https://www.reddit.com/r/DebunkingIntactivism/comments/so0mzf/from_aubern_stallion_cadace_owens_opinion_on/ Posted byu/Aussiebawsies 9 months ago

Cadace Owen's opinion on circumcision is invalid and informed by cultural bias as a result of her British partner as well as an inability to think for herself. Like other provocateurs, she's irrelevant. Let's ignore her, and continue thinking for ourselves instead. Parents choosing circumcision is rooted in decades of research and studies that suggest physical benefits. Anti-circumcision activism is a multi million-dollar propaganda and misinformation campaign driven by cal, sheep-minded mistakes in her Instagram diatribe on circumcision. Candace begins by saying that circumcision is uniquely American. This is false and a common mistake people uneducated on circumcision make. Neonatal circumcision is legal in every country on Earth, and *adult* circumcision is relatively common in mostly every country on Earth. She also neglects that this is the popularity fallacy. Just because others are a certain way, doesn't mean we should follow. There is ZERO merit in other countries' culture as an argument. Candace claims to encourage free-thinking on her platforms, but she has failed here. She makes the mistake of referring to over 1/3 of the world's men who are circumcised as the "small percentage of people who circumcize", misspelling the word "circumcise". Whether neonatally circumcised or not, what 1/3 accounts for is obviously not a "small percentage". Making another classic mistake, Candace says circumcision is mostly religious and says it has no medical value either way, bringing up past medicine. This is false and no different from the Kellogg argument, where people use the past to discount present medicine and studies. It takes both the correlational fallacy and the genetic fallacy to say circumcision became generational because of one nutjob in the past and to furthermore judge modern circumcision by any past it has. Once again, the 'champion' of critical-thinking has failed miserably. It's more logical to say circumcision became generational because many WW1 troops were circumcised than to say it did because a couple prominent individuals had radical ideas, but Candace chooses to not think logically on the subject of circumcision. Candace also mentions the AAP not "recommending" neonatal circumcision. Again, a poor argument. The institution not "recommending" isn't tantamount to "discouraging". That's why it also said, "There's also no compelling reason to say it's not a choice for families to make." This is similar to saying most of the world's medical institutions not "recommending" neonatal circumcision means they are against it. No. They recommend that if parents do it, it's done properly in a hospital. In other words, it's justified enough to be a parental choice. Circumcision is justified enough in the eyes of medical institutions to be left as a parental choice in every country in the world because there is overwhelming clinical evidence that suggests it has secular, medical benefits, all of which Candace failed to debunk factually. Candace fails to even address phimosis, balanitis and other potentially crippling conditions uncircumcised men commonly face. As for infections, STD transmission and cancer, she feebly blames that on 3rd-world countries- more correlational fallacy. The claim about infection, STD transmission and penile cancer rates being lower in other 1st-world countries fails to specify (among other things) who, still, accounts mostly for a rate. It could still mostly be uncircumcised men accounting for a rate, even a lower rate. Such would still support the belief that these rates are lower among circumcised men. Her 'critical thinking' also fails to see irony in saying rates are higher in one country with reason (3rd-world country), and lower in another without reason (i.e. not specifying why/how). Lastly, she claims vitamin K deficiency occurs in mostly newborn males despite being "incredibly rare". Notwithstanding that this is, yet again, the correlational fallacy, her 'critical thinking' fails to see irony in her also discounting "rare" instances of penile cancer. She also makes the classic false equivalence of comparing circumcision to FGM. She oversimplifies it in her rant - again, not logical - but circumcision and FGM are scientifically, medically, socially and culturally, completely unalike. FGM is unrelated to circumcision. Her choice to make this false equivalence also is a form of shock value. She uses shock value in lieu of factual information again when she asks, "Why are we making a newborn bleed?" This is a nonargument. It's a stupid question and its only purpose is shock value. Earlier in her rant she said American parents circumcise because their parents did. Notwithstanding that this is so flawed (many uncircumcised men have their sons circumcised, for example), this is, again, ironic of her to say to the point of being downright stupid and blind. She mentions that she married a Brit - a British man whose parents chose not to circumcise - and admits he is the reason she made her choice. So, her choice was made as a result of what his parents chose. In other words, it's no different from what she claims about Americans. Non-circumcising cultures choose against circumcision not for scientific reasons, not for medical reasons...but for cultural reasons. So who's to say which culture is correct? Absolutely no one. Are we obliged to copy other cultures or change for them? Absolutely not. These are crucial questions, among many, Candace fails to ask in her floundering attempt at making a coherent argument against circumcision and encouraging people to "ask questions". She, in classic anti-circumcision fashion, contradicts herself at every possible turn. She closes by stressing the importance of "asking questions" (despite asking none herself) and refers to American circumcision as "industrial bullying", ignoring the horrific bullying tactics inherent in anti-circumcision activism- what she supports. Her 'big pharma' psychosis and idea alone that you should trust some pervert on the internet screaming at you not to circumcise your son over your doctor who studied medicine for a decade is ludicrous, a joke & the antithesis of the rational thinking she claims to stand for. She includes one last fallacy: saying that nature's design is perfect. False. This is the appeal to nature. No being is ever perfect, not when they're born, not later. And circumcised males aren't "less perfect" than uncircumcised. That's idiotic. Bigoted. Unscientific. Nature isn't perfect, but flawed. Rape, cannibalism, incest and other horrific things are all 100% natural in the animal kingdom. So is phimosis, infections, penile cancer and all the FLAWS inherent to the male foreskin. Let's normalize calling foreskin what it is: flawed. Candace says circumcision is normalized as a result of a bad agenda, but maybe it's just natural that people prefer cleaner, healthier circumcised men, even in countries with lower circumcision rates, according to surveys. Circumcision never needed to be normalized. The only "bad agenda" here which we need to keep ourselves and our children away from is anti-circumcision activism: a perverted, degenerate parasite that can infect and corrupt even the rational and throw all common sense and compassion into the wind. Parents choosing circumcision is rooted in decades of research and studies that suggest physical benefits. Anti-circumcision activism is a multimillion-dollar propaganda and misinformation campaign driven by mentally ill uncircumcised men & people like Candace they infect. So, yeah, let's question. Let's see through empty rhetoric, confusion and misinformation. Let's continue thinking for ourselves and continue being "BETTER"...by choosing to circumcise our sons, instead of letting vapid, clueless personalities like Candace Owens think for us. Foreskinisamistake ·9 mo. ago I'm honestly baffled when people act like anti-circ rhetoric is censored or closed off in anyway whatsoever. Especially in recent years when there has been legitimate ramping up of censorship regarding certain medical topics and none of them involve circumcision whatsoever. Indeed, intactivism still spreads far and wide on the internet and none of the big leaders give a flying fuck about them anyways. PM-ME-CUT-COCK ·9 mo. ago What a surprise the woman who parrots borderline nazi rhetoric is parroting nazi rhetoric!! God I can’t stand her. I don’t think she’s ever been right about anything. If she said the sky was blue I’d look up and it’d be pink. Aussiebawsies ·9 mo. ago It really is quite "nazi" of her because she speaks as though the default position is Christian and nothing else. "Remember that God's design is perfect and we don't need to make changes. The only ones who circumcise are Jews/Muslims". What a train wreck. PM-ME-CUT-COCK ·9 mo. ago Not even hiding the fact that she’s antisemitic and Islamaphobic…. Top-Chicken-4461 ·just now Aged like fine wine