▲ 788 ▼ Reblog if youre american (lemmy.world) submitted 2 years ago by PP_BOY_@lemmy.world to c/lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world 393 comments fedilink hide all child comments
[–] MTK@lemmy.world 16 points 2 years ago (1 child) Honestly, can you elaborate on what would be a justified reason to do it? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world -39 points 2 years ago (5 children) I mentioned in another comment how circumcision dramatically reduces the rate of spread of STDs. That is, at least from my perspective, the primary (and original) incentive to circumcise. Significantly less of an issue now, because you can just get a condom. But in areas where access to a consumer profilactic isn't readily available or one in which STD infection is high, it would make a great deal of sense to perform the surgery as a preventative measure. Same as giving your kid vaccine shots or putting them in the NICU for the first few weeks of their life or demanding that they wash their hands regularly. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] LillyPip@lemmy.ca 23 points 2 years ago* (1 child) circumcision dramatically reduces the rate of spread of STDs Source? Most of the world doesn’t circumcise, and they don’t have a higher prevalence of STDs than places that do. As long as you practice good hygiene, there should be no issues. That is, at least from my perspective, the primary (and original) incentive to circumcise No it wasn’t. It originated thousands of years ago as a Jewish religious ritual, that had no biological or scientific basis. It was popularised in the US about 100 years ago as a way to reduce sensation in the penis in order to stop teenage boys from masturbating – by Dr Kellogg, for the same reason he invented cornflakes. He was hyper-religious and fixated on stopping boys corrupting themselves by masturbating. The hygiene myths came later and have been debunked. It’s an outdated practice based on bad science and beliefs that should stop. That’s not to say anyone should feel bad for having done it when we didn’t really know better, but there’s no reason to continue doing it now. e: missed a word permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Emerald@lemmy.world -7 points 2 years ago (1 child) I agree with all that except for one thing. Kellogg did not invent corn flakes to stop people from masturbating. He did mention once that a bland diet could be used to deter masturbation, but there is no coorelation to corn flakes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] LillyPip@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) He did, though. I currently live less than an hour from his museum in Battle Creek, Michigan, and there are lots of things about him that aren’t widely shared on the internet. Did you know that one of his biggest accomplishments was a foster home for orphans that was destroyed by fire? Running that foster home was what inspired his obsession with a bland diet and with circumcision. He was very strict with their diet, believing certain grains would purify the soul (first oatmeal) – the original, unadulterated grains that were mentioned in the bible. The boys in his home weren’t accepting of his extreme version of Christianity, and he thought that was mostly because they were corrupting themselves bodily. He thought all boys weren’t receptive to Christianity because they were too into their own desires, and he could fix that. First by diet, and when that didn’t work, by cutting off the part of their penis that distracted them by making them feel good, thus tempting them from god’s word. He was a doctor, so people listened. This is all Wikipedia dedicates to that part of the story: Kellogg was outspoken about his views on race and his belief in racial segregation, regardless of the fact that he himself raised several black foster children. So it’s understandable people are downplaying that part of his life. If you live near here, you know the details the internet has mostly forgotten. We really need to stop chopping up infant boys based on the ideas of a bigoted religious fundamentalist. e: clarity permalink fedilink source parent [–] Cockmaster6000@sh.itjust.works 17 points 2 years ago I'm sorry, cutting off a newborn's foreskin is the same as washing their hands? Did you eat a lot of paint chips growing up? permalink fedilink source parent [–] MTK@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) As far as I am aware there is only one study done in Africa that showed that there is a correlation between circumcision and a reduced chance to get HIV. But that is the only study and only HIV, not all STIs. Also this is moot in most of the world where you have access to condoms. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) CDC has a whole thing on it Circumcised men compared with uncircumcised men have also been shown in clinical trials to be less likely to acquire new infections with syphilis (by 42%), genital ulcer disease (by 48%), genital herpes (by 28% to 45%), and high-risk strains of human papillomavirus associated with cancer (by 24% to 47% percent) By all means, you should still wrap that shit. But if you're living in a rural community or one that has a strong stigma against contraception, or you're just in a place where the disease is rampant and you need a secondary precautionary policy, this will have a meaningful impact on disease spread. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] MTK@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago Still not really reasonable, especially considering that for the most part this decision can just wait until adulthood permalink fedilink source parent [–] el_abuelo@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) Not so dramatically you can not wear a condom. So given you're going to strap up anyway, what's the benefit to having surgery on your genitals? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) CDC has a whole thing on it Circumcised men compared with uncircumcised men have also been shown in clinical trials to be less likely to acquire new infections with syphilis (by 42%), genital ulcer disease (by 48%), genital herpes (by 28% to 45%), and high-risk strains of human papillomavirus associated with cancer (by 24% to 47% percent) By all means, you should still wrap that shit. But if you're living in a rural community or one that has a strong stigma against contraception, or you're just in a place where the disease is rampant and you need a secondary precautionary policy, this will have a meaningful impact on disease spread. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] el_abuelo@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) The majority of US citizens do not fall into those categories, and for that reason I see it as an unnecessary procedure that is more cultural than scientific. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago The majority of US citizens do not fall into those categories They did once, and they very well might in the near future, depending on how we handle legal contraception going forward. permalink fedilink source parent [–] GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca -5 points 2 years ago (1 child) I don't think this is the original reason, but it has been found to happen. Also, your risk of penile cancer goes to almost zero, as well as fewer and less serious complications related to the foreskin (or its absence). Going fully nude while circumcised is a dangerous game, though. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] MTK@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Source? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago Here's what the CDC had to say about their original statements and a rebuttal to criticisms about circumcision. It only obliquely mentions genital cancer, but this article specifically discusses that. permalink fedilink source parent
[+] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world -39 points 2 years ago (5 children) I mentioned in another comment how circumcision dramatically reduces the rate of spread of STDs. That is, at least from my perspective, the primary (and original) incentive to circumcise. Significantly less of an issue now, because you can just get a condom. But in areas where access to a consumer profilactic isn't readily available or one in which STD infection is high, it would make a great deal of sense to perform the surgery as a preventative measure. Same as giving your kid vaccine shots or putting them in the NICU for the first few weeks of their life or demanding that they wash their hands regularly. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 10 child comments replies: [–] LillyPip@lemmy.ca 23 points 2 years ago* (1 child) circumcision dramatically reduces the rate of spread of STDs Source? Most of the world doesn’t circumcise, and they don’t have a higher prevalence of STDs than places that do. As long as you practice good hygiene, there should be no issues. That is, at least from my perspective, the primary (and original) incentive to circumcise No it wasn’t. It originated thousands of years ago as a Jewish religious ritual, that had no biological or scientific basis. It was popularised in the US about 100 years ago as a way to reduce sensation in the penis in order to stop teenage boys from masturbating – by Dr Kellogg, for the same reason he invented cornflakes. He was hyper-religious and fixated on stopping boys corrupting themselves by masturbating. The hygiene myths came later and have been debunked. It’s an outdated practice based on bad science and beliefs that should stop. That’s not to say anyone should feel bad for having done it when we didn’t really know better, but there’s no reason to continue doing it now. e: missed a word permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Emerald@lemmy.world -7 points 2 years ago (1 child) I agree with all that except for one thing. Kellogg did not invent corn flakes to stop people from masturbating. He did mention once that a bland diet could be used to deter masturbation, but there is no coorelation to corn flakes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] LillyPip@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) He did, though. I currently live less than an hour from his museum in Battle Creek, Michigan, and there are lots of things about him that aren’t widely shared on the internet. Did you know that one of his biggest accomplishments was a foster home for orphans that was destroyed by fire? Running that foster home was what inspired his obsession with a bland diet and with circumcision. He was very strict with their diet, believing certain grains would purify the soul (first oatmeal) – the original, unadulterated grains that were mentioned in the bible. The boys in his home weren’t accepting of his extreme version of Christianity, and he thought that was mostly because they were corrupting themselves bodily. He thought all boys weren’t receptive to Christianity because they were too into their own desires, and he could fix that. First by diet, and when that didn’t work, by cutting off the part of their penis that distracted them by making them feel good, thus tempting them from god’s word. He was a doctor, so people listened. This is all Wikipedia dedicates to that part of the story: Kellogg was outspoken about his views on race and his belief in racial segregation, regardless of the fact that he himself raised several black foster children. So it’s understandable people are downplaying that part of his life. If you live near here, you know the details the internet has mostly forgotten. We really need to stop chopping up infant boys based on the ideas of a bigoted religious fundamentalist. e: clarity permalink fedilink source parent [–] Cockmaster6000@sh.itjust.works 17 points 2 years ago I'm sorry, cutting off a newborn's foreskin is the same as washing their hands? Did you eat a lot of paint chips growing up? permalink fedilink source parent [–] MTK@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) As far as I am aware there is only one study done in Africa that showed that there is a correlation between circumcision and a reduced chance to get HIV. But that is the only study and only HIV, not all STIs. Also this is moot in most of the world where you have access to condoms. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) CDC has a whole thing on it Circumcised men compared with uncircumcised men have also been shown in clinical trials to be less likely to acquire new infections with syphilis (by 42%), genital ulcer disease (by 48%), genital herpes (by 28% to 45%), and high-risk strains of human papillomavirus associated with cancer (by 24% to 47% percent) By all means, you should still wrap that shit. But if you're living in a rural community or one that has a strong stigma against contraception, or you're just in a place where the disease is rampant and you need a secondary precautionary policy, this will have a meaningful impact on disease spread. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] MTK@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago Still not really reasonable, especially considering that for the most part this decision can just wait until adulthood permalink fedilink source parent [–] el_abuelo@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) Not so dramatically you can not wear a condom. So given you're going to strap up anyway, what's the benefit to having surgery on your genitals? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) CDC has a whole thing on it Circumcised men compared with uncircumcised men have also been shown in clinical trials to be less likely to acquire new infections with syphilis (by 42%), genital ulcer disease (by 48%), genital herpes (by 28% to 45%), and high-risk strains of human papillomavirus associated with cancer (by 24% to 47% percent) By all means, you should still wrap that shit. But if you're living in a rural community or one that has a strong stigma against contraception, or you're just in a place where the disease is rampant and you need a secondary precautionary policy, this will have a meaningful impact on disease spread. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] el_abuelo@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) The majority of US citizens do not fall into those categories, and for that reason I see it as an unnecessary procedure that is more cultural than scientific. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago The majority of US citizens do not fall into those categories They did once, and they very well might in the near future, depending on how we handle legal contraception going forward. permalink fedilink source parent [–] GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca -5 points 2 years ago (1 child) I don't think this is the original reason, but it has been found to happen. Also, your risk of penile cancer goes to almost zero, as well as fewer and less serious complications related to the foreskin (or its absence). Going fully nude while circumcised is a dangerous game, though. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] MTK@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Source? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago Here's what the CDC had to say about their original statements and a rebuttal to criticisms about circumcision. It only obliquely mentions genital cancer, but this article specifically discusses that. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] LillyPip@lemmy.ca 23 points 2 years ago* (1 child) circumcision dramatically reduces the rate of spread of STDs Source? Most of the world doesn’t circumcise, and they don’t have a higher prevalence of STDs than places that do. As long as you practice good hygiene, there should be no issues. That is, at least from my perspective, the primary (and original) incentive to circumcise No it wasn’t. It originated thousands of years ago as a Jewish religious ritual, that had no biological or scientific basis. It was popularised in the US about 100 years ago as a way to reduce sensation in the penis in order to stop teenage boys from masturbating – by Dr Kellogg, for the same reason he invented cornflakes. He was hyper-religious and fixated on stopping boys corrupting themselves by masturbating. The hygiene myths came later and have been debunked. It’s an outdated practice based on bad science and beliefs that should stop. That’s not to say anyone should feel bad for having done it when we didn’t really know better, but there’s no reason to continue doing it now. e: missed a word permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [+] Emerald@lemmy.world -7 points 2 years ago (1 child) I agree with all that except for one thing. Kellogg did not invent corn flakes to stop people from masturbating. He did mention once that a bland diet could be used to deter masturbation, but there is no coorelation to corn flakes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] LillyPip@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) He did, though. I currently live less than an hour from his museum in Battle Creek, Michigan, and there are lots of things about him that aren’t widely shared on the internet. Did you know that one of his biggest accomplishments was a foster home for orphans that was destroyed by fire? Running that foster home was what inspired his obsession with a bland diet and with circumcision. He was very strict with their diet, believing certain grains would purify the soul (first oatmeal) – the original, unadulterated grains that were mentioned in the bible. The boys in his home weren’t accepting of his extreme version of Christianity, and he thought that was mostly because they were corrupting themselves bodily. He thought all boys weren’t receptive to Christianity because they were too into their own desires, and he could fix that. First by diet, and when that didn’t work, by cutting off the part of their penis that distracted them by making them feel good, thus tempting them from god’s word. He was a doctor, so people listened. This is all Wikipedia dedicates to that part of the story: Kellogg was outspoken about his views on race and his belief in racial segregation, regardless of the fact that he himself raised several black foster children. So it’s understandable people are downplaying that part of his life. If you live near here, you know the details the internet has mostly forgotten. We really need to stop chopping up infant boys based on the ideas of a bigoted religious fundamentalist. e: clarity permalink fedilink source parent
[+] Emerald@lemmy.world -7 points 2 years ago (1 child) I agree with all that except for one thing. Kellogg did not invent corn flakes to stop people from masturbating. He did mention once that a bland diet could be used to deter masturbation, but there is no coorelation to corn flakes. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] LillyPip@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) He did, though. I currently live less than an hour from his museum in Battle Creek, Michigan, and there are lots of things about him that aren’t widely shared on the internet. Did you know that one of his biggest accomplishments was a foster home for orphans that was destroyed by fire? Running that foster home was what inspired his obsession with a bland diet and with circumcision. He was very strict with their diet, believing certain grains would purify the soul (first oatmeal) – the original, unadulterated grains that were mentioned in the bible. The boys in his home weren’t accepting of his extreme version of Christianity, and he thought that was mostly because they were corrupting themselves bodily. He thought all boys weren’t receptive to Christianity because they were too into their own desires, and he could fix that. First by diet, and when that didn’t work, by cutting off the part of their penis that distracted them by making them feel good, thus tempting them from god’s word. He was a doctor, so people listened. This is all Wikipedia dedicates to that part of the story: Kellogg was outspoken about his views on race and his belief in racial segregation, regardless of the fact that he himself raised several black foster children. So it’s understandable people are downplaying that part of his life. If you live near here, you know the details the internet has mostly forgotten. We really need to stop chopping up infant boys based on the ideas of a bigoted religious fundamentalist. e: clarity permalink fedilink source parent
[–] LillyPip@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) He did, though. I currently live less than an hour from his museum in Battle Creek, Michigan, and there are lots of things about him that aren’t widely shared on the internet. Did you know that one of his biggest accomplishments was a foster home for orphans that was destroyed by fire? Running that foster home was what inspired his obsession with a bland diet and with circumcision. He was very strict with their diet, believing certain grains would purify the soul (first oatmeal) – the original, unadulterated grains that were mentioned in the bible. The boys in his home weren’t accepting of his extreme version of Christianity, and he thought that was mostly because they were corrupting themselves bodily. He thought all boys weren’t receptive to Christianity because they were too into their own desires, and he could fix that. First by diet, and when that didn’t work, by cutting off the part of their penis that distracted them by making them feel good, thus tempting them from god’s word. He was a doctor, so people listened. This is all Wikipedia dedicates to that part of the story: Kellogg was outspoken about his views on race and his belief in racial segregation, regardless of the fact that he himself raised several black foster children. So it’s understandable people are downplaying that part of his life. If you live near here, you know the details the internet has mostly forgotten. We really need to stop chopping up infant boys based on the ideas of a bigoted religious fundamentalist. e: clarity permalink fedilink source parent
[–] Cockmaster6000@sh.itjust.works 17 points 2 years ago I'm sorry, cutting off a newborn's foreskin is the same as washing their hands? Did you eat a lot of paint chips growing up? permalink fedilink source parent
[–] MTK@lemmy.world 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) As far as I am aware there is only one study done in Africa that showed that there is a correlation between circumcision and a reduced chance to get HIV. But that is the only study and only HIV, not all STIs. Also this is moot in most of the world where you have access to condoms. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) CDC has a whole thing on it Circumcised men compared with uncircumcised men have also been shown in clinical trials to be less likely to acquire new infections with syphilis (by 42%), genital ulcer disease (by 48%), genital herpes (by 28% to 45%), and high-risk strains of human papillomavirus associated with cancer (by 24% to 47% percent) By all means, you should still wrap that shit. But if you're living in a rural community or one that has a strong stigma against contraception, or you're just in a place where the disease is rampant and you need a secondary precautionary policy, this will have a meaningful impact on disease spread. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] MTK@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago Still not really reasonable, especially considering that for the most part this decision can just wait until adulthood permalink fedilink source parent
[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) CDC has a whole thing on it Circumcised men compared with uncircumcised men have also been shown in clinical trials to be less likely to acquire new infections with syphilis (by 42%), genital ulcer disease (by 48%), genital herpes (by 28% to 45%), and high-risk strains of human papillomavirus associated with cancer (by 24% to 47% percent) By all means, you should still wrap that shit. But if you're living in a rural community or one that has a strong stigma against contraception, or you're just in a place where the disease is rampant and you need a secondary precautionary policy, this will have a meaningful impact on disease spread. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] MTK@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago Still not really reasonable, especially considering that for the most part this decision can just wait until adulthood permalink fedilink source parent
[–] MTK@lemmy.world 3 points 2 years ago Still not really reasonable, especially considering that for the most part this decision can just wait until adulthood permalink fedilink source parent
[–] el_abuelo@lemmy.ml 5 points 2 years ago (1 child) Not so dramatically you can not wear a condom. So given you're going to strap up anyway, what's the benefit to having surgery on your genitals? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) CDC has a whole thing on it Circumcised men compared with uncircumcised men have also been shown in clinical trials to be less likely to acquire new infections with syphilis (by 42%), genital ulcer disease (by 48%), genital herpes (by 28% to 45%), and high-risk strains of human papillomavirus associated with cancer (by 24% to 47% percent) By all means, you should still wrap that shit. But if you're living in a rural community or one that has a strong stigma against contraception, or you're just in a place where the disease is rampant and you need a secondary precautionary policy, this will have a meaningful impact on disease spread. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] el_abuelo@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) The majority of US citizens do not fall into those categories, and for that reason I see it as an unnecessary procedure that is more cultural than scientific. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago The majority of US citizens do not fall into those categories They did once, and they very well might in the near future, depending on how we handle legal contraception going forward. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world -2 points 2 years ago (1 child) CDC has a whole thing on it Circumcised men compared with uncircumcised men have also been shown in clinical trials to be less likely to acquire new infections with syphilis (by 42%), genital ulcer disease (by 48%), genital herpes (by 28% to 45%), and high-risk strains of human papillomavirus associated with cancer (by 24% to 47% percent) By all means, you should still wrap that shit. But if you're living in a rural community or one that has a strong stigma against contraception, or you're just in a place where the disease is rampant and you need a secondary precautionary policy, this will have a meaningful impact on disease spread. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] el_abuelo@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) The majority of US citizens do not fall into those categories, and for that reason I see it as an unnecessary procedure that is more cultural than scientific. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago The majority of US citizens do not fall into those categories They did once, and they very well might in the near future, depending on how we handle legal contraception going forward. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] el_abuelo@lemmy.ml 7 points 2 years ago (1 child) The majority of US citizens do not fall into those categories, and for that reason I see it as an unnecessary procedure that is more cultural than scientific. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago The majority of US citizens do not fall into those categories They did once, and they very well might in the near future, depending on how we handle legal contraception going forward. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world 1 point 2 years ago The majority of US citizens do not fall into those categories They did once, and they very well might in the near future, depending on how we handle legal contraception going forward. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca -5 points 2 years ago (1 child) I don't think this is the original reason, but it has been found to happen. Also, your risk of penile cancer goes to almost zero, as well as fewer and less serious complications related to the foreskin (or its absence). Going fully nude while circumcised is a dangerous game, though. permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] MTK@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Source? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago Here's what the CDC had to say about their original statements and a rebuttal to criticisms about circumcision. It only obliquely mentions genital cancer, but this article specifically discusses that. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] MTK@lemmy.world 6 points 2 years ago* (1 child) Source? permalink fedilink source parent hideshow 2 child comments replies: [–] GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago Here's what the CDC had to say about their original statements and a rebuttal to criticisms about circumcision. It only obliquely mentions genital cancer, but this article specifically discusses that. permalink fedilink source parent
[–] GreyEyedGhost@lemmy.ca 1 point 2 years ago Here's what the CDC had to say about their original statements and a rebuttal to criticisms about circumcision. It only obliquely mentions genital cancer, but this article specifically discusses that. permalink fedilink source parent
