To cut, or not to cut.

[nerdanel]

Apparently you can leave your heart in San Francisco, but your foreskin is going home with you. - Jon Stewart, November 2010

Despite my affection for San Francisco, I sometimes feel as though the City is much like a younger sibling - acting out to get attention. And it's succeeding. Having successfully banned Happy Meals, SF is now taking up the incredibly charged topic of whether to ban childhood circumcision, without a religious exception. (I'm sure the SF City Attorney will be grateful for the extra work - hopefully this will also catalyze their getting rid of their hiring freeze.)

Apart from the minor constitutional issues this raises, I was hoping to use SF's antics to discuss the broader issue: is male circumcision a good thing, and by what standards (health, religion, cleanliness, sexual pleasure - either of the circumcised man or his partner)? Is there a reasonable argument that male circumcision is akin to "male genital mutilation"? Is the alteration of male genitalia a decision that parents can legitimately make for an non-consenting infant?

Here's some background reading, with arguments from all sides, for those who feel they don't know enough to take a position: http://nymag.com/health/features/60158/

I've started this thread out of a bona fide desire that you all will be able to help me stake out a position (especially since I hope to be a voting resident of SF this time next year, when this may come up for a vote, if it gets the requisite signatures ... and I have no idea at this point how I would vote. NB when I vote on California and/or SF legislation, I usually vote whatever my feelings on the underlying issue are. That is, I would vote based on my assessment of whether male circumcision is a good legal option for us to have in our society, not based on my assessment of whether the law is likely to be deemed legal/constitutional. My feeling is that the electorate's job is to decide whether it's a good idea for society to be moving in a particular direction - and then the courts and attorneys can sit down and figure out whether that direction is constitutional/legal.)

To be honest, I feel I am not entitled to have an opinion on this issue. Here are my stream of consciousness thoughts why. I am not a man and I can't even imagine what it would be like to have male genitalia. I'm vehemently against any forum of FGM, even ceremonial "de minimis" bloodletting rather than cutting, but I'm not clear on whether there is any equivalence to circumcision. I don't think my body will really let me experience or realistically imagine what the experience or aftermath of circumcision is like. The guys I've been with have been circumcised and have been fine with it, but I know that other guys feel vehemently that their infant circumcisions were a "violation" that has negatively impacted them. I don't feel I have the right to side with one group or the other, really. It seems that the conventional medical wisdom with respect to "cleanliness" is no longer as clear as it used to be. On principle, I don't think I would like it if my parents had consented to a part of me being cut off before I was old enough to know what was happening - but then again, would I really have cared if my appendix or wisdom teeth had been removed at that point? I don't want to have kids, and even if I was willing to consider adopting, I would prefer to adopt a girl (i.e., I can't connect emotionally to this issue from a "parents' rights" standpoint). The strongest connection I feel to any of this is my affinity for Judaism. Since this has been established religious practice for a long time, and most men who have undergone it seem to be fine with it, I don't think it should be interfered with unless there's an issue of serious physical/emotional harm that must be avoided. But then again, if there is such an issue (in the judgment of the affected group - i.e., men), I wouldn't think that religion, including Judaism, was a justification to inflict non-consensual harm.

The jumbled nature of that last paragraph fairly accurately reflects my confusion. I have no idea. But since SF is potentially voting on this, and my current research deals in part with FGM (and asylum claims), I'm starting to feel as though I should at least try to formulate a tentative opinion. Help!

[elfshadow]

The only justification that would persuade me to be in favor of circumcision would be health reasons. I believe that the tradition of circumcision first started in Jewish culture to promote cleanliness, although I could be mistaken. I have also heard some arguments stating that circumcision decreases the risk of STIs. This tends to make sense because bacteria could probably grow more easily in the warm folds of the foreskin, but I don't know if any conclusive studies have shown that uncircumcised men are more likely to get STIs.

I share your concern, nel, that as a woman I am not really qualified to make this decision. The issue does not affect me on the personal level that it affects men, so I wouldn't be able to say whether or not quality of life is harmed by circumcision. However, if people feel that this is the case, and if there are no health benefits to be gained by utilizing it as a medical practice, I would certainly be in favor of banning it. That it has religious significance honestly doesn't mean much to me. Lots of horrible practices, such as FGM, have religious or cultural significance.

[Impenitent]

My son is circumcised. My husband is not.

We are Jewish (that is, I am a convert to Judaism, and therefore have no family tradition of conforming to ritual circumcision; and my husband is the progeny of a mixed marriage - mother ostensibly a Polish catholic though in reality not a believer, and father a non-observant Jew). Even though my husband has a problem with the G-word, we decided to circumcise our son in conformity with Jewish tradition.

We chose to have the procedure performed by an experienced surgeon, publicly, at his naming ceremony in my in-laws' home. The surgeon was adamant about using appropriate anaesthesia and, while our son didn't cry during the procedure (though he complained loudly before it began, when his nappy was removed, exposing him to the cool breeze), it was certainly traumatic for me. If I was to relive the experience, not sure I could do it again.


All that by way of disclosure before I give my opinion.

As far as I know, there is no clear-cut evidence that circumcision impairs a man in terms of health or sexual function. My brother-in-law, like my husband, was not circumcised as an infant, but did undergo the procedure at age 19 (for medical rather than religious reasons) and he reports that after the healing process was complete, he experienced no negative consequence.

Of course, one man's experience is just that. I am aware that others may report differently, and I do have one male friend who was circumcised as an infant and who feels psychologically damaged by it.

With regards to health, there is evidence that:
1. female partners of circumcised men have lower incidence of STD's, including genital warts; and
2. male circumcision seems to reduce the spread of HIV infection. I heard a recent report on this on the BBC but a Google search was unsuccessful in unearthing it. However, this recent Reuters report supports that argument (http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE66J4ZH20100720).

In Australia, whole generations of men, from the 1900's to the 1970's, were circumcised as children as a matter of course (including my Anglican brother-in-law, and his two brothers, and his father), without societal evidence of physical, sexual or psychological damage.

My opinion: I would not support the prohibition law. The practice is old as history (and this in traditional patriarchal societies) with no clear-cut weight of evidence that it is to the detriment of the boy/man.

On the other hand, I do feel very strongly that the procedure should be done only by trained, professional medical practitioners, not mohels (no matter how well trained or experienced) who have no broader medical training. I think it should be strictly legislated and overseen.

[yovargas]

I was debating this with a couple friends of mine recently. A female friend of mine made the argument that she thought that male circumcision was somehow a "gateway" to female circumcision. I don't think I buy that argument but I thought it might be worth throwing out there.

As for my personal opinion, as a circumcized male (I imagine people reading this thread won't find that to be TMI) I'm rather baffled as to why some men seem to feel so strongly about this. Honestly, I think I feel rather annoyed at the insistence that the way that I am is somehow "wrong". I am perfectly content with the way I am, thank you very much.

But I suppose it's not fair to let that kind of personal argument obstruct some of the more logical ones. I think the most compelling one I heard from my strongly opposed friends was that even though it is a very small percentage, some few do have their circumcision go wrong and do have the health and function of their penis seriously impaired. Since there seems to be fairly little practical point to circumcision, subjecting the baby to the very small but apparently quite real danger is perhaps pretty silly.

[vison]

It was SOP for decades. Most men of my generation were routinely circumcised. My oldest son is, but I had a different doctor for my youngest son and he was opposed to circumsion (except for religious reasons) and so he did a kind of semi-circumcision. I have never asked either of my sons how they feel about it.

Now, I think it's wrong to circumcise infants. I would not have it done again. It was generally done with NO anasthetic because "everyone" knew babies can't feel pain. I kid you not.

Human males evolved with foreskins and if they were a bad idea, they wouldn't be there.

I have been told (by a Jew) that the ritual circumcision of boy children was done to set Jews apart from non-Jews and for no other reason. I confess it makes me shake my head to imagine a deity demanding the mutilation of a man's genitals in order to please that deity. Gives one a weird idea of that god, this one anyway.

It is still common in some tribal places for boys to be circumcised as part of their manhood ceremony: enduring the pain and misery is meant to show how tough they have become.

[Cerin]

I don't like it when people equate circumcision with female genital mutilation. The latter, as far as I know, is done for purely cultural reasons which seem to have no rational basis, whereas it seems that circumcision became the norm in Western societies for medical reasons (although these medical grounds aren't universally agreed upon). In addition, female genital mutilation can be extremely harmful to a woman's health, whereas the only drawback I've ever heard about with male circumcision (aside from the initial physical trauma associated with both practices) is a significant loss of sensation. While I don't intend to minimize the importance of that, it doesn't involve the same kind of physical complications that female genital mutilation can lead to. So I prefer to discuss the two as separate issues, because I think there is such a significant difference in the nature of the two practices.


When I was pregnant with our son (26 years ago), there was a very strong anti-circumcision advocacy associated with the childbirth classes, whereas no one came to advocate for circumcision. I think it was simply the fashion then, as was drug-free delivery and a strong advocacy for breastfeeding. The main, if not the entire objection to circumcision, was to the way it was done -- very soon after birth and without anesthetic. The objection was to the trauma in itself, and to its interference in the important bonding and adapting-to-life-outside-the-womb process so important to an infant's early development. I was adamant about not having our son circumcised under these conditions, and my husband yielded, even though he was circumcised in the normal (non-religious) way. It became an issue of embarrassment for my son in school, since most of the other boys were circumcised. He told me many times that he wished he had been circumcised; and his sons have subsequently both been circumcised in the usual way. While I regret that he regrets my decision, there was no way I could ever have allowed it without anesthetic.

I heard an NPR discussion of this a few years ago. Someone called in, who had chosen to be circumcised as a young adult (I don't remember the reason). No one had ever warned him about loss of sensation (which makes sense since I think most men are circumcised in infancy and would have nothing to compare their experience to), and he was shocked at how much sexual sensation he lost -- he said around 70%, and was taking measures to have skin grafts to reconstruct a foreskin. He also had interesting theories about our culture of sexual violence (comparing American words for the sex act to the kinder, gentler ones used in Britain), since apparently he required much more forceful stimulation afterwards. But that's the only anecdotal evidence I've ever heard about that.


It seems pretty obvious that a law without a religious exception would interfere with religious freedom and therefore be unconstitutional. I don't see any harm in bringing the subject into the open for public discussion. I can fully understand an adult male's indignation at having been circumcised as an infant, particularly since the non-religious grounds are not well-established.

edit for correction

[vison]

Hey, good post, Cerin.

[JewelSong]

When I saw the title of this thread, I thought you were contemplating getting your hair cut in one of those new, shorter styles.

Just a few random thoughts:

My brothers are all circumcised. My father and his brother (born in the 1920s) were not. This was due to the change in SOP. Most American male babies born in the 50s and 60s were circumcised as a matter of course.

My father's brother (my uncle) developed an infection when he was in the Navy and had to be circumcised as an adult. He did not speak fondly of this experience.

When I worked with physically disabled young adults, several of them were circumcised in their teens, due to a much greater risk of infection and to make it easier for a personal care assistant to clean.

The male foreskin evolved to protect the very sensitive head of the penis. However, since most males cover their genitalia nowadays, the need for this protection is debatable.

A foreskin requires daily cleaning, or there is a risk of bacteria and infection. Many of the ancient Jewish laws have to do with health and cleanliness, so I am not so sure that the reason for circumcision was simply to set the Jews apart.

My ex-husband was circumcised, as are my sons. For my sons, it was not assumed you would want the operation and you had to sign for it. We did it because we thought it was easier to keep clean and also, I suppose, out of habit and a desire to have the boys look like most other boys at that time. They used a local anesthetic. (I specifically asked.)

I have never been with a man who was not circumcised. My mother, who had never been with anyone but my father, remarked once that she thought circumcised penises "looked prettier."

The word "circumcised" has started to look very strange to me, so I think I'll stop here!

[vison]

How circumspect of you. A discussion of this nature can quickly become circular, and who knows what might happen then?

[Túrin Turambar]

It seems pretty obvious that a law without a religious exception would interfere with religious freedom and therefore be unconstitutional. I don't see any harm in bringing the subject into the open for public discussion. I can fully understand an adult male's indignation at having been circumcised as an infant, particularly since the non-religious grounds are not well-established.

I'm not convinced. One of our American lawyers here would probably know what the key establishment clause cases are and what test they establish, but it seems obvious to me that if there is a rational and secular basis for banning something then it doesn't matter whether a religion encourages it or not. To use an extreme example, there is no grounds for a Muslim fundamentalist to argue that laws against murder shouldn't apply in the cases of honour killing as that would violate his freedom of religion. It would be different if the apparent purpose of the law was to quash some form of religious expression, but I imagine that the court would balance freedom of religion against whatever basis SF advances for the law.

[nerdanel]

It seems pretty obvious that a law without a religious exception would interfere with religious freedom and therefore be unconstitutional. I don't see any harm in bringing the subject into the open for public discussion. I can fully understand an adult male's indignation at having been circumcised as an infant, particularly since the non-religious grounds are not well-established.

I'm not convinced. One of our American lawyers here would probably know what the key establishment clause cases are and what test they establish, but it seems obvious to me that if there is a rational and secular basis for banning something then it doesn't matter whether a religion encourages it or not. To use an extreme example, there is no grounds for a Muslim fundamentalist to argue that laws against murder shouldn't apply in the cases of honour killing as that would violate his freedom of religion. It would be different if the apparent purpose of the law was to quash some form of religious expression, but I imagine that the court would balance freedom of religion against whatever basis SF advances for the law.

Just a quick drive-by note that is somewhat in favor of L_M's point, with more later. Despite your understandable distaste for the comparison, Cerin, I just wanted to note that 18 U.S.C. s. 116, which criminalizes female genital mutilation, has a section (c) which underscores that no religious or cultural exemption from the prohibition is permitted. The constitutionality of this provision has never been challenged.

§ 116. Female genital mutilation

(a) Except as provided in subsection (b), whoever knowingly circumcises, excises, or infibulates the whole or any part of the labia majora or labia minora or clitoris of another person who has not attained the age of 18 years shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

(b) A surgical operation is not a violation of this section if the operation is--
(1) necessary to the health of the person on whom it is performed, and is performed by a person licensed in the place of its performance as a medical practitioner; or
(2) performed on a person in labor or who has just given birth and is performed for medical purposes connected with that labor or birth by a person licensed in the place it is performed as a medical practitioner, midwife, or person in training to become such a practitioner or midwife.

(c) In applying subsection (b)(1), no account shall be taken of the effect on the person on whom the operation is to be performed of any belief on the part of that person, or any other person, that the operation is required as a matter of custom or ritual.

[axordil]

First off--telling corporations they can't market unhealthy foods to children is vastly different from telling parents what they can or can't do. The law in SF doesn't keep parents from serving their kids what comes in a Happy Meal. It only recognizes that marketing to kids has some room for carve-outs in regards to a corporation's purported first amendment rights.

Now as to the petition: this is a case where the current law serves the dominant culture and recognizes a difference in degree. On a common-sense level, a male circumcision and FGM are performed with different intent. The first is either cosmetic or a mix of religious and cosmetic, with perhaps a small dash of the hygienic. The second is an attempt to curb female sexual desire couched in cultural terms.

Whether or not removal of the foreskin causes some loss of sensation, said putative loss of sensation is not in any way debilitating. Trust me on this, it's never been a hindrance. Personally, I don't think I would WANT to be more sensitive there. Removing the clitoris, on the other hand, *is* sexually debilitating, and is designed to be so. The cultures in question (not religion--nothing in Islam proscribes it) want women to be sexually passive, and this is the enforcement mechanism.

Now, from a strictly medical point of view, male circumcision is generally not necessary. This is where the ethics gets fuzzy for me. Legally a child is, to a great extent, chattel. Parents can do any number of things affecting the child's life and body without asking anyone. Some, perhaps all, of these have non-zero risk attached. Parents have cosmetic procedures performed on their kids all the time, for example: ear piercing comes to mind, but when you get right down to it, getting a haircut has a risk of infection associated with it.

Are they going to ban infant ear piercing? Haircuts for toddlers? Vaccinations (needle pain can cause emotional trauma, and if you don't believe me, ask my seven year old)?

For me this whole think smacks of absolutist ethics gone bad, of trying to make a universal case (kid's bodies should remain inviolate) from a particular case (FGM is bad). The advocates want to put male circumcision right next to FGM on the spectrum of culturally sponsored child procedures, because it's important to them for whatever reason to think it so. It's not there for most of us, because we instinctively recognize there's no cultural malice involved in male circumcision.

[anthriel]

Gosh, ax, you wrote every darned thing I was thinking. Just to reiterate a few points:

1. The intent of circumcision is different than the intent of FGM. This matters.

2. Restricting certain religious/cultural norms is a dangerous business. We have many Hispanics here in Arizona, and there is a strong cultural tendency for them to pierce their newborn baby girl's ears. As a microbiologist and a mom, I've always wondered about the infection rates with those piercings. I confess, my little non-Hispanic-culture-based inner eyebrow does rise each time I see a little infant with her little stud earrings. But that is their culture, and that fact is important to consider.

3. Circumcisions are certainly available with local anesthetic.

4. Infection is an ongoing problem for some men with foreskins.

5. Everything else ax said.

[Alatar]

I'd like to go back to what Cerin said. (Did nobody else smile at the use of "drawback" is regards to circumcision or was that just me )

Anyway, speaking as an uncircumcised male from a country where circumcision is the exception rather than the rule, I've always considered it to be akin to female circumcision. A ridiculous religious mutilation for no apparent purpose. Of course, I realise I live in a cold, humid part of the world. We fell down and scraped our knees on gravel as kids and just got up and kept playing. Only if it was really really bad did we consider a dab of TCP. We certainly never suffered from "infections", which always made me wonder if Americans were justs genetically weaker than us! Naturally, the reason for this is that germs just don't breed as well here as they do in hotter climates. Perhaps circumcision was needed for the Hebrews when they lived in the desert and bathed once a year. Perhaps its still needed in the US, I don't know. I suspect not.

That's not to say there aren't times when it needs to be removed, but I for one prefer to wait for an actual, y'know REASON! We don't whip out kids appendixes or tonsils at birth, and far more of them go on to need that than circumcision.

[nerdanel]

First, Ax, on the Happy Meals point - to be clear, I agree with the SF law (if you go look at my FB links, I got into a lengthy back-and-forth with a libertarian law school classmate of mine because I was defending the law.) However, this type of law earns SF negative national and international attention which undermines SF's credibility in taking more important, principle-based stands. It is also a poor use of the Board of Supervisors' time given the pressing fiscal issues currently facing the City.

Moving on: I agree with both of you, Anthy and Ax, that the intent of FGM is malignant in a way that the intent of male circumcision is not. However, for me the issue turns more on effects than on intent. For me, the proponents of a male circumcision ban - if they wish to establish an analogy to FGM - bear the burden to show analogous effects on the victim. The effects of FGM include infection (due to the generally non-sterile conditions in which it is usually performed), difficulties during urination and menstruation, incontinence, sexual dysfunction, complications during childbirth (including the potential for fetal and maternal death), birth defects, the possibility of infections that can spread through the cervix into the uterus, and psychological harm to the victim. As I have had the displeasure of learning this afternoon, FGM is also often not a one-time harm: the genitalia can be mutilated and re-mutilated at times when the woman's partner wishes (often non-consensually) to have sex with her or before/after delivery of children. Often, the woman's external labia will have been sewn together tightly enough that intercourse and/or childbirth are impossible without further cutting and sewing. These harms, to me, are what makes the practice far more egregious than the mere intent of "protection of virginity and prevention of promiscuity" (as the WHO has identified the purposes). The desire to control women's sexuality, while nefarious, is still ubiquitous. It is the effect of this rather extreme approach to doing it that renders it most unacceptable. The proponents of the term "male genital mutilation," then, have a steep burden to demonstrate the equivalence to FGM - I suspect they will be unsuccessful.

I also note that whether or not the intent behind religious male circumcision is applause-worthy may be a matter of one's perception. To be honest, I do not feel that I have "standing" to object personally to the Jewish practice of marking male children, irrevocably and permanently, as members of a religion to which the child himself has not made a volitional decision to belong. However, I note that if my parents had in any way permanently altered my body to mark me as Catholic, this would have been wholly unacceptable and reprehensible. I would probably have found it unforgivable. Of course, this may not be a consideration even for those Jewish men who do not embrace their religion, given the widespread nature of circumcision these days. However, it may have been an issue in the past - particularly at times when indelible marking as Jewish may have placed the boy/man at risk of persecution from anti-Jewish bigots. (I offer these thoughts despite my continued affection for Judaism. It is actually Jewish rabbis who taught me, based on their refusal to let me convert as a teenager, that it is important that a decision to embrace a religion be made by an adult of sufficient maturity. I admit to feeling more of an affinity for the Jewish stance on conversion, which emphasizes consent, maturity, and voluntary long periods of study and immersion sometimes reaching 5-10 years, than either for the ritual requirement of infant circumcision or establishment of the young age of 12/13 as the age of religious majority. The latter is in today's society a legal fiction, and I've observed that it often doesn't work well in practice - but that'd be for a TE thread.)

What I'm trying to say is: whether the intent of male circumcision is benign seems to me to be far less relevant than whether or not it has problematic effects. To persuade me to oppose male circumcision (as I currently do not), proponents of a ban will have to demonstrate physical or psychological harm to at least a significant minority of the men who undergo the procedure as infants. If they can demonstrate that this harm is occurring, I would oppose the practice even if it was being done out of the greatest love and affection possible. So far, I'm not sure this has been demonstrated.

[Lidless]

Agree with Ax.

When I see a six-month old with ear piercings, I mourn for the child and despise the parents. When I hear that because of an ancient tradition a boy's foreskin has been removed, often without anaesthetic, I also mourn for the child and shake my head at the parents.

The Jewish circumcision should be the decision of the person, not their parents, and therefore made at a later age. If it's meant to be a sign of the covenant between God and Abraham, then it is only meaningful if the person themselves decides to honour and respect that covenant, and Bar Mitzvah (albeit not explicitly a religious event in its own right but has become one over time) is the most appropriate occasion, given what that ceremony is all about. Otherwise, as is the case now, a mark on a person is not of their choosing and is therefore worthless as a symbol.

But of course it's not done that way. How many 13 year old boys would want to, compared to 8 day old babies who are forced to? The Brit milah (covenant of circumcision) is supposed to signify the unique relationship between a Jewish boy and God. It does nothing of the sort. It signifies the unique relationship between a Jewish boy's parents and God.

[nerdanel]

Oh, wow - I actually disagree that bar mitzvah age would be more appropriate. It would be the worst of both worlds: a conscious boy would be directed to have a painful medical procedure, with all the dread that it lay ahead, and with no real ability to refuse. Even if Reform and Conservative parents gave their children a real choice, I suspect that many Orthodox and Ultra-Orthodox parents wouldn't really leave it up to the child. At best, he would be so indoctrinated that it was expected of him as a boy nearing adult Jewish status that he would perceive only one option.

If it is to be done at all, and it is not done in infancy, it should be left until real adulthood. By "real" - I mean, not an 18-year-old who is still in high school and practically dependent on his parents (what if parents made college tuition, for instance, dependent on undergoing circumcision). It's fairly clear to me that if circumcision is performed on non-infants where not medically necessary, it needs to be left to adults who are of sufficient age and means not to be susceptible to financial or other coercion. Indeed, this is the rabbinic approach for converts: they generally direct you to be through with school (ideally, all higher education, but often at least college - it's considered not ideal to convert while your living circumstances are rapidly changing). Particularly if there is any concern that your source of financial support might change based on conversion, they also ask you to work towards financial independence first.

One of the reasons that I was so attracted to Judaism is the religion's attitude towards converts, which is divorced from proselytization and heavily oriented towards personal choice and responsibility. I think ideally the same would be true of its approach towards born Jews. After all, Abraham himself chose circumcision as an adult, so there's some precedent for that approach. But as I said, I'm a bit reluctant to say that infant circumcision shouldn't be occurring for religious reasons, if male Jews are, by and large, fine with it. And most I've encountered, even the non-religious ones, don't seem to have a huge problem with it.

[Estel]

No one should be able to make what is essentially a permanent cosmetic change to another person's body. The only one who can make that decision is the person who has to live with it.

[JewelSong]

I don't know that you should compare ear piercings to circumcision. If, when she grows up, the girl decides she doesn't want her ears pierced, all she has to do is take the earrings out and the hole will eventually close over.

But you can't re-grow a foreskin, AFAIK.

And "despising" parents who have their little girl's ears pierced due to local or cultural custom is a little harsh, don't you think? I reserve my despisings for folks who have really done something worthy of it.

[vison]

One of the things that angers me more than anything is the use of the word "circumcision" for the mutilation of girls' genitals. As nerdanel points out above, it is NOT the "simple" removal of the clitoris. That would be bad enough, but it is much, much worse. There is no comparison with male circumcision and the term "mutilation" is the correct term.

The drive to control female sexuality has been, and continues to be, a large portion of male-dominated societies, including ours. For many, a woman ought to be the passive incubator of a man's sons. For others, she is an evil temptress who draws men away from god. For yet others her sexuality is "allowable" but she is still often denied the right to control the outcomes of that sexuality.

My late sister worked with a Somali engineer, a woman who had been mutilated as a child and who spent a lot of time and money trying, futilely as it turned out, to correct the wrong done to her. Several fashion models, including Iman, were mutilated as girls and are fighting the practice where they can.

As I said above, if I had it to do over, my sons would not have been circumcised, but that was then, this is now.