this post was submitted on 01 Jan 2026
221 points (99.6% liked)
World News
1111 readers
806 users here now
Rules:
Be a decent person, don't post hate.
Other Great Communities:
Rules
Be excellent to each other
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
You should really try reading your own article. These boys died from negligence and unsafe conditions...all of which are avoidable. Keep your bigotry out of it.
It's not bigotry to be opposed to genital mutilation.
Using the term "mutilation" to describe someone's perfectly healthy penis, is a form of bigotry.
There is zero biological reason to remove foreskin. It's objectively mutilation.
I'm circumsized. I did not give anyone permission to remove a part of my penis that was perfectly healthy when I was an infant and could not consent. I want you to quantify to me how I was not done wrong, and how my bodily autonomy was not violated. I understand that isn't the case in the article, but it's the perfect example for you to argue.
Also, just because a culture or religion does something doesn't mean I have to support it, and it definitely doesn't make me a bigot to oppose it. Iran will stone women to death under Sharia Law. Am I a bigot for saying stoning women is bad?
Infant genital mutilation is disgusting and I think it's about time it's made illegal around the world. I'm sorry about your penis.
It almost completely prevents balanitis in young boys, and has long term benefits in preventing other types of infections later in life. And that's on top of the fact that it's simply easier to keep clean, in general.
Equating that to stoning a woman under Sharia Law, is absurd and intellectually dishonest. Which is why making those types of comparisons is a form of bigotry. You are making ridiculous generalizations in order to denigrate other people.
'Easier to keep clean'.
So what other body modification should we do to infants to make them cleaner?
They're always going on about cleaning in and behind the ears. Let's be honest here. Ears are pretty ugly and you don't need them to hear. You can prevent so many infections because cutting off the ear makes it easier to clean the ear canal.
infant Earectomy infection study
It's a jokeWell then, ears it is!
You know what's hard to keep clean? An open wound on your dick. It's why these 41 people are dead.
The WHO doean't support this, and I've lived and worked in medicine all over Africa. You teach them and support them with better self-care, not encouraging genital mutilation. No matter how much shit you sling at the wind, you can literally accomplish this by educating people to wash their dicks.
Refute my challenge you ignored. I never consented to being circumsized and I was circumsized for the same reason. Justify to me how my bodily autonomly wasn't violated as a baby when someone cut off a piece of my penis.
I want to hear your armchair quarterback mental gymnastic bullshit since we're actively trying to teach people all over Weat Africa to just wash your dick.
You know how I know you don't actually work in medicine? Because you're using the term "mutilation" to describe a relatively benign medical procedure. Regardless of whether or not you view it as necessary...at the very least, you should know what that word actually implies...and you would know that it doesn't apply.
Apparently you either don't understand English or you're just angry that you have a mutilated dick.
Hey, I'd be angry too, if someone had mutilated my penis.
According to your first paragraph, we should just remove the pinky finger from all children because it just gets in the way, traps bacteria under the fingernail, and might get caught in a car door someday.