Basically, this feels like an utter red herring on the government's part to distract from the fact that the economy is in the shithole, they're constantly finding new ways to villify and dehumanise the UK's poor, and our school systems are crumbling in front of our eyes.

Basically, this feels like an utter red herring on the government's part to distract from the fact that the economy is in the shithole, they're constantly finding new ways to villify and dehumanise the UK's poor, and our school systems are crumbling in front of our eyes.

In his defence, he's from Croydon: the arsehole of the UK.

Street harassment can be triggering and distressing for members of any gender.

Even if these men don't catcall, chances are they've seen other men do it and didn't say anything.

But wouldn't it have been more effective to just put hidden cameras on 10 women and have them walk around in public, video-taping the catcalling, uncomfortable attention etc rather than this ill-conceived exercise? Should we have some Guardian journalists start beating the shit out of random men to prove a point…

Children don't necessarily need to consent to everything because that's part of the job of being a parent. However parents don't ordinarily opt for invasive surgery for their children unless it's necessary, and they certainly don't opt for surgeries for cosmetic procedures. Or at least, they shouldn't be permitted…

"All of those organizations show there are medical benefits, which you're too dense to realize is the only thing I claimed in this thread.

I.e. you can't answer? I wonder what it must be like to be so utterly brainwashed and that you can't even be bothered to look for rational answers for why you're in favour of taking a knife to the penis of an infant.

Is your brain leaking? I said all the benefits could be achieved by far less invasive measures such as washing and safe sex, to which you responded "I have the CDC, WHO, and AAP on my side. You have your opinion." When I demonstrated I had medical expertise on my side, you've now switched tactics.

Could you tell me why we shouldn't allow labiaplasty for infant girls as long as they are performed in a sterile environment, if the parents so wish?

Uh...I have the British National Health Service on my side...and I quote (from an article highlighting the pros and cons of circumcision):

You're not going to change any minds. And it's not jumping through hoops when several legitimate medical groups, including the CDC and American Academy of Pediatrics, have said there are benefits.

It's the parents job to give or refuse consent for the child until the child is old enough to do so him/herself.

Yes. There are:

Except that early masturbation when uncircumcised can be very painful for many boys and leads to them using unhealthy methods of getting off.

It's very strange watching people create their own bizarre justifications for removing skin from the genitals of an infant baby. The skin is meant to be there! Human males were not designed to have their foreskin removed. It's like suggesting we should be automatically removing the tonsils of all children, on the…

I knew someone who had to undergo circumcision aged 18 for medical reasons (torn frenulum). It was extremely uncomfortable for him to even wear underwear because his glans was so sensitive (seeing as it had been encased in foreskin for most of his life). He said it became less sensitive over time.

And anyone with even a basic modicum of healthcare experience would also be acutely aware that those benefits can be achieved more effectively and far less invasively than routine circumcision, particularly in Western societies where public hygiene is easy-peasy thanks to things such as soap, indoor plumbing and hot…

Because we must find some pseudo-medical reason to carry on sanctioning the mutilation of unconsenting infant boys, of course.