So, the latter. It really doesn't help the argument when you use mastectomies as an example of an irreversible surgery.
Because you can't have fake breasts bolted on like Angelina Jolie. Hell, some countries recommend women with the BRCA-1 gene should have a mastectomy to reduce risk of cancer and then have implants to have a normal body.
It's not irreversible, these people are just simping. The mutilation performed on boys is irreversible and sickening, and anyone who doesn't bring that up must be on women's side.
So, the latter. It really doesn't help the argument when you use mastectomies as an example of an irreversible surgery.
Because you can't have fake breasts bolted on like Angelina Jolie. Hell, some countries recommend women with the BRCA-1 gene should have a mastectomy to reduce risk of cancer and then have implants to have a normal body.
It's not irreversible, these people are just simping. The mutilation performed on boys is irreversible and sickening, and anyone who doesn't bring that up must be on women's side.
That's such a reach it's incredible. It's "women are the primary victims of war" level.
It's not. Mutilation of the breasts removes a primary bodily function. It's worth mentioning.
But yes, I agree that mutilation of the penis is far more damaging and life-altering.