@Cayne MUH DICK! Part 2: Electric Boogeymonster  
REBOOT ARGUMENT IN DEBUNK MODE  
http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2007/9789241596169_eng.pdf  
There is substantial evidence that male circumcision protects against several diseases, including urinary tract infections, syphilis, chancroid and invasive penile cancer, as well as HIV. Neonatal circumcision […] has a very low rate of adverse events, which are usually minor (0.2–0.4%).  
FGM frequently involves complete removal of the clitoris, as well as additional cutting and stitching of the labia resulting in a constricted vaginal opening. The procedures are linked to extensive and in some cases lifelong health problems. The immediate complications include severe pain, shock, haemorrhage, tetanus or sepsis, urine retention, ulceration  
of the genital region and injury to adjacent tissue. Haemorrhage and infection can be of such magnitude as to cause death.
 
http://whqlibdoc.who.int/publications/2010/9789241500753_eng.pdf  
Since the mid-1980s, data from cross-sectional epidemiological studies have shown that  
circumcised men have a lower prevalence of HIV infection than uncircumcised men. And, over the past 5 years, three randomized controlled trials have convincingly demonstrated that male circumcision is effective in reducing female to male transmission of HIV.
 
The benefits of male circumcision include the following.  
•[M]ale circumcision has been proved to help prevent female to male transmission of HIV, reducing the risk of transmission by 60−70%.  
•[M]ale circumcision decreases the risk of such infections in infants and adult men. Uncircumcised male infants are estimated to have a 1% chance of acquiring a urinary tract infection. This type of infection is 10 times less common in circumcised male infants, who have an estimated 0.1% chance of developing such an infection.  
•[M]ale circumcision has been shown to help protect against contracting genital herpes simplex virus (HSV) and human papillomavirus (HPV).  
•[C]ervical cancer occurs less commonly in women with male sexual partners who are circumcised. Sex with either uncircumcised men or men circumcised after infancy increases a women’s risk of cervical cancer.  
•Decreased vaginal infections caused by Trichomonas vaginalis and decreased bacterial vaginosis in female sexual partners.  
• In 2007, UNAIDS and WHO concluded that the efficacy of male circumcision in reducing female to male transmission of HIV had been proved beyond reasonable doubt.
 
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17419812  
||No differences in genital sensitivity were found between the uncircumcised and circumcised groups.  
CONCLUSION: These results do not the hypothesized penile sensory differences associated with circumcision. ||
 
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18086100  
CONCLUSION: Adult male circumcision does not adversely affect sexual satisfaction or clinically significant function in men.
 
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3042320/  
Conclusions: Adult male circumcision was not associated with sexual dysfunction. Circumcised men reported increased penile sensitivity and enhanced ease of reaching orgasm. These data indicate that integration of male circumcision into programs to reduce HIV risk is unlikely to adversely effect male sexual function.
 
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23937309  
CONCLUSION: The highest-quality studies suggest that medical male circumcision has no adverse effect on sexual function, sensitivity, sexual sensation, or satisfaction.
 
http://healthland.time.com/2013/04/17/why-circumcision-lowers-risk-of-hiv/  
While the men showed similar communities of microbes before the operation, 12 months later, the circumcised men harbored dramatically fewer bacteria that survive in low oxygen conditions. They also had 81% less bacteria overall compared to the uncircumcised men, and that could have a dramatic effect on the men’s ability to fight off infections like HIV, says Price. Previous studies showed that circumcised men lowered their risk of transmitting HIV by as much as 50%, making the operation an important tool in preventing infection with the virus.
 
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22676057  
Male circumcision is associated with a lower risk of penile human papillomavirus (HPV) infection in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) uninfected men.  
These results suggest that male circumcision may be associated with a lower prevalence of oncogenic high-risk penile HPV infection in HIV-infected MSM.
 
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15890696  
RESULTS: Data on 402,908 children were identified from 12 studies (one randomised controlled trial, four cohort studies, and seven case-control studies). Circumcision was associated with a significantly reduced risk of UTI (OR = 0.13; 95% CI, 0.08 to 0.20; p<0.001) with the same odds ratio (0.13) for all three types of study design.  
CONCLUSIONS: Circumcision reduces the risk of UTI.
 
http://thechart.blogs.cnn.com/2012/08/21/decline-in-circumcisions-could-cost-billions/  
Declining circumcision rates in the United States could wind up costing billions later, researchers warn.
 
http://www.unifem.org/attachments/products/fgm_statement_2008_eng.pdf  
||Female genital mutilation has no known health benefits. On the contrary, it is known to be harmful to girls and women in many ways. First and foremost, it is painful and traumatic. The removal of or damage to healthy, normal genital tissue interferes with the natural functioning of the body and causes several immediate and long-term health consequences. For example, babies born to women who have undergone female genital mutilation suffer a higher rate of neonatal death compared with babies born to women who have not undergone the procedure.  
Seen from a human rights perspective, the practice reflects deep-rooted inequality between the sexes, and constitutes an extreme form of discrimination against women.  
The Committee on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women, the Committee on the Rights of the Child and the Human Rights Committee have been active in condemning the practice and recommending measures to combat it, including the criminalization of the practice.  
Most seriously, death rates among babies during and immediately after birth were higher for those born to mothers who had undergone genital mutilation compared to those who had not […] It was estimated that, at the study sites, an additional one to two babies per 100 deliveries die as a result of female genital mutilation.  
The consequences of genital mutilation for most women who deliver outside the hospital setting are expected to be even more severe (WHO Study Group on Female Genital Mutilation and Obstetric Outcome, 2006). The high incidence of post-partum haemorrhage, a life-threatening condition, is of particular concern where health services are weak or women cannot easily access them.  
In contrast to female genital mutilation, male circumcision has significant health benefits that outweigh the very low risk of complications when performed by adequately-equipped and well-trained providers in hygienic settings. Circumcision has been shown to lower men’s risk for HIV acquisition by about 60% and is now recognized as an additional intervention to reduce infection in men in settings where there is a high prevalence of HIV. ||
 
…I could literally go on for another five pages like this. *TL;DR: The overwhelming preponderance of scientific study, clinical trials, medical research, and field observation say that you are categorically and unequivocally wrong. Your paranoid, delusional ideology has been thoroughly and completely debunked, over and over and over again, by medical and health experts across the world.

@Niggoslav_Krawczyk  
Turisas was what immediately came to my mind.

@Haymaker amusingly I was thinking of linking Rauta, but then I decided maybe I should leave it blank and see what bands people respond with.

@Niggoslav_Krawczyk  
Brutally metal? Like Korpiklaani?

@TexasUberAlles ehhhh, but it’s not trolling? Like at all? Also I was implying everyone in general. Seems like everyone else dogpiles on random x antifem because that’s the only things they ever talk about even if the picture in question has no feminist qualities.  
It’s like twilicorn but political!  
At any rate it should come as no big surprise one of my few christian idols is Inquisitor Konrad von Marburg. He would definitely not stand for this tumblr shit ah tell you wut!
 
also haha at the karelian thing because I was JUST READING a fic which used that name for an anti-equestria nation. 441 would probably like it, Celestia rolled more critical failures than a DM-loathed paladin. I dubbeth thee princess Joblestia! Now even normal ponies can beat her ass seven ways from her sunbutt! anyway nah we’re kooky accordian-playing beer-tappin’ germans, tho we do have to give props to finns for reviving the accordian in their own brutally metal fashions.

@Zennistrad
 
I quite agree. And what makes it worse is that deliberately conflating a few atypical examples with more mainstream positions (such as pointing to people using evolution to justify racism as a way to discredit belief in evolution) is a pretty common tactic to try and demonize a position, so when people see something like that, they’ll often assume the worst =\ . It can rapidly turn an innocent misunderstanding into an entirely needless fight.
 
It’s also why it’s very important to clarify what you meant when you see other people clearly misunderstanding what you’ve written.

@Background Pony #0329
 

 
See, this is where the problem lies, I feel. Poor communication often leads to different people reading into statements differently.
 
“Implications” are very vague and nebulous, and not everyone is going to be able to see the same ones, or even see them at all.
 
This is why it’s important when arguing to make your stance as absolutely concrete and clear as possible so that there’s no room for interpreting it differently.

@Zennistrad
 
Eh, Cayne does a pretty poor job of defining the boundaries of his arguments - he never says it, but his reply to Texas really does imply that a handful of Tumblr s represents a significant sample of feminist thought. He doesn’t really put many qualifiers in to establish that these are fairly atypical examples, while his language at points suggest that they are commonplace.
 
If he doesn’t wish to people to believe such, he really ought be more careful with his words.

@TexasUberAlles
 
It’s true, they don’t understand it, and they don’t deserve it. Neither will they understand the arguments you are making, nor will they listen to them. But you’re not attempting to persuade whomever has enflamed your ire; that moment was lost as soon as it devolved into a fight.
 
The only people you can expect to reach are those who are quietly reading the thread who aren’t personally invested in the issue, and people like that rarely respond well to unpleasant behavior.
 
It is true that my words may carry less impact anonymously, but I prefer my words to stand on their own weight, not be buoyed or weighed down by any reputation I might otherwise garner.
 
>>…What, are you Karelian?
 
Didn’t the last of the Karelian dynasty die out in, like, 1100 or so? I’d guess he’s more likely of one of the Italian houses, personally. The nobility there wasn’t as important as the great merchant houses, but ironically that often insulated them from many of the conflicts that would otherwise see their lands claimed.

@TexasUberAlles
 

 
“The examples you listed that lend evidence to your point make you evil and prove my point instead because reasons.”
 

 
Am I even reading the same thing you are? He didn’t even say “they’re all like that.” I’ve been paying attention to the whole thing and not once have I ever seen him say something that would be indicative of a position that attacks all feminists. Hell, I’ve never seen a position that would suggest that he hates women.
 
Sure, he might be focusing a bit too much effort on calling out the extremists, but do the extremists really represent the whole of feminist philosophy? I’m going to make a bold claim and say no, they don’t.

@TexasUberAlles  
“This is starting to edge into puppykicking territory; all I have to do is prompt you and you just haul off an’ prove every argument I make for me. Shine on, you crazy diamond.”
 
Standard ordeal. Are you trying to convince me or yourself?
 
“Circumcision is a health issue. It just is. It reduces risk of contracting HIV, syphilis, and herpes. Uncircumcised men are significantly more prone to HPV infection, and much more likely to spread HPV to their partners, where it’s responsible for ~90% of anal cancer and roughly all cervical cancer. As with many health issues, race and ethnicity play a part, but turns out the parts of the world with the highest rates of circumcision tend to be near the bottom of the list for HPV infection, and the cancers associated with HPV are rarest among Jews and Muslims in the Middle East.”
 
I have been searching for the study on the risk of catching HPV, and I have yet to find it. So if you could link it that would be great.
 
I did however find a lot of other studies while searching for it.
 
http://www.plosone.org/article/info_3Adoi2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0015552
 
“This study did not detect the expected association between male circumcision and HIV seropositivity, possible due to limitations in sample size and prevalence. With 38% of men and nearly 65% of women HSV-2 positive, however, our ability to detect any association between genital herpes and circumcision status or preference for circumcised partners was improved - no association was found.”
 
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18840841
 
“Pooled analyses of available observational studies of MSM revealed insufficient evidence that male circumcision protects against HIV infection or other STIs. However, the comparable protective effect of male circumcision in MSM studies conducted before the era of highly active antiretroviral therapy, as in the recent male circumcision trials of heterosexual African men, s further investigation of male circumcision for HIV prevention among MSM.”
 
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736₂₈₀₉2960998-3/abstract
 
“Circumcision of HIV-infected men did not reduce HIV transmission to female partners over 24 months; longer-term effects could not be assessed. Condom use after male circumcision is essential for HIV prevention.”
 
Controversially. I also found a study linking female circumcision with a lowered risk of HIV. Is that enough to qualify it as a medical procedure? A horrible medical procedure?
 
http://www.iasociety.org/Default.aspx?pageId=11&abstractId=2177677
 
“A lowered risk of HIV infection among circumcised women was not attributable to confounding with another risk factor in these data. Anthropological insights on female circumcision as practiced in Tanzania may shed light on this conundrum.”
 
“It does not in fact reduce sensitivity. “Intactivist” claims of widespread complications are a total fabrication.”
 
I did look up a lot of studies on this topic as well. Let’s begin with the pro-circumcision one.
 
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23937309
 
“The highest-quality studies suggest that medical male circumcision has no adverse effect on sexual function, sensitivity, sexual sensation, or satisfaction. Morris BJ and Krieger JN. Does male circumcision affect sexual function, sensitivity, or satisfaction?-A systematic review. J Sex Med 2013;10:2644-2657.”
 
You may want to look up the author, Brian Morris, since he is one of the most outspoken people in favour of circumcision. What would he have done if the study he conducted was not in favour of the thing he has been defending for most of his adult life?
 
And now for some less positive ones.
 
http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2011/06/13/ije.dyr104.abstract
 
“Circumcision was associated with frequent orgasm difficulties in Danish men and with a range of frequent sexual difficulties in women, notably orgasm difficulties, dyspareunia and a sense of incomplete sexual needs fulfilment. Thorough examination of these matters in areas where male circumcision is more common is warranted.”
 
Pay special attention to this sentence: Age at first intercourse, perceived importance of a good sex life and current sexual activity differed little between circumcised and uncircumcised men or between women with circumcised and uncircumcised spouses.
 
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17378847
 
“The glans of the circumcised penis is less sensitive to fine touch than the glans of the uncircumcised penis. The transitional region from the external to the internal prepuce is the most sensitive region of the uncircumcised penis and more sensitive than the most sensitive region of the circumcised penis. Circumcision ablates the most sensitive parts of the penis.”
 
And again. Controversially, one study shown that some circumcised women reported better sexual satisfaction than intact women. Maybe a sign that people who are circumcised/mutilated tend to overstate their sexual satisfaction maybe?
 
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=17970975
 
“the group of 57 infibulated women investigated with the FSFI questionnaire showed significant differences between group of study and an equivalent group of control in desire, arousal, orgasm, and satisfaction with mean scores higher in the group of mutilated women. No significant differences were observed between the two groups in lubrication and pain.”
 
“You’re already solidly in the sablah blah blah blah…”
 
Yeah yeah. Skip the outro.