I'm just

Yesterday's MP Article on Female Genital Mutilation

by the people comparing male circumcision to Female Genital Mutilation. I'm not trying to invalidate people's views that male circumcision should not be done. I don't have strong feelings on the subject, and I respect people who feel that way. I recognize there are substantial arguments for that position. However, pulling out of a hat the fact that there may be some tribes somewhere who do a crude, unsanitary, unsafe type of male circumcision is changing the argument. Of course we're equally opposed to butchered home surgery - that's child abuse, clearly. But we're talking about the modern medicine version done by professionals, which, while you can argue the effects and the necessity of the procedure, it is still generally very safe. The same cannot be said for FGM.

The overwhelming majority of circumcised men can have normal, satisfying sex lives. Again, I'm not denying that there are arguments against the procedure, but the above still is true. The same is not true of women subjected to FGM. The former procedure has few (not none, I'm not claiming that) complications in the short or long term. Not so with FGM.

It is simply a false comparison. Proceed with your campaign against male circumcision and good luck with it. I don't have any problem with your issue. But please don't hijack the torture and mutilation of young girls, often resulting in death, severe illness, complications in childbirth, and the loss of their sexual being for your entirely distinct cause. They are as different as night and day.