Timeline for In most U.S. states, female genital mutilation is illegal. So why is male circumcision legal?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
18 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 23, 2022 at 17:32 | comment | added | Vikki | Your analogy with female genital cosmetic surgeries and intersex normalization surgeries falls apart when you consider that both of those are considered serious human-rights violations on par with FGM, unless performed in adulthood or late adolescence with the full informed consent of the surguree. | |
| Aug 12, 2020 at 17:00 | history | edited | Swedish Architect | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 14 characters in body
|
| Aug 11, 2020 at 20:44 | history | edited | Swedish Architect | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1538 characters in body
|
| Aug 10, 2020 at 17:11 | history | edited | Swedish Architect | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1612 characters in body
|
| Aug 10, 2020 at 17:05 | history | edited | Swedish Architect | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1612 characters in body
|
| Aug 10, 2020 at 16:50 | history | edited | Swedish Architect | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1612 characters in body
|
| Aug 7, 2020 at 23:44 | history | edited | Swedish Architect | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 8866 characters in body
|
| Aug 7, 2020 at 23:28 | history | edited | Swedish Architect | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 8866 characters in body
|
| Aug 7, 2020 at 23:20 | history | edited | Swedish Architect | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 8866 characters in body
|
| Aug 7, 2020 at 15:18 | history | edited | Swedish Architect | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 2082 characters in body
|
| Aug 7, 2020 at 9:57 | history | edited | Swedish Architect | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1434 characters in body
|
| Apr 8, 2020 at 8:49 | history | edited | Swedish Architect | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 731 characters in body
|
| Apr 8, 2020 at 8:27 | history | edited | Swedish Architect | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 731 characters in body
|
| Apr 8, 2020 at 1:08 | comment | added | Russell McMahon | I can see that I am going to have to at least skim through some of your references. It would be of great assistance to serious readers if people could include live links and not just citations. Also, open access material makes such references useful - paywalled ones tend to act as a means of persuasion by citation volume without any easy way for Joe-average to see what is actually said. | |
| Apr 8, 2020 at 1:06 | comment | added | Ted Wrigley | @SwedishArchitect: Constructive criticism... I think you could improve this answer if you did a couple of things. First, you could remove the first three bullet points, and similar 'backpedaling' commentary. Your points are reasonable and intelligent; starting out on that kind of defensive footing makes your answer weaker, not stronger. Just go straight at what you want to say, and don't worry if people take it the wrong way. You can clarify that at the end, or in comments. | |
| Apr 8, 2020 at 1:06 | comment | added | Russell McMahon | I've read your short version. I'll get back to read your longer version and selected references when I can manage. I appreciate the effort you have put into your response - but do not "like" the general drift of your argument. If you look at the cited major references in my answer Compared to the argued medical benefits vs disadvantages from Mayo, Hopkins, ...which can be summarised as - seen to be net beneficial health wise overall - leave to invividual parets' discretion, your references seem to major on cultural & religious aspects with a minimisation of coverage of health aspects. | |
| Apr 7, 2020 at 23:04 | history | edited | divibisan | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 1 character in body
|
| Apr 7, 2020 at 22:57 | history | answered | Swedish Architect | CC BY-SA 4.0 |