you've missed the text in picking up the subtext. the comparison of circumcision to sexual violence is wild on it's face. it gets wilder when you know he means all SV. I can't tell if you're missing the misogyny and how inappropriate it is to use this thread to go off about how terrible circumcision is - a practice I am unequivocally not defending - or if you straight up can't read.
I will of course not defend any antifeminism he's saying elsewhere, but I do take the text to be about genital cutting, and i don't see how that could ever not fall under sexual violence when what's his ass kellogg was fervently anti-masturbation and him/his ideology are why it became a thing in protestant mayoland.
I don't think the intent is there, johnny here is just anti circumcision (and worded it very unfortunately) which is a good thing and even trans positive because you get better outcomes with SRS later in life without infant mutilation involved
you've missed the text in picking up the subtext. the comparison of circumcision to sexual violence is wild on it's face. it gets wilder when you know he means all SV. I can't tell if you're missing the misogyny and how inappropriate it is to use this thread to go off about how terrible circumcision is - a practice I am unequivocally not defending - or if you straight up can't read.
JohnBrownNote isn't defending the SA comment. Stop badjacketing them.
I will of course not defend any antifeminism he's saying elsewhere, but I do take the text to be about genital cutting, and i don't see how that could ever not fall under sexual violence when what's his ass kellogg was fervently anti-masturbation and him/his ideology are why it became a thing in protestant mayoland.
I don't think the intent is there, johnny here is just anti circumcision (and worded it very unfortunately) which is a good thing and even trans positive because you get better outcomes with SRS later in life without infant mutilation involved