[Ographer]

Just to be clear, because the intro to that article is not, it's much more rare for circumcision to be required for purely medical or hygiene reasons. Let's not prepare that excuse.

This form of genial mutilation is most often performed on babies for no reason other than perpetuating religious or cultural expectations of the parents.

[trust_bt_verify]

I made no statement or determination on whether the practice was right or wrong or why it may be done. I only refuted the statement that it was only seen in the US and Africa. Your positions on the genitalia of American men sound very well thought out and I encourage you to pursue that further!

[ionwake]

No, that is incorrect, linking to a study discussing the benefits of circumcision implies bias. If you had linked to both a positive and negative article, such as one regarding how it permanently destroys male sensitive at the head of penis both producing discomfort for female partners during initial penetration, aswell as permanent trauma in child in other studies, then you would have not made a biased statement with your link pasting.

[rblatz]

You are obviously passionate about other people’s genitalia, but putting words in his mouth and accusing him of bias when it’s clear from context what he meant is a bad look.

[Ographer]

The article did not present the criticisms enough. It's mostly about bodily autonomy.

Imagine if 1/3 of the world gave their babies botex or other face modifications after birth because they thought their babies looked ugly and I was on here defending the baby's rights to not be unnecessarily modified without their consent.

Then you come on here and joke about how passionate I must be about other people's faces. It's not about the faces or genitalia, it's about one's right to bodily autonomy.