 10:20 PM		Rrhain has replied

molbiogirl

Member (Idle past 2891 days)

Posts: 1909

From: MO

Joined: 06-06-2007

Message 183 of 270 (436228)
11-24-2007 6:58 PM

Reply to: Message 177 by Silent H
11-24-2007 5:06 PM

Anthropology and Human Rights

The point is YOU never said ANYTHING ELSE, and in a context of criticizing the practice.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam.

Evidence of absence is not absence of evidence.

Just so we’re on the same page:

The stated purpose of infibulation always refers to the felt need to prevent women, who are inherently oversexed, from experiencing illicit sex, whether willfully or against their will.

Several cases were reported to Kennedy in Egyptian Nubia in which young unmarried girls were subjected to a second operation because a female relative concluded that the first operation was not complete enough to give absolute assurance of chastity.

The manifest function of Pharonic circumcision is to regulate female sexuality in order to safeguard virginity.

Female Genital Mutilation, Fertility Control, Women's Roles, and the Patrilineage in Modern Sudan: A Functional Analysis
Rose Oldfield Hayes
American Ethnologist, Vol. 2, No. 4, Sex Roles in Cross-Cultural Perspective. pp. 617-633.

And now for the grand finale:

Rights and Culture - Beyond Relativism?
Miia Halme
PoLAR: Political and Legal Anthropology Review
November 2005, Vol. 28, No. 2, pp. 307-315

In the past, there was a time when human rights and anthropology were distant and even hostile to each other, resulting in the famous or infamous statement on the proposed Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1947. Now the enmity is gone, and human rights have become a topic of central interest to anthropologists working in all corners of the world, both in terms of practical work and academic research.1

Are rights considered to protect different cultures or be against them? What are rights? Are they universal, defined in the abstract, or do they acquire their meaning through concrete applications? As the rights discourse has become global, have we moved beyond the universalism-particularism debate?

The concept of culture is today one of the biggest buzzwords of minority and indigenous rights discourse (or movement).

Culture has proven to be a potent tool for disadvantaged groups, rendering their claims bureaucratically visible and difficult to ignore. However, as various authors demonstrate, cultural claims also entail a considerable down side: They essentialize culture, transforming it into something “discrete”, clearly bounded and internally homogenous, with relatively fixed meanings and values” (3). Indigenous cultures become idealized, and indigenous peoples’ identity is described as atemporal.

Discrete.

Clearly bounded.

Internally homogenous.

Rather like your imaginary “monoculture”, eh?

Who is to say that the actions are indeed based in “tradition” or “culture” and not merely about abuse accompanied with excuses from the more powerful?4

In mainstream human rights writings, such considerations are regrettably often absent. Rachel Sieder and Jessica Witchell link this back to the previously discussed notions of essentialism, which causes small communities to be treated as homogeneous.

Ah yes. Essentialist malarkey.

Rather like your imaginary “monoculture”, eh?

There are, however, situations where established cultural practices,whatever they might mean and however they should be defined, clash with human rights norms. The primary arguments invoked in the discussion center around health, bodily integrity, and women’s right to sexual enjoyment.7

In addition to focusing on new ethnographies, perhaps more anthropologists should also focus on “translating” the preexisting anthropological data to mainstream audience, doing the tedious work of pinpointing the articles within particular human rights treaties (texts) that they wish to comment upon, thereby connecting anthropological commentaries to the writings of mainstream human rights authors.

In 1995 the American Anthropological Association founded a Human Rights Committee, aiming to “stimulate informed involvement in human rights among professional anthropologists through publications, panels and network building,” as well as to “gather information on selected, anthropologically relevant, cases of human rights abuse and to propose action in the name of the AAA.”

It’s perfectly clear that anthropologists see a connection between their ethnographic work and human rights.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 177 by Silent H, posted 11-24-2007 5:06 PM		Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 185 by Silent H, posted 11-24-2007 7:45 PM		molbiogirl has replied

Silent H

Member (Idle past 6069 days)

Posts: 7405

From: satellite of love

Joined: 12-11-2002

Silent H Posts Only

Message 184 of 270 (436239)
11-24-2007 7:21 PM

Reply to: Message 178 by molbiogirl
11-24-2007 5:28 PM

Re: 3... FGM (to molbio ... and others interested in MGM)

780 v. 3. I would call that vast. And that's 11 years old.

Where is the evidence for this figure, and what are the details of these studies? And by 3 I have the idea you are referring to the 3 I've cited?

Methodological flaw = incorrect, by definition.

You say the above, and yet...

Not re: sexual pleasure they don't.

So then you agree that just because there are methodological flaws does NOT mean that all its findings are incorrect. After all Klein is
flawed and yet WHO does accept her findings. BTW your initial claim is that they said her study was BS.

And I am correct that their conclusion regarding what the majority of studies had said (in 1997) did not refer exclusively to orgasm. Once again you quote mine...

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. However, one study found that 90% of the infibulated women interviewed reported experiencing orgasm.[2] The mechanisms involved in sexual enjoyment and orgasm are still not fully understood, but it is thought that compensatory processes, some of them psychological, may mitigate some of the effects of removal of the clitoris and other sensitive parts of the genitals.

The above part in yellow is all you quoted. The full sentence is a description of why it is intuitive that removal of the clitoris would effect sexual pleasure and orgasm. The following discussion of the studies restricts commentary to enjoyment and does not indicate whether that includes ability to have orgasms. What's more you continue to ignore the fact that you quote mined that section to make its conclusion appear to support your position.

And now you try to accuse me of quote mining by saying...

Here's the quote you pulled from the abstract.

I didn't pull anything from the abstract. I have the whole thing right there. I emphasized one area, but the whole thing is there to read.

And what you did read you still could not comprehend...

An STD is not an indicator of sexual response.

Right, they didn't say that. Their point is that it could be an indicator of how cutting could effect sexual response.

520 papers published since 1997. 1 paper that supports your contention.

I'm sorry I must have missed all those citations you gave. Mind listing them again, including their methods? Just because there are 520 does not mean they are all negative. What's more the number of studies does not inherently mean anything (even if all negative). Where were they conducted, who was it on, how was it done, what degree of negativity, regarding what kind of FGM, regarding what topic of female life?

And such a majority doesn't argue for consensus on a topic either. That's a total shysters trick. You really have a lame grasp of how science actually works.

Ms. Bell is specifically referring to the "complications" of "sexual health" (aka sexual response). And she is full of shit.

No. She is NOT discussing sexual health with the 15% statistic. Read the quote again (and it would further help if you had the whole section)...

Thus, although these organizations claim to be concerned about health generally, they are really concerned specifically with sexual health. This is because the detrimental long-term health consequences seem limited largely to infibulation (see Obermeyer 1999, 2003; Shell-Duncan and Hernlund 2000:14-18; Shweder 2000), which accounts for around only 15 percent of cases.

Bell in the above is making the point that while orgs like the WHO are claiming to be concerned about health consequences they are really only concerned with sex... and then she sets out her reason: general health effects are largely limited to infibulation which is only 15% of the cases... whereas orgs like WHO are against all FGMs? Get it?

Well. I'm glad you finally said it. No one has inherent rights of any sort. Care to back that up?

Finally said it? I thought that was obvious from my OP! And I might point out it is the people claiming a positive that have to do the proving. Are there inherent rights of any sort? Where? How do you know they are inherent?

If you would like to know my skeptical position on this is that, like God, or absolute moralities, I've never seen such a thing and there is no logical basis for such a claim. That others have many different conflicting views, serves as evidence that these are not inherent. Individual rights are what we take for ourselves, if we want them.

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

This message is a reply to:
	Message 178 by molbiogirl, posted 11-24-2007 5:28 PM		molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 191 by molbiogirl, posted 11-24-2007 8:21 PM		Silent H has replied

Silent H

Member (Idle past 6069 days)

Posts: 7405

From: satellite of love

Joined: 12-11-2002

Silent H Posts Only

Message 185 of 270 (436248)
11-24-2007 7:45 PM

Reply to: Message 183 by molbiogirl
11-24-2007 6:58 PM

Re: Anthropology and Human Rights

Evidence of absence is not absence of evidence.

Right, but that still doesn't change anything. I was discussing what you advanced here at EvC. Prove me wrong.

Your quote showing an anthropologist discussing Type 3 being mainly used to control women STILL does not change what you wrote here at EvC. I have already said that was not a problem.

Rather like your imaginary “monoculture”, eh?

What is an imaginary monoculture? I showed you people using the term, rather extensively in fact. It does not even mean complete homogeneity which is what you seem to be insinuating here. Did you even read the Wiki description of it?

Look, if you don't get what that word means, and that people are using it... in fact, if you are telling me you can't understand what is being said at that Wiki page (much less the articles), then there isn't a point in continuing conversation. Really, this is pretty immature behavior on your part.

That said...

It’s perfectly clear that anthropologists see a connection between their ethnographic work and human rights.

I am going to be looking into this more deeply. As I said I was going through anthro a long time ago... certainly before the 90s. It appears some things HAVE changed, and from what I am reading (if this single person's view is the mainstream) this is troubling. That is a complete loss of scientific perspective.

Then again, I guess it shouldn't be surprising since American Psychiatric orgs have been doing the same thing recently. Renouncing objectivity for social relevance. While this supports an idea that political analysis is now being allowed greater freedom within anthro, that would not argue that it has any scientific merit. I suppose I should be grateful the author only mentions an American org.

But more importantly, it still doesn't change what you presented at EvC. I don't know what your intentions were, but all you provided was a reductionist explanation tied to a criticism. That's all you did and no amount of presenting other material is going to change what you presented.

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

This message is a reply to:
	Message 183 by molbiogirl, posted 11-24-2007 6:58 PM		molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 195 by molbiogirl, posted 11-24-2007 8:34 PM		Silent H has replied

nator

Member (Idle past 2419 days)

Posts: 12961

From: Ann Arbor

Joined: 12-09-2001

nator Posts Only

Message 186 of 270 (436249)
11-24-2007 7:47 PM

Reply to: Message 142 by molbiogirl
11-24-2007 12:12 AM

Re: 2... Multi v Mono culture (to molbio)

quote:
You loves to do some assumin', doncha, H?

Just so you know, in the past, H has been very fond of not addressing what you actually say, but a modified, strawman version of what you say, and then argue against that.

Then the rest of the thread was usually bogged down in trying, in vain, to correct his misrepresentations of your position.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 142 by molbiogirl, posted 11-24-2007 12:12 AM		molbiogirl has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 192 by molbiogirl, posted 11-24-2007 8:22 PM		nator has not replied

macaroniandcheese

Suspended Member (Idle past 4177 days)

Posts: 4258

Joined: 05-24-2004

Message 187 of 270 (436250)
11-24-2007 7:54 PM

Reply to: Message 176 by Rrhain
11-24-2007 4:53 PM

How does someone flay a person alive "correctly"?

by their own consent after the age of majority with proper anesthesia and sanitary precautions... since you haven't been paying attention.

Why would somebody cut off perfectly functioning, non-diseased genitalia?

that is none of my business.

We don't let people cut their arms off simply because they want to.

because it is in the state's specific interests to ensure integrity of the workforce. arms are generally necessary for work. preserving them when possible is again, in the state's specific interests.

You don't understand the difference between reconstructive surgery and excision?

i do, but to differentiate them legally is really beyond the scope of the specific national interest. as long as the practice does not prevent the creation of new taxpayers, does not create direct and demonstrable harm, and is done consensually, it's not my business or that of the state.

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.

from your own quote, my emphasis added:

whoever knowingly circumcises, excises or infibulates the whole or any part of the labia majora or labia minora or clitoris [b]of another person who has not attained the age of 18 years[/i] shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.

actually, yes it does. it clearly permits people who are of at least the age of majority to have their own labia or clitoris removed.

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.

that's a shame. you want to tell me why illinois, minnesota, rhode island, and tennessee feel the need to peek into women's doctors' offices?

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.

good.

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.

no. women who are at least 18 years old should be allowed to have their own genitalia removed. you missed the other half of my statement.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 176 by Rrhain, posted 11-24-2007 4:53 PM		Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 189 by Rrhain, posted 11-24-2007 8:09 PM		macaroniandcheese has replied

macaroniandcheese

Suspended Member (Idle past 4177 days)

Posts: 4258

Joined: 05-24-2004

Message 188 of 270 (436257)
11-24-2007 8:07 PM

Reply to: Message 180 by Rrhain
11-24-2007 6:02 PM

Re: Complication rate of MGM

Hint: Does the word "sunna" mean anything to you?

yes. but not all of them do it. so why don't you stop generalizing. and they don't think they're not going to go to heaven because of it.

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?

clearly it's because it's not a congruent procedure.

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 i rub my leg too hard, i will eventually make it raw or wear out the elasticity and tear it and potentially develop an infection. so you're going to tell me that because someone is irresponsible in the degree of force used on sensitive tissue that it's not their own damn fault they tore it? gj. if i pick my fucking pimples and they scar, it's my own fucking fault.

If you don't know how a man masturbates, perhaps you should refrain from making comments about a man's body.

jesus. it doesn't take the kind of force necessary to tear the fucking skin. maybe he should clean and trim his nails.

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.

yes, people do that too, and wrongly. but they also treat penile cancer with circumcision. the word treat implies that one ALREADY HAS WHATEVER IS BEING TREATED. literacy is amazing.

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.

omg you mean they also use it to treat people who already have cancer? omg i had no idea (for fuck sake.)

Sometimes, people aren't behaving rationally in their desire to "modify their own body."

just because someone makes a different choice than you would have doesn't mean they aren't behaving rationally.

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.

no. you said it can't be done properly. i said it can. if it's not being done properly, then work to change that. but you're not going to accomplish it by pissing at me on the internet. write your fucking congressman.

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

no, and no one should cut off their baby's foreskin unless there is an urgent life or health threatening issue.

Since an infant doesn't have penile cancer, why do we cut off their foreskins?

you're the only one talking about infants.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 180 by Rrhain, posted 11-24-2007 6:02 PM		Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 193 by Rrhain, posted 11-24-2007 8:27 PM		macaroniandcheese has replied

Rrhain

Member (Idle past 256 days)

Posts: 6351

From: San Diego, CA, USA

Joined: 05-03-2003

Message 189 of 270 (436259)
11-24-2007 8:09 PM

Reply to: Message 187 by macaroniandcheese
11-24-2007 7:54 PM

brennakimi responds to me:

quote:
quote:
How does someone flay a person alive "correctly"?

by their own consent after the age of majority with proper anesthesia and sanitary precautions...

And since that isn't the case for MGM in the overwhelming majority of cases, how does that apply to the issue at hand?

You're arguing trivia.

quote:
because it is in the state's specific interests to ensure integrity of the workforce.

Since when? I am not a cog for the machine.

quote:
quote:
You don't understand the difference between reconstructive surgery and excision?

i do, but to differentiate them legally is really beyond the scope of the specific national interest.

Why? The law does that all the time. In the states where the entire concept of FGM is illegal, there are exceptions for medical necessity. If you've been in a horrid car crash and your crotch has suffered massive injuries, it may be necessary to excise your genitals in order to save your life.

quote:
as long as the practice does not prevent the creation of new taxpayers

Huh? So procreation should be regulated? Only those authorized by the state are allowed to have children?

quote:
does not create direct and demonstrable harm

How does mutilation of the body not result in "direct and demonstrable harm"?

quote:
and is done consensually, it's not my business or that of the state.

But you just said that the state has the right to stop someone from cutting his arm off. Why the special pleading?

quote:
it clearly permits people who are of at least the age of majority to have their own labia or clitoris removed.

But MGM in the West is carried out on infants. So why do females get to have their genitals protected but not males?

quote:
you want to tell me why illinois, minnesota, rhode island, and tennessee feel the need to peek into women's doctors' offices?

Does the word "malpractice" mean anything to you?

quote:
quote:
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.

no.

So why the double-standard? Why do females get their genitals protected by not men?

Oh...that's right...it's just a "tiny little bit of flesh" where nobody ever dies from it.

quote:
you missed the other half of my statement.

Incorrect.

I pointed out that your "other half" happens in a vanishingly small number of cases. Since it is nothing more than trivia, one wonders why you are so determined to focus upon it rather than the situation that affects the overwhelming majority of men.

Rrhain

This message is a reply to:
	Message 187 by macaroniandcheese, posted 11-24-2007 7:54 PM		macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 194 by macaroniandcheese, posted 11-24-2007 8:29 PM		Rrhain has replied

macaroniandcheese

Suspended Member (Idle past 4177 days)

Posts: 4258

Joined: 05-24-2004

Message 190 of 270 (436260)
11-24-2007 8:12 PM

Reply to: Message 181 by Rrhain
11-24-2007 6:17 PM

Hint: Tuberculosis is a bacterium, not a lung infection.

hint: lung infections are either caused by bacteria or virii.

And did you bother to do any research at all or did you just armchair quarterback it?

and how in the fuck would i find that specific article with nothing to go on by jama, circumcision, and tuberculosis if you don't provide a specific citation of any sort.

I guess they're all lying.

no, but tuberculosis is generally acquired through airborne transmission. anything else is out of the norm.

armchair quarterback

oh look, we have a new favorite insult. i have an idea. lets make a new rule. no one on the board can post on anything they don't have a degree it.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 181 by Rrhain, posted 11-24-2007 6:17 PM		Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 197 by Rrhain, posted 11-24-2007 8:41 PM		macaroniandcheese has replied

molbiogirl

Member (Idle past 2891 days)

Posts: 1909

From: MO

Joined: 06-06-2007

Message 191 of 270 (436262)
11-24-2007 8:21 PM

Reply to: Message 184 by Silent H
11-24-2007 7:21 PM

Re: 3... FGM (to molbio ... and others interested in MGM)

So then you agree that just because there are methodological flaws does NOT mean that all its findings are incorrect.

Scientific studies are not Legos.

You can't pull out the pieces that you like and play with just those.

BTW your initial claim is that they said her study was BS.

And they did.

It is unfortunate that the WHO chose to both affirm and deny Klein's results.

(Affirm: pain = during sex; deny: mutilated women = orgasmic)

That is an abhorrent abuse of fatally flawed scientific findings.

I am not defending the WHO's misappropriation of a Klein's study.

The text is clear.

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.

However, one study found that 90% of the infibulated women interviewed reported experiencing orgasm.

Orgasm. Enjoyment. Orgasm.

Mutilation = lack of sexual response (aka orgasm) = majority of studies.

And now you try to accuse me of quote mining by saying...

Here's the quote you pulled from the abstract.

I didn't pull anything from the abstract. I have the whole thing right there. I emphasized one area, but the whole thing is there to read.

I am not referring to the WHO document.

Here's the full quote:

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.

Female genital cutting in this group of women did not attenuate sexual feelings.

BJOG: An International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynaecology.

Not WHO.

Idjit.

An STD is not an indicator of sexual response.

Right, they didn't say that. Their point is that it could be an indicator of how cutting could effect sexual response.

Here's the quote again:

We reasoned that if female genital cutting affects sexual response, one way in which this could be manifested is through symptoms of sexually transmitted infections ever experienced by cut women compared with uncut women.

The used symptoms of STDs to measure sexual response.

That is BULLSHIT.

Just because there are 520 does not mean they are all negative.

That's the whole point.

You have managed to scrounge up ONE cite since 1997.

There are 520 papers to choose from.

If FGM's relationship to sexual response is so hotly contested, it should be really easy for you to find at least a half a dozen cites that support your contention that FGM does not eradicate sexual response in the majority of mutilated women.

How about it?

You gonna find the cites or just whine about "recent research" without any evidence of said research?

No. She is NOT discussing sexual health with the 15% statistic. Read the quote again (and it would further help if you had the whole section)...

Well. At least now you are admitting it was Ms. Bell who used the 15% stat.

That's a start.

Ms. Bell uses "sexual health" in the first sentence and "health" in the second sentence.

She is referring to the same thing in both sentences.

Look again.

She explicitly states: NOT HEALTH GENERALLY. SEXUAL HEALTH.

She is not referring to general health effects.

Immediate Negative Physical Consequences can include:

* Death1,7
* Haemorrhage1,7,11
* Shock1,7,11
* Pain1,7
* Infection1,7,11
* Urine retention1,7,11
* Injury to adjacent tissue1,7,11
* Potential spread of HIV1,7

Long-Term Negative Physical Consequences can include:

* Anemia11
* Intermittent bleeding7,11
* Urinary tract infections1,7,11
* Kidney damage7
* Incontinence1,11
* Reproductive tract infections7
* Chronic pelvic infections7,11
* Infertility1,7,11
* Cysts1,11
* Scars1,7,11
* Permanent pain11
* Painful sexual intercourse1,7,11
* Problems in pregnancy and childbirth1,7,11
* Increased risk of maternal or fetus death during childbirth1
* Easier transmission of HIV during sexual intercourse11

Negative Psychological Consequences can include:

* Sexual dysfunction in one or both partners7,11
* Reduced sexual sensitivity7,11
* Possible loss of trust in caregivers7,11
* Feelings of incompleteness, anxiety, terror, depression, humiliation, or chronic irritability7,11
* Increased docilitity7

All of these negative health effects are common to type II and type III.

A woman whose clit and lips are hacked off and a woman whose clit and lips are hacked off and then stitched up BOTH have a decent chance of dying (10%).

II: Clitoridectomy/excision: Consists of the removal of the entire clitoris (both prepuce and glans), and the removal of the adjacent labia.

III: Infibulation: Consists of the removal of the clitoris and the adjacent labia (majora and minora), followed by stitching together the scraped sides of the vulva across the vagina. A small opening is kept to allow passage of urine and menstrual blood.

Because type II and type III share the same general health consequences, Ms. Bell goes to great length to point out that she is specifically referring to SEXUAL health.

Are there inherent rights of any sort? Where? How do you know they are inherent?

Look.

This is the third time you've pulled a stunt like this.

You made the bare assertion.

You back it up.

It is not my responsibility to prove or disprove YOUR bare assertion.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 184 by Silent H, posted 11-24-2007 7:21 PM		Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 205 by Silent H, posted 11-25-2007 12:55 AM	molbiogirl has replied
	Message 209 by Jaderis, posted 11-25-2007 3:11 AM	molbiogirl has replied

molbiogirl

Member (Idle past 2891 days)

Posts: 1909

From: MO

Joined: 06-06-2007

Message 192 of 270 (436263)
11-24-2007 8:22 PM

Reply to: Message 186 by nator
11-24-2007 7:47 PM

Yeah, Nator, I'm starting to realize that

Holmes is a tar pit of intellectual dishonesty.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 186 by nator, posted 11-24-2007 7:47 PM		nator has not replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 202 by Silent H, posted 11-24-2007 11:55 PM		molbiogirl has not replied

Rrhain

Member (Idle past 256 days)

Posts: 6351

From: San Diego, CA, USA

Joined: 05-03-2003

Message 193 of 270 (436264)
11-24-2007 8:27 PM

Reply to: Message 188 by macaroniandcheese
11-24-2007 8:07 PM

Re: Complication rate of MGM

brennakimi responds to me:

quote:
but not all of them do it.

Since when does it matter how many of them do it? If just one does it because he thinks he is religiously required to do it, then it is done for religious reasons. Not exactly a free choice, now is it?

quote:
clearly it's because it's not a congruent procedure.

Dead male. Dead female.

If they're not congruent, then it can only be because his life is as valuable as hers.

Note: They couldn't find a single instance of FGM happening in the US and yet it got outlawed.

quote:
so you're going to tell me that because someone is irresponsible in the degree of force used on sensitive tissue that it's not their own damn fault they tore it?

Yes. You don't realize that you've gone too far until it's too late.

Again, since you don't know how men masturbate, it would behoove you to stop pretending you understand what happens.

quote:
it doesn't take the kind of force necessary to tear the fucking skin.

And how would you know? A circumcised penis has tight skin inherently. That's part of the function of the foreskin: To allow the skin of the penile shaft to move easily up and down the corpora inside. This allows frictional sensation to be transmitted internally while preventing friction on the outside. By removing the foreskin, the skin can no longer move over the corpora and the friction necessarily must be on the outer surface of the skin.

Since you don't know how men masturbate, it would behoove you to stop pretending you understand what happens.

quote:
but they also treat penile cancer with circumcision.

Only if the tumor is in the foreskin. Circumcision doesn't do anything for cancer localized in the corpora. So the treatment isn't "circumcision," per se, but rather excision of the tumor which happens to be on the foreskin.

quote:
just because someone makes a different choice than you would have doesn't mean they aren't behaving rationally.

Indeed. But just because you don't care doesn't mean they are.

It's called "Body Integrity Identity Disorder." Why the special pleading for genitals?

quote:
no. you said it can't be done properly.

Indeed. Flaying someone alive (since in the West, circumcision is done on infants and in infants, the prepuce has not separated from the glans and thus the only way to remove it is to forcibly tear it off) cannot be done properly, no matter how medicalized the process.

You're focusing on trivial corner cases as if that justifies the overwhelming majority of cases. That somehow because there is a man somewhere with a tumor on his foreskin that has his foreskin medically removed, that justifies all other instances.

quote:
but you're not going to accomplish it by pissing at me on the internet. write your fucking congressman.

But the lawmakers have the same problem you do: A man's life isn't as valuable as a woman's. It's just a "tiny little bit of flesh."

Politics begins at home.

quote:
no one should cut off their baby's foreskin unless there is an urgent life or health threatening issue.

And yet, we do. And you defend it by claiming it's just a "tiny little bit of flesh," of no real concern...it isn't like anybody dies from it.

quote:
you're the only one talking about infants.

That's because in the West, that's who gets circumcized.

You're focused on trivia since if you can get someone to agree to your trivia, that will allow you to ignore the actual case.

Rrhain

This message is a reply to:
	Message 188 by macaroniandcheese, posted 11-24-2007 8:07 PM		macaroniandcheese has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 196 by macaroniandcheese, posted 11-24-2007 8:40 PM		Rrhain has replied

macaroniandcheese

Suspended Member (Idle past 4177 days)

Posts: 4258

Joined: 05-24-2004

Message 194 of 270 (436265)
11-24-2007 8:29 PM

Reply to: Message 189 by Rrhain
11-24-2007 8:09 PM

Since when? I am not a cog for the machine.

since forever. laws only exist in such cases as the state has a significant and demonstrable interest in the certain thing. that's what laws do. and i hate to be the one to tell you, you are a cog in the machine.

because it is in the state's higher interest to preserve a life rather than to guarantee an additional life afterwards.

Huh? So procreation should be regulated? Only those authorized by the state are allowed to have children?

i think so

but. no. you're misunderstanding. it is in the interest of the state to encourage procreation, not reduce it. if you're not smart enough to make that connection, you have issues.

How does mutilation of the body not result in "direct and demonstrable harm"?

it depends. does splitting the end of my tongue harm me? it's body "mutilation". does getting my labia size and shaped change because i don't think it's sexy enough harm me? it's body "mutilation". if i burn my skin so that it doesn't grow hair, i have "mutilated" my body. is that harmful? if i stain my skin with heavy metals in less than toxic levels i have "mutilated" my body. but have i harmed myself? if i scar the tissue under my breasts to that i don't have to wear a bra anymore i have "mutilated" my body. have i done harm to myself? if i identify as a woman, but i have a penis, have i harmed myself by having my genitalia changed? it certainly should qualify as "mutilation".

But you just said that the state has the right to stop someone from cutting his arm off. Why the special pleading?

because removing an arm generally prevents one from doing work and contributing to the economy. however, unless cosmetically changing the external structure of your genitalia prevents you from having children, the state has no interest in preventing it. in fact, since the state has said that people have a right to control and prevent procreation, the state has no legitimate interest in preventing consenting adults from "mutilating" their genitalia in such a way as to prevent births.

But MGM in the West is carried out on infants. So why do females get to have their genitals protected but not males?

because you haven't done your job and written your congressmen. it's all your fault.

Does the word "malpractice" mean anything to you?

sure. but malpractice means doing something incorrectly or doing something unwanted. i'm not convinced that a country that allows labioplasty should ban extreme labioplasty, since, in medicalized conditions, that's what we're talking about.

So why the double-standard? Why do females get their genitals protected by not men?

because you haven't written your congressman.

no. i pointed out that it is possible for the procedure to be done properly. if you refuse to take the necessary political steps to see that this only happens to consenting adults, then that's your fault.

Edited by brennakimi, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
	Message 189 by Rrhain, posted 11-24-2007 8:09 PM		Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
	Message 212 by Rrhain, posted 11-25-2007 9:24 AM		macaroniandcheese has replied

molbiogirl

Member (Idle past 2891 days)

Posts: 1909

From: MO

Joined: 06-06-2007