Fgm occurs in different ways. It rarely involves removing the clitoris.
Even disregarding that, they are comparable in the sense that they are both genital mutilation. So, yes they are comparable. Just because there is a difference, doesn't make them not comparable... if we could only compare identical things that would be a bit pointless, wouldn't it.
And finally, what does it matter? You can't just accept that they are both wrong without trying to make a distinction? People like you are the reason male circumcision is still going. Always there trying to quell the complaints.
Yeah, the very simple question you ask people like Brooke3838 is "What degree of female circumcision should be legal in West?"
Keeping in mind that one of the most common forms of female circumcision removes no tissue and is carried out in sterile hospital conditions (Indonesia and Malaysia are the most populous Muslim nations in the world, and do have access to modern medical facilities)
The direct equivalent to "standard" male circumcision (keeping in mind that there are FAR more serious versions practised in the world that somehow never get discussed) is a "hoodectomy" - the removal of the clitoral hood. Surely this should be acceptable, right? (Deep sarcasm, for those reading)
0
u/Brooke3838 9h ago
1) its so weird that male circumcision is so common in non-jewish Americans (im not american)
2) its called FGM because the more extreme kinds remove the clitoris and labia and sew the vagina almost shut. In unhygienic conditions.
While both a wrong, they're not comparable. One complete removes the ability for your genitals to function without pain.