Sex As Nature Intended It: Difference between revisions
m activated REF |
m wikify AG and CC |
||
| Line 36: | Line 36: | ||
== Critics == | == Critics == | ||
The [[circumcision advocate]] website Circumcision Choice debunked the flaws and bias of O'Hara's study which is the basis of this book. While most of the counter-arguments by Circumcision Choice seem to be valid, the refutation itself also uses wordings which expose the biased view pro circumcision of the ostensibly anonymous author of the refutation which seems to be Andrew Gross.<ref>{{REFweb | The [[circumcision advocate]] website [[Andrew Gross#Circumcision Choice|Circumcision Choice]] debunked the flaws and bias of O'Hara's study which is the basis of this book. While most of the counter-arguments by [[Andrew Gross#Circumcision Choice|Circumcision Choice]] seem to be valid, the refutation itself also uses wordings which expose the biased view pro circumcision of the ostensibly anonymous author of the refutation which seems to be [[Andrew Gross]].<ref>{{REFweb | ||
|url=https://www.circumcisionchoice.com/single-post/ohara | |url=https://www.circumcisionchoice.com/single-post/ohara | ||
|title=Sex as the researcher intended it | |title=Sex as the researcher intended it | ||
|first=Andrew | |first=Andrew | ||
|last=Gross | |last=Gross | ||
|author-link=Andrew Gross | |||
|website=Circumcision Choice | |website=Circumcision Choice | ||
|date=2018-04 | |date=2018-04 | ||