The ongoing problem with misogyny on the SDMB

[Budget_Player_Cadet]

@Blalron

To use a legal analogy, let’s compare the concepts of “colorable claim” versus a “frivolous claim.” A colorable claim is:

This is in contrast with a frivolous claim:

SlackerInc linked to an article by Brian Earp, an Associate Director of the Yale-Hastings Program in Ethics and Health Policy at Yale University. Mr. Earp argues that male and female genital cutting are sufficiently similar to be compared with one another. Even if Earp is ultimately shown to be wrong, his arguments should have sufficient gravitas to be considered a colorable claim and not dismissed as frivolous. He is precisely the type of authority that might be called to testify in court over this issue.

And yet, nobody cares, because you’re still making a thread about female genital mutilation all about circumcision. The fact you can find a bioethicist to make a pathetically weak argument for you doesn’t change that fact. That you didn’t post that until page 8 of an ongoing thread, a thread where your first post was on page 3, talking about circumcision, makes it even worse. You made 22 off-topic posts in a thread about female genital mutilation, ending with a really weak defense of why you were constantly threadshitting! SlackerInc was right - I didn’t read the post the first time around. Because why should I? It’s off topic, and I can tell that from the first fucking line! Really, I could tell by the time I was done reading the postbit.

And yes, I do say really weak. It’s a terrible fucking argument. Putting it in a spoiler here…

[spoiler]I’m going to get into this not because I want to drag up the FGM/Circumcision debate, but because it’s entirely germane to the question “was that threadshitting” (it was). Brian Earp’s blog post is long and winding, but one important point to justify all of his further arguments is this:

So it depends on what you’re talking about. Do those who oppose FGM (and that includes me) think (as I do) that even certain “minor” or “medicalized” forms of such cutting—done without consent, and without a medical indication—are inconsistent with medical ethics, deeply-rooted moral and legal ideals about bodily integrity, the principle of personal autonomy, and a child’s interest in an open future? Or is it only the wholesale removal of the clitoris – with a broken piece of glass – that inspires such condemnation?

His argument is based in the context of comparing like and like. FGM is bad, but a lot of male circumcision is done in brutal and unclean contexts, which is similarly bad. Also, some FGM isn’t really all that bad, and is comparable to circumcision. That’s a necessary premise to even continue arguing about this. And in the context of the thread, that’s not the case. Several of the girls in question had their entire clitorises removed. Meanwhile, your argument against circumcision is entirely general and based on the concept of basic human rights. Which is all well and good, but removing your foreskin is not the equivalent of cutting off your clitoris. That’s why the law against FGM has never faced any serious challenge in court on the basis of “discrimination” - because these things are tangibly different in ways that matter.

This painfully bad argument was not responded to in the thread because by that point it was already page 8 and people were sick and tired of dealing with this nonsense. It may have something to do with the fact that, of your previous 16 posts in the thread, exactly one was on-topic, and some of them were absolute fucking howlers:

@Blalron

I’m wondering why we don’t circumcise animals. If it’s good enough for humans, why not our pets?

@Blalron

That’s the problem with identity politics gone amok. Instead of viewing people as individuals, they view people as members of either the Oppressed or the Dominator classes. In that framework, men as a class dominate women as a class. Whites as a class dominate People of Color. This has been going on for too long, and the tables need to be turned. There are some on the Left that don’t want true equality. They want revenge. A world where the social hierarchy is inverted, and men (especially white men) are on the bottom of the hierarchy instead of on the top. Thus the suffering of men is considered completely unworthy of their attention. Men have had it too good for thousands of years, so fuck it.

@Blalron

Let’s be clear about this: it’s possible for FGM victims, even those with infibulation, to have orgasms through the g-spot or nipple stimulation. It eliminates the ability to have a particular type of orgasm (via the clitoris). This is no way justifies the practice of course, but it’s not neccesarily true that infibulation victims completely lose the ability to enjoy sex.

(Bolding mine. Holy shit, dude. I’m stupid enough to hit on my polyamorous girlfriend’s sister and not realize this is an obvious no-go, and even I can tell that that’s about as tactful as Trump’s twitter feed!)

And you have the unmitigated gall to say, “Now that I actually am talking about female anatomy and moving on from penises, I’m still getting complaints.” :mad: Geez, I cannot imagine why.
[/spoiler]

In short: virtually every post you made in that thread was off-topic threadshitting. And since it’s clear that, despite our urging, you’re not going to stop doing that, it would be nice if the moderators would encourage you to do so.