The NationStates Feminism Thread IV: Fight Like A Girl!

[Stellar Colonies]

...

Not all American males are even circumcised you know?

Too many are, at an age when they can't assert their opinion upon what is (for now) irreversibly being done to their own body.

It mainly effects just the male infants that're born in a hospital.

That is exactly the problem, see above.

If a hospital is used, it doesn't necessarily need to happen either. Just don't sign any medical consent forms and make sure the newborn doesn't go out of your sight. It is more or less a holdover from the Victorian era in the US' case.

It really shouldn't be the default like that at minimum, and would preferably be blocked entirely below a set age of consent as it is with the female equivalent.

Certainly is not the first conservative holdover which needs to be done away with.

Was Dr. Kellogg's fault that male circumcision was popularized there, although the practice is declining nationally.

Not fast enough.

Unlike with male circumcision, there is no clear utility in female circumcision being done medically speaking.

There isn't a utility in either (barring extreme cases) which can't be filled in with far less invasive methods.

Male circumcision has the backing of major religions such as Judaism and prominent medical bodies like the WHO that female circumcision doesn't.

Religions have a notable track record of backing abhorrent practices and beliefs (as is extensively spoken of in this forum) and medical organizations support it for questionable reasons which partially boil down to it being a quick and dirty method of doing multiple things (which it probably does not in actuality).

[Fahran]

If you want to argue that "patriarchy" is a system in which women benefit from systems of systematic sexism and men suffer from same, sure, but that's not how most people use it in real life.

I wouldn't really consider the opinions of "most people" reflective of what an academic definition entails. bell hooks and others quite clearly express that patriarchy confers a pronounced set of disadvantages and abuse on men, and offer concrete examples in the form of stories about brothers, boyfriends, friends, etc. They don't quite take it as far as using the term female privilege, though perhaps they should, but the crux of what you've mentioned is not nonexistent in feminist writing.

I've expressed agreement with you in the past regarding at least some critiques of the term as not intuitive or beneficial to conversations of this nature, but, by changing the word and keeping the definition, we largely overcome a lot of those cited problems.

[Eighth Eurasia]

Has anyone here heard of the game SPANC: Space Pirate Amazon Ninja Catgirls?

I know the geek feminism wiki listed as a "sexist" game but I'm not sure. Do you think it is sexist?

[Galloism]

If you want to argue that "patriarchy" is a system in which women benefit from systems of systematic sexism and men suffer from same, sure, but that's not how most people use it in real life.

I wouldn't really consider the opinions of "most people" reflective of what an academic definition entails. bell hooks and others quite clearly express that patriarchy confers a pronounced set of disadvantages and abuse on men, and offer concrete examples in the form of stories about brothers, boyfriends, friends, etc. They don't quite take it as far as using the term female privilege, though perhaps they should, but the crux of what you've mentioned is not nonexistent in feminist writing.

I've expressed agreement with you in the past regarding at least some critiques of the term as not intuitive or beneficial to conversations of this nature, but, by changing the word and keeping the definition, we largely overcome a lot of those cited problems.

To those who haven't seen this conversation before, Fahran and I have talked about language dynamics and implications. In point of fact, there's a whole area of feminism dedicated to this - feminist language reform.

I won't say I agree with all the theory pieces or elements (or goals) therein, but there are some salient points that language usage can result in certain mental shortcuts being used.

From the wikipedia article (as a primer):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feminist_language_reform

A major part of the theory focuses on when words or phrases make one gender, typically women, subjugated or invisible compared to the other. The most popular examples are the pronoun “he” or the word “man”. Feminist language philosophers argue that these words participate in making women invisible by having them being used to refer to men and also women. The fact that the pronouns or words for the male gender can be also used to refer to the female gender shows how maleness is dominant and femaleness is subjugated.[15]

To this end, when looking at a social system where both men and women (and, if current period data is to be believed, it seems primarily women) enforce gender roles, the name chosen is... patriarchy.

As in, a gendered term that makes women "invisible compared to the other".

That might be a problem.

[Fahran]

Has anyone here heard of the game SPANC: Space Pirate Amazon Ninja Catgirls?

I know the geek feminism wiki listed as a "sexist" game but I'm not sure. Do you think it is sexist?

I think there's a definite element of female objectification in any game that encourages people to collect, trade, or use sexually charged images identifiable as women as part of the game. That said, I don't think this particular game really sets out to appeal or welcome women and doesn't have as much of a direct impact on the role, status, or victimization of women beyond the particular fandom and perhaps sytematic issues and attitudes.

[The Blaatschapen]

If you want to argue that "patriarchy" is a system in which women benefit from systems of systematic sexism and men suffer from same, sure, but that's not how most people use it in real life.

'The patriarchy' - as it is generally used - refers to the societal machinery that maintains the roles of both (all) genders. 'The patriarchy' is why a boy can't be raped in the state I live in, as well as why women are less likely to get hired as, for example, funeral directors (or other 'male' roles).

Women not being able to become funeral directors is a grave situation.

[Esalia]

Are we going to talk about the millions of cases of human trafficking because women like me are in serious danger not to mention men can't keep their minds clean? when looking at women. I have no problem with modesty, but it's not fair that I have to wear something else so men don't have to think about it. why can't men control themselves? It's frustrating to find something else to wear just because boys don't like what your wearing . Almost every day a person is trafficked. Yes men can get trafficked to but its more common in girls not to mention getting r@ped . Did you know that there are little girls 7 and under who get that done to them . This world is crazy and its not safe anymore to live in .

Men can control themselves, and the ones that say they can't are either liars or have some very serious mental issues going on.

[Grave_n_idle]

Another great example of women having more bodily autonomy than men.

If we were talking about adult circumcision, that would make sense. If we're talking about infant circumcision, the decisions are not made by the p[people getting the surgery - autonomy is irrelevant.

[Galloism]

Another great example of women having more bodily autonomy than men.

If we were talking about adult circumcision, that would make sense. If we're talking about infant circumcision, the decisions are not made by the p[people getting the surgery - autonomy is irrelevant.

Not at all.

Children having their genitals mutilated by adults who have care over them with state permission is a severe violation of bodily autonomy and right to choose (as an adult when they get there). FGM is a major form of bodily autonomy violation by adults "caring" over girls, as is MGM of adults "caring" over boys.

[Galloism]

'The patriarchy' - as it is generally used - refers to the societal machinery that maintains the roles of both (all) genders. 'The patriarchy' is why a boy can't be raped in the state I live in, as well as why women are less likely to get hired as, for example, funeral directors (or other 'male' roles).

Women not being able to become funeral directors is a grave situation.

You made me laugh. And then I felt bad.

This is all your fault.

[Azalfia]

Any studies on men's health pertaining to HIV? Just in the mood to suck up some studies.

[Grave_n_idle]

If we were talking about adult circumcision, that would make sense. If we're talking about infant circumcision, the decisions are not made by the p[people getting the surgery - autonomy is irrelevant.

Not at all.

Children having their genitals mutilated by adults who have care over them with state permission is a severe violation of bodily autonomy and right to choose (as an adult when they get there). FGM is a major form of bodily autonomy violation by adults "caring" over girls, as is MGM of adults "caring" over boys.

No. It's just not. That's not what autonomy means. Like, by definition.

If we really want to nitpick, the fact that men tend to have their opinion valued more in the discussion of genital mutilation for girl OR boy babies means that this is yet another issue where men are enfranchised more than women, even when the issues either affect both, or disproportionately affect one.

This is literally the opposite of autonomy - this is two third parties fighting over who has the right to decide what happens to your body.

[Galloism]

Not at all.

Children having their genitals mutilated by adults who have care over them with state permission is a severe violation of bodily autonomy and right to choose (as an adult when they get there). FGM is a major form of bodily autonomy violation by adults "caring" over girls, as is MGM of adults "caring" over boys.

No. It's just not. That's not what autonomy means. Like, by definition.

If we really want to nitpick, the fact that men tend to have their opinion valued more in the discussion of genital mutilation for girl OR boy babies means that this is yet another issue where men are enfranchised more than women, even when the issues either affect both, or disproportionately affect one.

So, in point of fact, this isn’t even true. Women are the primary decision makers and pushers when it comes to female genital mutilation, and men for male genital mutilation.

The assumption of men being pushers in both cases is part and parcel of societal sexism and the actor/object dichotomy. Stop being sexist against women by assuming they have no agency.

This is literally the opposite of autonomy - this is two third parties fighting over who has the right to decide what happens to your body.

Yes, this is the opposite of autonomy - two third parties mutilating the genitals of the victim. In one case, with state sanction to do so. Autonomy would be maintaining a person’s right to genital integrity until they are old enough to choose.

[Grave_n_idle]

So, in point of fact, this isn’t even true. Women are the primary decision makers and pushers when it comes to female genital mutilation, and men for male genital mutilation.

The assumption of men being pushers in both cases is part and parcel of societal sexism and the actor/object dichotomy.

As someone who has been in that system as both a customer and part of the service provision, no.

[Galloism]

So, in point of fact, this isn’t even true. Women are the primary decision makers and pushers when it comes to female genital mutilation, and men for male genital mutilation.

The assumption of men being pushers in both cases is part and parcel of societal sexism and the actor/object dichotomy.

As someone who has been in that system as both a customer and part of the service provision, no.

Your anecdote fails to stand up to the data on the subject.

Dahabo Musa, a Somali woman, described infibulation in a 1988 poem as the "three feminine sorrows": the procedure itself, the wedding night when the woman is cut open, then childbirth when she is cut again.[105] Despite the evident suffering, it is women who organize all forms of FGM.[106][r] Anthropologist Rose Oldfield Hayes wrote in 1975 that educated Sudanese men who did not want their daughters to be infibulated (preferring clitoridectomy) would find the girls had been sewn up after the grandmothers arranged a visit to relatives.[111] Gerry Mackie has compared the practice to footbinding. Like FGM, footbinding was carried out on young girls, nearly universal where practised, tied to ideas about honour, chastity, and appropriate marriage, and "supported and transmitted" by women.[s]

…

Common reasons for FGM cited by women in surveys are social acceptance, religion, hygiene, preservation of virginity, marriageability and enhancement of male sexual pleasure.[121] In a study in northern Sudan, published in 1983, only 17.4 percent of women opposed FGM (558 out of 3,210), and most preferred excision and infibulation over clitoridectomy.[122] Attitudes are changing slowly. In Sudan in 2010, 42 percent of women who had heard of FGM said the practice should continue.[123] In several surveys since 2006, over 50 percent of women in Mali, Guinea, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Gambia, and Egypt supported FGM's continuance, while elsewhere in Africa, Iraq, and Yemen most said it should end, although in several countries only by a narrow margin.[124]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_ ... mutilation

Stop infantilizing women and trying to remove their agency.

[Grave_n_idle]

As someone who has been in that system as both a customer and part of the service provision, no.

Your anecdote fails to stand up to the data on the subject.

Dahabo Musa, a Somali woman, described infibulation in a 1988 poem as the "three feminine sorrows": the procedure itself, the wedding night when the woman is cut open, then childbirth when she is cut again.[105] Despite the evident suffering, it is women who organize all forms of FGM.[106][r] Anthropologist Rose Oldfield Hayes wrote in 1975 that educated Sudanese men who did not want their daughters to be infibulated (preferring clitoridectomy) would find the girls had been sewn up after the grandmothers arranged a visit to relatives.[111] Gerry Mackie has compared the practice to footbinding. Like FGM, footbinding was carried out on young girls, nearly universal where practised, tied to ideas about honour, chastity, and appropriate marriage, and "supported and transmitted" by women.[s]

…

Common reasons for FGM cited by women in surveys are social acceptance, religion, hygiene, preservation of virginity, marriageability and enhancement of male sexual pleasure.[121] In a study in northern Sudan, published in 1983, only 17.4 percent of women opposed FGM (558 out of 3,210), and most preferred excision and infibulation over clitoridectomy.[122] Attitudes are changing slowly. In Sudan in 2010, 42 percent of women who had heard of FGM said the practice should continue.[123] In several surveys since 2006, over 50 percent of women in Mali, Guinea, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Gambia, and Egypt supported FGM's continuance, while elsewhere in Africa, Iraq, and Yemen most said it should end, although in several countries only by a narrow margin.[124]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_ ... mutilation

Stop infantilizing women and trying to remove their agency.

I don't think that source says what you think it says, my friend.

[Galloism]

Your anecdote fails to stand up to the data on the subject.



https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Female_ ... mutilation

Stop infantilizing women and trying to remove their agency.

I don't think that source says what you think it says, my friend.

It says explicitly that the practice of FGM is supported and transmitted by women, under the belief that it makes the girl (woman eventually) more attractive to men. IE, women are the ones majority pushing it with the idea it will help women find a partner when they grow up (often because it’s viewed as “cleaner”).

Which, incidentally, is the same excuse used for male genital mutilation in my country today. That it will make it “cleaner” and make men’s penises “more attractive” to a future woman, who might view him as “weird” if he isn’t circumcised.

It’s the same phenomenon. FGM is primarily pushed by women (and some men), while MGM is primarily pushed by men (and some women).

Both practices are a violation of the baby or child’s bodily autonomy, who doesn’t get to choose whether or not to have in-tact genitals, and should end. Immediately.



Edit: btw, if anyone would like the sources:

Gerry Mackie (1996): "Virtually every ethnography and report states that FGM is defended and transmitted by the women."[107]
Fadwa El Guindi (2007): "Female circumcision belongs to the women's world, and ordinarily men know little about it or how it is performed—a fact that is widely confirmed in ethnographic studies."[108]
Bettina Shell-Duncan (2008): "[T]he fact that the decision to perform FGC is often firmly in the control of women weakens the claim of gender discrimination."[109]
Bettina Shell-Duncan (2015): "[W]hen you talk to people on the ground, you also hear people talking about the idea that it's women's business. As in, it's for women to decide this. If we look at the data across Africa, the support for the practice is stronger among women than among men."[110]

[Grave_n_idle]

It says explicitly that the practice of FGM is supported and transmitted by women, under the belief that it makes the girl (woman eventually) more attractive to men.

Read it again - it doesn't say that it is preferred by men or women. It does say that one type of female genital mutilation is supported by some women more than another type of female genital mutilation - in a population where both men and women apparently approve of at least some type of female genital mutilation.

It also draws it's information about that preference from something one anthropologist said about one group of people, half a century ago.

[Galloism]

It says explicitly that the practice of FGM is supported and transmitted by women, under the belief that it makes the girl (woman eventually) more attractive to men.

Read it again - it doesn't say that it is preferred by men or women. It does say that one type of female genital mutilation is supported by some women more than another type of female genital mutilation - in a population where both men and women apparently approve of at least some type of female genital mutilation.

It also draws it's information about that preference from something one anthropologist said about one group of people, half a century ago.

Again, multiple anthropologists within the last 25 years and apparently substantively all ethnographic studies disagree:

Gerry Mackie (1996): "Virtually every ethnography and report states that FGM is defended and transmitted by the women."[107]
Fadwa El Guindi (2007): "Female circumcision belongs to the women's world, and ordinarily men know little about it or how it is performed—a fact that is widely confirmed in ethnographic studies."[108]
Bettina Shell-Duncan (2008): "[T]he fact that the decision to perform FGC is often firmly in the control of women weakens the claim of gender discrimination."[109]
Bettina Shell-Duncan (2015): "[W]hen you talk to people on the ground, you also hear people talking about the idea that it's women's business. As in, it's for women to decide this. If we look at the data across Africa, the support for the practice is stronger among women than among men."[110]


So who am I to believe, multiple educated anthropologists who have studied the issue and declare substantively all ethnographic studies agree with what they said, or some guy on the internet?

[Grave_n_idle]

Read it again - it doesn't say that it is preferred by men or women. It does say that one type of female genital mutilation is supported by some women more than another type of female genital mutilation - in a population where both men and women apparently approve of at least some type of female genital mutilation.

It also draws it's information about that preference from something one anthropologist said about one group of people, half a century ago.

Again, multiple anthropologists within the last 25 years and apparently substantively all ethnographic studies disagree:

Gerry Mackie (1996): "Virtually every ethnography and report states that FGM is defended and transmitted by the women."[107]
Fadwa El Guindi (2007): "Female circumcision belongs to the women's world, and ordinarily men know little about it or how it is performed—a fact that is widely confirmed in ethnographic studies."[108]
Bettina Shell-Duncan (2008): "[T]he fact that the decision to perform FGC is often firmly in the control of women weakens the claim of gender discrimination."[109]
Bettina Shell-Duncan (2015): "[W]hen you talk to people on the ground, you also hear people talking about the idea that it's women's business. As in, it's for women to decide this. If we look at the data across Africa, the support for the practice is stronger among women than among men."[110]


So who am I to believe, multiple educated anthropologists who have studied the issue and declare substantively all ethnographic studies agree with what they said, or some guy on the internet?

I would argue you shouldn't 'believe' either. You're apparently making assumptions out of - from what I can tell - almost entirely African studies (so far from universal) and often drawing unsupportable conclusions. For example - someone saying "and ordinarily men know little about it or how it is performed" is not saying men don't agree with it, endorse it, or offer the structure that supports it - it's literally just saying that all the messy details are dealt with and observed (and this is really obvious, when you think about it) by women.

I'm interested by that last source, though - I'm going to have to go look that up. I don't know any way she could actually have evaluated it, so I'm going to have to look into her methodology. At least part of it seems to be that there's this dishonest trend to pretend that only one kind of mutilation is mutilation so they can pretend there's a dichotomy of opinion, when they're really only discussing a dichotomy of specific practice.

[Eighth Eurasia]

Has anyone here heard of the game SPANC: Space Pirate Amazon Ninja Catgirls?

I know the geek feminism wiki listed as a "sexist" game but I'm not sure. Do you think it is sexist?

I think there's a definite element of female objectification in any game that encourages people to collect, trade, or use sexually charged images identifiable as women as part of the game. That said, I don't think this particular game really sets out to appeal or welcome women and doesn't have as much of a direct impact on the role, status, or victimization of women beyond the particular fandom and perhaps sytematic issues and attitudes.

Interesting. The designer of the game (Fade Manley) is a woman and I've seen another review that said you'd have to work hard to be offended, and the title of the game makes it clear it is not meant to be taken 100% seriously. But I do agree that there is a lot of sexualisation in geek media.

[Page]

Would anyone like to discuss Midsommar and the female empowerment angle? (I have nowhere else to talk about this and it's topical.)

I really like the film but I feel like some folks get a little... too happy about it. I'm not sure "girl power!" is a healthy response to what essentially amounts to a woman ordering her boyfriend murdered to punish him for being drugged and raped as if he cheated on her.

And I'm not demonizing the protagonist here because she too was manipulated by the cult and I think she was also drugged out of her mind for the whole ritual, in fact that's the other thing I find so weird, that people interpret it like the cult has become her new family and we should be happy for her - she's brainwashed and even if they don't hurt her, they still have basically groomed her and replaced her original identity.

And yeah the boyfriend was kind of a dick and she was grieving for her dead family but I also feel viewers have been too harsh on him here too. It's not easy to support a person in mourning, sometimes it's very hard to even be around them. People tend to turn into toxic clouds for awhile when they lose someone they love. When my grandma died when I was 11 it was a terrible loss for my mom but she became a hateful person and ruined my life for the next two years and I came out of middle school self-harming and substance abusing in large part because her grief made her awful. But I don't want to get too far off the gender dynamic.

Anyway, thoughts?

I'm not calling the film problematic or anything to be clear and I'm not ignoring the allegory of it all, but still - her finding the guy having sex (being raped) was directly linked to her decision at the end, so I find it weird to glorify.

[Galloism]

Again, multiple anthropologists within the last 25 years and apparently substantively all ethnographic studies disagree:

Gerry Mackie (1996): "Virtually every ethnography and report states that FGM is defended and transmitted by the women."[107]
Fadwa El Guindi (2007): "Female circumcision belongs to the women's world, and ordinarily men know little about it or how it is performed—a fact that is widely confirmed in ethnographic studies."[108]
Bettina Shell-Duncan (2008): "[T]he fact that the decision to perform FGC is often firmly in the control of women weakens the claim of gender discrimination."[109]
Bettina Shell-Duncan (2015): "[W]hen you talk to people on the ground, you also hear people talking about the idea that it's women's business. As in, it's for women to decide this. If we look at the data across Africa, the support for the practice is stronger among women than among men."[110]


So who am I to believe, multiple educated anthropologists who have studied the issue and declare substantively all ethnographic studies agree with what they said, or some guy on the internet?

I would argue you shouldn't 'believe' either. You're apparently making assumptions out of - from what I can tell - almost entirely African studies (so far from universal) and often drawing unsupportable conclusions. For example - someone saying "and ordinarily men know little about it or how it is performed" is not saying men don't agree with it, endorse it, or offer the structure that supports it - it's literally just saying that all the messy details are dealt with and observed (and this is really obvious, when you think about it) by women.

I'm interested by that last source, though - I'm going to have to go look that up. I don't know any way she could actually have evaluated it, so I'm going to have to look into her methodology. At least part of it seems to be that there's this dishonest trend to pretend that only one kind of mutilation is mutilation so they can pretend there's a dichotomy of opinion, when they're really only discussing a dichotomy of specific practice.

Let's go back to your original claim -

Not at all.

Children having their genitals mutilated by adults who have care over them with state permission is a severe violation of bodily autonomy and right to choose (as an adult when they get there). FGM is a major form of bodily autonomy violation by adults "caring" over girls, as is MGM of adults "caring" over boys.

No. It's just not. That's not what autonomy means. Like, by definition.

If we really want to nitpick, the fact that men tend to have their opinion valued more in the discussion of genital mutilation for girl OR boy babies means that this is yet another issue where men are enfranchised more than women, even when the issues either affect both, or disproportionately affect one.

This is literally the opposite of autonomy - this is two third parties fighting over who has the right to decide what happens to your body.

You claimed that men's opinions are valued more in both the genital mutilation of girls and boy babies. You claimed this broadly, without limit or reservation, without a location limitation, and without a single shred of identifiable evidence.

I brought evidence from multiple anthropologists saying this isn't true. That it is generally speaking the women who transmit, enforce, and defend female genital mutilation, and women are more supportive of the practice than men.

Stick your fingers in your ears and minimize women's input into society and sexistly assume they have no authority if you want, but we all see what you did.

[Grave_n_idle]

You claimed that men's opinions are valued more in both the genital mutilation of girls and boy babies. You claimed this broadly, without limit or reservation, without a location limitation, and without a single shred of identifiable evidence.

I brought evidence from multiple anthropologists saying this isn't true. That it is generally speaking the women who transmit, enforce, and defend female genital mutilation, and women are more supportive of the practice than men.

Stick your fingers in your ears and minimize women's input into society and sexistly assume they have no authority if you want, but we all see what you did.

Here's the problem - in order to argue that I'm infantilizing females, you have literally had to refer to the Republic of Sudan. You had to bring to the table a 'republic' so far out on the extreme of horrible human rights that they only outlawed crucifixion within the lifetime of my kids.

You're arguing that women have greater autonomy and that my contradiction of it is "infantilizing women and trying to remove their agency" by using as an example a state where women are so powerless that they can literally be forced into legal child marriages.

You're so desperate to prove an unsupportable point that you've blinded yourself to what your evidence actually says.

[Galloism]

You claimed that men's opinions are valued more in both the genital mutilation of girls and boy babies. You claimed this broadly, without limit or reservation, without a location limitation, and without a single shred of identifiable evidence.

I brought evidence from multiple anthropologists saying this isn't true. That it is generally speaking the women who transmit, enforce, and defend female genital mutilation, and women are more supportive of the practice than men.

Stick your fingers in your ears and minimize women's input into society and sexistly assume they have no authority if you want, but we all see what you did.

Here's the problem - in order to argue that I'm infantilizing females, you have literally had to refer to the Republic of Sudan. You had to bring to the table a 'republic' so far out on the extreme of horrible human rights that they only outlawed crucifixion within the lifetime of my kids.

You're arguing that women have greater autonomy and that my contradiction of it is "infantilizing women and trying to remove their agency" by using as an example a state where women are so powerless that they can literally be forced into legal child marriages.

You're so desperate to prove an unsupportable point that you've blinded yourself to what your evidence actually says.

Nope. You just made that up.

As Bettina Shell-Duncan stated, "If we look at data across Africa, the support for the practice is stronger among women than among men." She conducted personal research in Kenya, Gambia, and Senegal, and consulted other studies across Africa (which is where most FGM takes place) and came to the conclusion that it's women who promote and push this practice moreso than men.

https://anthropology.washington.edu/new ... ell-duncan

Educate yourself.

As you said:

You're so desperate to prove an unsupportable point that you've blinded yourself to what your evidence actually says.

When you make a claim like you did - again, without a single shred of evidence supporting it - make up lies trying to support it, and then dismiss the evidence presented to by multiple learned scholars on the subject, you are acting desperate to prove an unsupportable point to the point you've blinded yourself to what the evidence actually says.