The American Academy of Pediatrics Supports FGM

The pre-emptive approach is extremely effective. When addressing procirc statements I often debunk thier future rebuttal as a preface to making my point. They either 1)have nothing to come back with 2) resort to shaming the physical appearance of foreskin

More gear sanding includes hashtag jacking, brute force video mirroring and extending the YouTube threads as much as possible. There should be more videos than comments. I've seen this used in a particular genre. There were as many videos as there were quora questions. Whatever question you had, there was a video made about it. You are on the right track by addressing the objections with videos. Plus YT results are always SEO on Google's front page. This is how I found your channel

This is like facing an open 🥅 in ⚽ We would be mad not to take advantage

If you wanted somebody to map the neurocircuitry of the foreskin , then whom would you ask? The American Academy of Pediatrics or the American Academy of Neurology? Who is the most qualified to talk about and map foreskin neurocircuitry ?

Diekema is supposed to speak in Seattle this coming summer. I e-mailed Seattle Children's where he works. There will be a protest at that event.

Some with time could gaslight with accounts using Human studies to encourage the circumcision of pets.

Thank you for reminding me of him and the AAP's support of FGM. (I first came across him with TBSM videos protesting this guy) intactwiki.org/wiki/Douglas_Diekema This guy is an A-1 psychopath.

Can you post a link to the article where Douglas Diekema wrote this?

A clever pro-mutilator would point to the Royal Dutch's not calling for a legal ban on MGM for the same rationale. Just saying

I have no problem with 'ritual nicks' being performed as an alternative to FGC, just so long as they are also performed as an alternative to MGC (i.e. circumcising boys).

I appreciate your intention but I think you are mischaracterising the situation. (1) I think it is pushing it to say they were "promoting" a form of FGM. It seems to me they were proposing a form of 'FGM'. (2) I think the classification of a 'ritual nick' (piercing or pricking the clitoris or clitoral hood with a sterile pin) as "genital mutilation" is ridiculous.* (3) The proposal was obviously a harm-reduction strategy (as you correctly noted). It was intended to reduce the incidence of much more severe interventions. *I know this is from the WHO, but I think the WHO are not a competent authority. Their 41-page report on male circumcision (2007) includes a single sentence about "possible" foreskin functions, naming only three: "keeping the glans moist", "protecting the developing penis in utero" (??), and "enhancing sexual pleasure" (p.13). This would of course suggest that circumcision reduces sexual pleasure, yet it is stated that "there is little evidence...that sexual function may diminish following circumcision" (p.16). Furthermore, three paragraphs are spent explaining that "male circumcision" is completely different to "FGM", the third paragraph stating "FGM [is] universally unacceptable, as it is an infringement on the physical and psychosexual integrity of women and girls and is a form of violence against them." (p.28)