The pseudo-science "studies" that say stuff like this:
$1:
"Many" circumcised men subjected to involuntary genital cutting as infants or
children have expressed strong negative feelings
are finding the selected complainers for their surveys over the last ten years. The use of the word "Many" is bullshit and not very science-y.
Ten years.
We're talking about the era of complainers where selections of fruitbar wierdos are looking for their victim group to fit in with. This is the era of Caitlyn Jenner and Otherkin (people who orient as animals) and microaggressions and safe spaces and new wave feminists getting people charged for the crime of disagreeing with them, because apparently being disagreed with hurts their feelings.
So can a minor psychologist looking to sell a paper find some men willing to say they've been traumatized by circumcision? Of course he can.
But let's visit the real world of our lying eyes for a sec. Everybody knows "Many," and in this case I actually do mean "Many" by any possible definition, men who have been circumcised. Are we complaining? I know I'm not.
If you started looking for women who would prefer not to have had type 2 through 4 FMG performed on them in their youth though, I think you would be talking about the 'many' who actually are "Many."
