Poland to withdraw from Istanbul Convention

[Galloism]

> Citing a single study
> Accuse me of cherry-picking
Kek logic. Read Wikipedia to see that your conspiracy theories about "researchers with an agenda" is not a fact. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_ ... gainst_men The issue is still being debated. Also that little snide question in the end is strawmanning so much I can feel straws tickling me.

How about a metastudy of 82 separate studies?

http://www.batteredmen.com/ArcherSexDif ... wf2000.pdf

Sex Differences in Physical Aggression and Violence
to Partners

When measures were based on specific acts, women were significantly more likely than men to have used physical aggression
toward their partners and to have used it more frequently, although
the effect size was very small (d = -.05). When measures were
based on the physical consequences of aggression (visible injuries
or injuries requiring medical treatment), men were more likely
than women to have injured their partners, but again, effect sizes
were relatively small (d = .15 and .08).

[Ostroeuropa]

Dude.
That isn't what the equivalent is, because men do not have domestic violence protections, and the istanbul convention doesn't *expand a protection men are receiving to also cover women.*. Your attempt to pretend it does is baffling, why don't you try and explain yourself and how you reach this conclusion.

Many of its clauses address unique female issues (forced abortion, female genital mutilation), or that women experience much more often than men (sexual violence and rape, stalking, sexual harassment, domestic violence, forced marriage, forced sterilisation).

What it is equivalent to is a law mandating a particular privilege be given to a demographic under international law, but deciding states rights is appropriate for another demographic.

Because women are disproportionately affected, like how black people is more affected by voter suppression.

Your links;

First says 1/3 women and 1/4 men.

Your second claims it's 15% of women and 5% of men.

Where does that even come from? Both sources confirm 1 in 3 women and 1 in 4 men (big difference to 1/3 or 1/4 unless you failed math at school) have experienced some form of physical violence by an intimate partner.

Meanwhile, there are over *30 years of studies* on this that show that domestic violence rates are equal between the genders, as well as meta-studies that have extensively covered the flaws in studies that don't produce this result and explained what causes disparate outcomes.

https://www.academia.edu/33839193/Thirt ... _Treatment

(I.E, the people doing the studies showing it's a womens issue are either crap researchers, or actively have an agenda. We've known this for decades.).

Even if you think all this means it's inconclusive;
If you're cherry picking studies to try and justify inequality, I think that speaks very poorly of you. Erring towards treating people equally rather than taking any opportunity you can to find an excuse to discriminate is surely better, no?

> Citing a single study
> Accuse me of cherry-picking
Kek logic. Read Wikipedia to see that your conspiracy theories about "researchers with an agenda" is not a fact. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_ ... gainst_men The issue is still being debated. Also that little snide question in the end is strawmanning so much I can feel straws tickling me.

Men are more likely to experience genital mutilation. That it addresses female genital mutilation but not male is an example of why the treaty is misandrist and privileges women over men.

Women do not experience rape and domestic violence more than men.

Because women are disproportionately affected, like how black people is more affected by voter suppression.

How are women disproportionately effected exactly?
You know male victims are more likely to be arrested than female perpetrators, right? Isn't that more apt a comparison to the voter suppression example that would require intervention in states from a higher law?

> Citing a single study
> Accuse me of cherry-picking
Kek logic. Read Wikipedia to see that your conspiracy theories about "researchers with an agenda" is not a fact. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_ ... gainst_men The issue is still being debated. Also that little snide question in the end is strawmanning so much I can feel straws tickling me.

That's not a single study. It's a meta-study of various studies conducted across decades. You didnt' read it. There's other examples too I could show you.

You also apparently didn't read the wikipedia article, as it supports my argument numerous times.

It's not a strawman question, i'm legitimately asking you. If the question is still being debated as you concede, then why is it that you seem so eager to abandon equality and use the opportunity to push for female privilege?

[Ostroeuropa]

Where does that even come from? Both sources confirm 1 in 3 women and 1 in 4 men (big difference to 1/3 or 1/4 unless you failed math at school) have experienced some form of physical violence by an intimate partner.
.

Firstly, domestic abuse laws rarely cover only violence. Secondly, these examples show at best a 10% difference while multiple others have studied it and found parity. Beyond that, meta-studies have shown the studies that produce unequal results *have the same methodology flaws*.

When meta-studies are used, the outcome is extremely consistent. The feminist narrative on this is like citing a handful of studies that say global warming isn't real and acting like they are authoritative, then using their considerable lobbying power to mainstream crank science because it suits their interests.

Dude. the consensus is in and has been for decades. You *are* cherry picking studies, and that's why me and Gallo are using meta-studies, studies that go over *the bulk of the studies* and calculate the overall results they produce.

You won't find feminist organizations doing that despite it being *good academic practice*, because they're either not very good academics, or willfully misleading people. Instead they cherry pick the same examples over and over again and cite single studies that support their narrative.

In case you don't get it;

Study 1 finds equal rates.
Study 2 finds equal rates.
(Repeat for 80 studies)
Study 81 finds women are most victims.
Study 82 finds women are most victims.
Study 83 finds men are most victims.
Study 84 finds men are most victims.

Feminists cite 81 and 82 and spam those *Everywhere*.

Me and Gallo are citing *the meta-studies* that take ALL of those results, and quantify them.

I also provided you study that is a meta-study that also examines 81 and 82, their methodology, and explains *in detail* why the methodology is flawed, and what drives the feminists to be in denial over it.

[Picairn]

Men are more likely to experience genital mutilation. That it addresses female genital mutilation but not male is an example of why the treaty is misandrist and privileges women over men.

Evidence? Also male circumcision can not be compared to female genital multilation.

How are women disproportionately effected exactly?
You know male victims are more likely to be arrested than female perpetrators, right? Isn't that more apt a comparison to the voter suppression example that would require intervention in states from a higher law?

No, women are more affected than men, as per the cited statistics.

You also apparently didn't read the wikipedia article, as it supports my argument numerous times.

No, it doesn't. It presents both sides' viewpoints.

It's not a strawman question, i'm legitimately asking you. If the question is still being debated as you concede, then why is it that you seem so eager to abandon equality and use the opportunity to push for female privilege?

Yep, totally not a strawman while completely glazing over what I said.

[Ostroeuropa]

Men are more likely to experience genital mutilation. That it addresses female genital mutilation but not male is an example of why the treaty is misandrist and privileges women over men.

Evidence? Also male circumcision can not be compared to female genital multilation.

How are women disproportionately effected exactly?
You know male victims are more likely to be arrested than female perpetrators, right? Isn't that more apt a comparison to the voter suppression example that would require intervention in states from a higher law?

No, women are more affected than men, as per the cited statistics.

You also apparently didn't read the wikipedia article, as it supports my argument numerous times.

No, it doesn't. It presents both sides' viewpoints.

It's not a strawman question, i'm legitimately asking you. If the question is still being debated as you concede, then why is it that you seem so eager to abandon equality and use the opportunity to push for female privilege?

Yep, totally not a strawman while completely glazing over what I said.

Circumcision is rampant.

And yes, it can be compared. This is another example of how feminists spread misandry and misinformation to minimize mens issues and maximize the perception of women being oppressed because it affords them privileges.

MGM = FGM.

MGM includes castration, gelding, and so on, comaprable to the extreme forms of FGM.

All extreme forms of genital mutilation are banned.

But MGM also includes circumcision, which is comparable to less extreme forms of FGM such as removal of the clitoral hood (Which is anatomically the foreskin. Sex assignment determines if the cells become a foreskin or clirotal hood). Circumcision is also more severe than some forms of FGM like drawing a drop of blood.

ALL forms of FGM are banned. ONLY extreme forms of MGM are banned. When challenged on this, misandrists resort to the equivalent of; "How dare you compare using a pin to draw a drop of blood to the removal of an entire sex organ like MGM entails?".

Your link even alludes to this by noting that "FGM is not confined to clitoridectomy" as in "It's not just the minor forms.".

I was very specific in my wording that MGM = FGM. You apparently thought MGM meant circumcision. It doesn't.

These are very basic arguments and facts you would know if you spent less time in echo chambers.

To throw this back at you in the hopes you get it, "Clitoridectomy is not comparable to MGM. Removal of the entire sex organ that forms of MGM entail is a much of extreme, painful, deadly, and debilitating proceedure."

No, women are more affected than men, as per the cited statistics.

We've explained to you why those stats are wrong, and I'm also challenging your notion of "More affected" in the context of international treaties. Why would an international treaty on domestic violence not address the victims of domestic violence *most likely to be failed by the state*, which is men?

No, it doesn't. It presents both sides' viewpoints.

In which case, why are you so eager to abandon equal protection under the law when afforded an excuse to do so and act like it's settled science one moment, while conceding its disputed the next?

[Picairn]

Circumcision is rampant.

And yes, it can be compared. This is another example of how feminists spread misandry and misinformation to minimize mens issues and maximize the perception of women being oppressed because it affords them privileges.

MGM = FGM.

MGM includes castration, gelding, and so on, comaprable to the extreme forms of FGM.

All extreme forms of genital mutilation are banned.

But MGM also includes circumcision, which is comparable to less extreme forms of FGM such as removal of the clitoral hood (Which is anatomically the foreskin. Sex assignment determines if the cells become a foreskin or clirotal hood). Circumcision is also more severe than some forms of FGM like drawing a drop of blood.

ALL forms of FGM are banned. ONLY extreme forms of MGM are banned. When challenged on this, misandrists resort to the equivalent of; "How dare you compare using a pin to draw a drop of blood to the removal of an entire sex organ like MGM entails?".

Your link even alludes to this by noting that "FGM is not confined to clitoridectomy" as in "It's not just the minor forms.".

Conspiracy theories and unsubstantiated assumptions are not valid arguments.

We've explained to you why those stats are wrong, and I'm also challenging your notion of "More affected" in the context of international treaties.

No, conspiracy theories about "researchers having an agenda" doesn't refute the current statistics.

In which case, why are you so eager to abandon equal protection under the law when afforded an excuse to do so and act like it's settled science one moment, while conceding its disputed the next?

Strawman coming up. Keep throwing them at me, doesn't repudiate the facts.

[Galloism]

Men are more likely to experience genital mutilation. That it addresses female genital mutilation but not male is an example of why the treaty is misandrist and privileges women over men.

Evidence? Also male circumcision can not be compared to female genital multilation.

Incidentally, this is completely false, and I will go point by point.

FGM is not confined to clitoridectomy - Type III (infibulation) involves excision of part or all of the external genitalia (the clitoris, labia minora and labia majora) with stitching of the labia minora or majora to narrow of the vaginal opening. (1) Young women who have undergone this type of FGM commonly suffer from a number of complications, including difficulty urinating, dysmennorhhea and also haematocolpos (accumulation of blood in the vagina). (1) When it comes to labour, these women have to be defibulated (surgical re-opening of the scar) in order for the baby to be delivered safely. (2) Obstetric management of these women is extremely complicated, and not without risks. (2)

Here, the person attempts to conflate a relatively lower form of genital mutilation (circumcision) with a very high form of genital mutilation (infibulation).

When they should compare male genital mutilation as commonly practiced in the west to Type IIa or Type IIc female genital mutilation - removal of the labia minora and/or labia majora. To which it is actually equivalent, and is still made illegal.

When what they should compare if they want to go extreme is castration of boys (which is sometimes done for religious purposes) with type III (infibulation).

Both are forms of male genital mutilation, and all should be banned, just as all forms of female genital mutilation should be banned.

The reports online and on youtube claiming that FGM is healthier and cleaner are outrageous. If we analyse the article sited in these videos, (5) the authors suppose the link between reduced HIV prevalence and FGM is based on confounders such as age at circumcision, type of circumcision and ethnicity. In fact women who have undergone FGM are less likely to engage in intercourse - either they can't, or they take no pleasure in it. This would be much like publishing an article looking at congenital impotence and HIV prevalence, concluding that impotent men have a significantly lower HIV prevalence, and claiming impotence is a protective factor for STI transmission. I have no doubt such a paper would get rejected by any publisher.

Notably, this is explicitly how the male HIV studies worked on circumcision. Men were circumcised as adults, were told they could not have sex for 6 months, examined a year later, and, surprise surprise, they had less HIV than those who were having sex during those six months.

Those papers are accepted by the publishers.

Besides that:

In most cultures the legs of the victims are bound together after the procedure, and there are cases where some girls have broken their limbs due to being restrained during the procedure. (1)

Boys are physically restrained for this procedure, whether it's done in babyhood (as is commonly done in the states) or as a rite of passage (as commonly done in the middle east). I don't know about broken legs, but they are physically restrained and mutilated.

And again, the treaty focuses on those already protected to an extent from genital mutilation, while ignoring those who suffer it routinely.

No, conspiracy theories about "researchers having an agenda" doesn't refute the current statistics.

Given you keep ignoring the statistics, I'm going to take this with a massive grain of salt.

[Ostroeuropa]

Circumcision is rampant.

And yes, it can be compared. This is another example of how feminists spread misandry and misinformation to minimize mens issues and maximize the perception of women being oppressed because it affords them privileges.

MGM = FGM.

MGM includes castration, gelding, and so on, comaprable to the extreme forms of FGM.

All extreme forms of genital mutilation are banned.

But MGM also includes circumcision, which is comparable to less extreme forms of FGM such as removal of the clitoral hood (Which is anatomically the foreskin. Sex assignment determines if the cells become a foreskin or clirotal hood). Circumcision is also more severe than some forms of FGM like drawing a drop of blood.

ALL forms of FGM are banned. ONLY extreme forms of MGM are banned. When challenged on this, misandrists resort to the equivalent of; "How dare you compare using a pin to draw a drop of blood to the removal of an entire sex organ like MGM entails?".

Your link even alludes to this by noting that "FGM is not confined to clitoridectomy" as in "It's not just the minor forms.".

Conspiracy theories and unsubstantiated assumptions are not valid arguments.

We've explained to you why those stats are wrong, and I'm also challenging your notion of "More affected" in the context of international treaties.

No, conspiracy theories about "researchers having an agenda" doesn't refute the current statistics.

In which case, why are you so eager to abandon equal protection under the law when afforded an excuse to do so and act like it's settled science one moment, while conceding its disputed the next?

Strawman coming up. Keep throwing them at me, doesn't repudiate the facts.

How is what I just explained to you a conspiracy theory? I'm telling you the facts about how MGM = FGM, explaining why you are wrong, why your sources are wrong, and then telling you why they have lied to you. Incidentally, these kind of lies and misinformation that feminists spread is precisely why you end up with sexist treaties like the istanbul convention, which ignores MGM based on the kind of spurious arguments you've made here, and results in female privilege.

No, conspiracy theories about "researchers having an agenda" doesn't refute the current statistics.

I linked you a meta study that explicitly finds they have an agenda dude. So we're in a catch 22 here. Are you saying the Straus metastudy has an agenda for saying other studies have an agenda? You didn't read the study. This isn't a conspiracy theory, it's been studied.

Strawman coming up. Keep throwing them at me, doesn't repudiate the facts.

How is this a strawman?

Which element here is wrong exactly about your position?

1. You accept the data is in dispute
2. You nonetheless support special provisions for women

I'm asking why.

[Ostroeuropa]

Evidence? Also male circumcision can not be compared to female genital multilation.

Incidentally, this is completely false, and I will go point by point.

FGM is not confined to clitoridectomy - Type III (infibulation) involves excision of part or all of the external genitalia (the clitoris, labia minora and labia majora) with stitching of the labia minora or majora to narrow of the vaginal opening. (1) Young women who have undergone this type of FGM commonly suffer from a number of complications, including difficulty urinating, dysmennorhhea and also haematocolpos (accumulation of blood in the vagina). (1) When it comes to labour, these women have to be defibulated (surgical re-opening of the scar) in order for the baby to be delivered safely. (2) Obstetric management of these women is extremely complicated, and not without risks. (2)

Here, the person attempts to conflate a relatively lower form of genital mutilation (circumcision) with a very high form of genital mutilation (infibulation).

When they should compare male genital mutilation as commonly practiced in the west to Type IIa or Type IIc female genital mutilation - removal of the labia minora and/or labia majora. To which it is actually equivalent, and is still made illegal.

When what they should compare if they want to go extreme is castration of boys (which is sometimes done for religious purposes) with type III (infibulation).

Both are forms of male genital mutilation, and all should be banned, just as all forms of female genital mutilation should be banned.

The reports online and on youtube claiming that FGM is healthier and cleaner are outrageous. If we analyse the article sited in these videos, (5) the authors suppose the link between reduced HIV prevalence and FGM is based on confounders such as age at circumcision, type of circumcision and ethnicity. In fact women who have undergone FGM are less likely to engage in intercourse - either they can't, or they take no pleasure in it. This would be much like publishing an article looking at congenital impotence and HIV prevalence, concluding that impotent men have a significantly lower HIV prevalence, and claiming impotence is a protective factor for STI transmission. I have no doubt such a paper would get rejected by any publisher.

Notably, this is explicitly how the male HIV studies worked on circumcision. Men were circumcised as adults, were told they could not have sex for 6 months, examined a year later, and, surprise surprise, they had less HIV than those who were having sex during those six months.

Those papers are accepted by the publishers.

Besides that:

In most cultures the legs of the victims are bound together after the procedure, and there are cases where some girls have broken their limbs due to being restrained during the procedure. (1)

Boys are physically restrained for this procedure, whether it's done in babyhood (as is commonly done in the states) or as a rite of passage (as commonly done in the middle east). I don't know about broken legs, but they are physically restrained and mutilated.

And again, the treaty focuses on those already protected to an extent from genital mutilation, while ignoring those who suffer it routinely.

No, conspiracy theories about "researchers having an agenda" doesn't refute the current statistics.

Given you keep ignoring the statistics, I'm going to take this with a massive grain of salt.

It's the leading cause of sudden infant death syndrome. Or at least, almost certainly is. When you compare demograhics that circumsise with ones that don't, ones that don't have significant less SIDS cases.

Notably, this is explained away by gynocentrist nations that have a pathological aversion to recognition of mistreatment of boys relative to girls, as infant boys being weaker and having weaker immune systems than girls.

Yet in demographics that don't circumcise, the SIDS cases equalize.

So like.

It's the leading cause of the leading cause of death in babies.

[Rojava Free State]

I'm fortunate to have been born into a culture where male genital mutilation isn't a thing anymore. I think it's fucked up how Female Genital Mutilation is condemned round and round but circumcision is still seen by many as acceptable and as healthy.

[Ostroeuropa]

I'm fortunate to have been born into a culture where male genital mutilation isn't a thing anymore. I think it's fucked up how Female Genital Mutilation is condemned round and round but circumcision is still seen by many as acceptable and as healthy.

The UK doesn't have it normalized among the broader population, but it's still there and a growing phenomena due to the growth of the Islamic community. Have they banned it in your country?

[Galloism]

It's the leading cause of sudden infant death syndrome. Or at least, almost certainly is. When you compare demograhics that circumsise with ones that don't, ones that don't have significant less SIDS cases.

Notably, this is explained away by gynocentrist nations that have a pathological aversion to recognition of mistreatment of boys relative to girls, as infant boys being weaker and having weaker immune systems than girls.

Yet in demographics that don't circumcise, the SIDS cases equalize.

So like.

It's the leading cause of the leading cause of death in babies.

I actually hadn't read this - do you have a link?

[Rojava Free State]

I'm fortunate to have been born into a culture where male genital mutilation isn't a thing anymore. I think it's fucked up how Female Genital Mutilation is condemned round and round but circumcision is still seen by many as acceptable and as healthy.

The UK doesn't have it normalized among the broader population, but it's still there and a growing phenomena due to the growth of the Islamic community. Have they banned it in your country?

Isn't really a thing among the albanians. My brother asked Xhuliano if he was circumcised and he said "what's that?"

[Ostroeuropa]

It's the leading cause of sudden infant death syndrome. Or at least, almost certainly is. When you compare demograhics that circumsise with ones that don't, ones that don't have significant less SIDS cases.

Notably, this is explained away by gynocentrist nations that have a pathological aversion to recognition of mistreatment of boys relative to girls, as infant boys being weaker and having weaker immune systems than girls.

Yet in demographics that don't circumcise, the SIDS cases equalize.

So like.

It's the leading cause of the leading cause of death in babies.

I actually hadn't read this - do you have a link?

https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10 ... 00180/full

EDIT:

And

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6412606/

The allostasis hypothesis basically suggests that the proceedure is so painful it sends the victims body into shock and they are unable to deal with additional stressors. So if they get a virus, any virus, or bump their elbow or something, they die very suddenly and without much explanation beyond their body just giving up.

This element is not proven, but the epidemeological elements (that circumcised populations have high rates of SIDS, high enough to suggest it accounts for most of it, and that SIDS is the leading cause of death) are proven.

The second leading cause of SIDS is premature birth.

So for all that whole "Women are most effected by DV", I would think that argument can be convincingly reversed on genital mutilation, since men are "Most of the deaths" from it. Supposedly, that means we get to legalize FGM and ban all MGM and ignore FGM and so on.

Notably, this is not the approach taken. Almost like the "Well women die more from DV" is an afterthought to justify misandry and female privilege, rather than any genuine belief that "the people being killed most by a thing should be the focus" on the part of feminists.

[Picairn]

How is this a strawman?

Which element here is wrong exactly about your position?

1. You accept the data is in dispute
2. You nonetheless support special provisions for women

I'm asking why.

No, you consistently distorted my position into being in favor of discrimination on men, when I have stated the opposite. I didn't call you or Galloism "women oppressors" or "women haters" and other statements like that, did I? What did I ever do to earn a constant bombardment of strawmen from you, when I have never called you names since the beginning of the thread?

[New haven america]

I'm fortunate to have been born into a culture where male genital mutilation isn't a thing anymore. I think it's fucked up how Female Genital Mutilation is condemned round and round but circumcision is still seen by many as acceptable and as healthy.

The UK doesn't have it normalized among the broader population, but it's still there and a growing phenomena due to the growth of the Islamic community. Have they banned it in your country?

No, it's still perfectly normal in America, because a cereal maker was super concerned about little boys jerking off together and thought that circumcision was the solution to this clear and present danger.

[New haven america]

How is this a strawman?

Which element here is wrong exactly about your position?

1. You accept the data is in dispute
2. You nonetheless support special provisions for women

I'm asking why.

No, you consistently distorted my position into being in favor of discrimination on men, when I have stated the opposite. I didn't call you or Galloism "women oppressors" or "women haters" and other statements like that, did I? What did I ever do to earn a constant bombardment of strawmen from you, when I have never called you names since the beginning of the thread?

I mean, you admit to not thinking male circumcision is genital mutilation even though it fits the definition of mutilation to a T, but ok, you're the innocent one here.

Sure, why not?

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

PiS does something more stupid beacuse of course they do.

[Ostroeuropa]

How is this a strawman?

Which element here is wrong exactly about your position?

1. You accept the data is in dispute
2. You nonetheless support special provisions for women

I'm asking why.

No, you consistently distorted my position into being in favor of discrimination on men, when I have stated the opposite. I didn't call you or Galloism "women oppressors" or "women haters" and other statements like that, did I? What did I ever do to earn a constant bombardment of strawmen from you, when I have never called you names since the beginning of the thread?

In my opinion I haven't distorted it. Why are you defending the lack of protections from men in the convention on the basis of states rights?

You do understand that supporting states rights on this kind of shit pretty much is equivalent with being in favor of discrimination? If you disagree with that, can you think of a "states rights" on socio-demographic issues argument where that isn't the case?

We're also not saying the color of your soul is bad. You are not necessarly consciously in favor of discrimination for that to be what you are doing.

You can *do* sexism without *being* a sexist.

If it's upsetting you for that to be noted, you shouldn't take it out on the people noticing it. You should change your behavior and opinions.

Because otherwise, it seems like you're more concerned with maintaining your image of yourself based on your intentions, rather than actually living up to them.

if you are not in favor of discrimination against men, you shouldn't be taking the positions you have been taking and we're explaining why.

On the other hand, if you're more concerned with *feeling* like you're not in favor of discrimination against men, and simply don't want to change your opinions and admit you've made mistakes, then you should continue behaving like you are now.

Like, switch to "Asshole" for a moment to try and communicate the concept.

You don't have to be "An asshole" to be "Behaving like an asshole.".

But you know who refuses to take on board any criticism of their negative behavior because "I'm not an asshole, I don't see myself that way, so you're wrong."?

Know who responds to shit like "You're hurting my feelings" with "No i'm not, because that's not my intention.".

Assholes.

You've been doing a sexism on this entire topic. Whether you *are* a sexist, or just *did a sexism*, that's up to you.

We're not strawmanning you for noting you're doing a sexism.

So let's try again, which bit of this is a strawman of what you are *doing* rather than the color of your soul?

1. You accept the data is in dispute
2. You nonetheless support special provisions for women

[Galloism]

How is this a strawman?

Which element here is wrong exactly about your position?

1. You accept the data is in dispute
2. You nonetheless support special provisions for women

I'm asking why.

No, you consistently distorted my position into being in favor of discrimination on men, when I have stated the opposite. I didn't call you or Galloism "women oppressors" or "women haters" and other statements like that, did I? What did I ever do to earn a constant bombardment of strawmen from you, when I have never called you names since the beginning of the thread?

You defended a treaty that not only explicitly states that such is allowable and not "discrimination" when certain directional discrimination occurs, by saying it politely asks to be equal so it doesn't count.

It's a sexist treaty. Sure it doesn't command discrimination - it just explicitly only allows it only against the oppressed class.

[Ostroeuropa]

The UK doesn't have it normalized among the broader population, but it's still there and a growing phenomena due to the growth of the Islamic community. Have they banned it in your country?

No, it's still perfectly normal in America, because a cereal maker was super concerned about little boys jerking off together and thought that circumcision was the solution to this clear and present danger.

If we weren't meant to jerk off then boners would be caused by some kind of vaginal secretion rather than feeling horny or physical stimulation.

[New haven america]

No, it's still perfectly normal in America, because a cereal maker was super concerned about little boys jerking off together and thought that circumcision was the solution to this clear and present danger.

If we weren't meant to jerk off then boners would be caused by some kind of vaginal secretion rather than feeling horny or physical stimulation.

No, that's not how it works and God doesn't want it that way.

Instead you should circumcise your good and god faring babies and make sure to feed them plenty of delicious Kellogg's Corn Flakes (Which are not delicious by the way, he lied!) to keep the Devil from making their PP hard.

Wait, are we allowed to talk about any of this under the new rules...?

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

If we weren't meant to jerk off then boners would be caused by some kind of vaginal secretion rather than feeling horny or physical stimulation.

Man out of context NSG is kinda funny.

Anyway, violence against any gender is bad. Istanbul Convention did alot to help Woman's rights.

Withdrawing from the convention is just virtue signalling to give the anti-sjw's in Poland something circle jerk over in there echo chambers.

[Ostroeuropa]

If we weren't meant to jerk off then boners would be caused by some kind of vaginal secretion rather than feeling horny or physical stimulation.

Man out of context NSG is kinda funny.

Anyway, violence against any gender is bad. Istanbul Convention did alot to help Woman's rights.

Withdrawing from the convention is just virtue signalling to give the anti-sjw's in Poland something circle jerk over in there echo chambers.

I largely agree that poland is not likely to take this in a positive direction. But the treaty is trash and should be discarded in favor of an equitable one. Moreover, I'd suggest that this kind of result is one inevitable consequence of gynocentrism, feminism and so on. (The other consequence being continued female privilege.).

For actual equality to occur, we need to reject feminism and traditionalism.

[Stellar Colonies]

We should have a circumcision thread again, because it really is an massive issue which deserves to be discussed on its own.