Study led by researchers at the Bloomberg School of Public Health finds boys circumcised just after birth did not have a higher risk of autism compared to uncircumcised boys
False and propaganda from the religious alt right. Also look at how close those dates are. Sounds like a paid-for “science” campaign. If there was a valid medical reason against not circumcising, I’d probably have heard about it by now.
(And yes, in individual cases, a medical circumcision is required, but not for hygiene or STD prevention, and it can never be a general guideline. The damage (loss of nerve sensation, lack of lubrication) is a much bigger problem, including for the female partner.).
There is none, but here are some that show just the opposite:
Male Circumcision for the Prevention of Acquisition and Transmission of Sexually Transmitted Infections (2010)
Male Circumcision for the Prevention of HSV-2 and HPV Infections and Syphilis (2009)
The Medical Benefits of Male Circumcision (2013)
Circumcision impedes viral disease (2009)
Circumcision Curbs Risk of Genital Herpes and HPV Infection (2009)
I read that there were even neolithic societies already employing circumcision as ritual, long before Western colonization.
I have very very high doubt here
Are you saying the sources are likely fake or false in some way?
False and propaganda from the religious alt right. Also look at how close those dates are. Sounds like a paid-for “science” campaign. If there was a valid medical reason against not circumcising, I’d probably have heard about it by now.
(And yes, in individual cases, a medical circumcision is required, but not for hygiene or STD prevention, and it can never be a general guideline. The damage (loss of nerve sensation, lack of lubrication) is a much bigger problem, including for the female partner.).
What is their play here? Do they have something to gain by men getting circumcised?
religion, power over others, right wing retorica, conservatives, imbeciles, …