I recognize that the mutilation of young girls is a grave evil, and it is certainly not my intention to denigrate the people who fight against this abominable practice. However, just as we see this evil for what it is, we need to recognize male genital mutilation for the mutilation that it is.
Just to respond to the other diarist, who proclaimed that any form of opposition to male genital mutilation would be regarded as "equating" the two. First off, his thread is about "nicking", which the diarist rightly opposed because it lends legitimacy to a despicable belief system, and because a young girl's body is sacrosanct (I oppose the same being done to boys for the same reasons, among others), not about full-scale mutilation. It is not clear to me that "nicking", whatever it may be, is not equatable to male genital mutilation, even if full-scale female genital mutilation is not.
Secondly, this is very much the same as who allege that pointing out the similarities between homophobia and racism is somehow "equating" the two and therefore, in their view, unacceptable. A rational person will recognize that there are indeed many similarities between the two, even as there are some differences. Similarly, a rational person will recognize that there are many similarities between male genital mutilation and the female variant, the most important ones being:
(1) The denial of personal autonomy. People are fond of saying that people should be in control of their own bodies. Some of them are hypocrites, because they do not support a woman's right to choose what to do with their own bodies. What is also striking, however, is that many people are perfectly willing to support a parent's "right" to have performed such highly invasive, painful and damaging mutilation. The idea that people should have no say in what is done to their bodies is abhorrent.
(2) Both damage the sexual function, female genital mutilation by completely eliminating sexual pleasure for the woman, male genital mutilation by "merely" damaging it (which Maimonides admitted and indeed praised it for the effect it had in reducing sexual activity by "making the organ bleed and weakening it"). Supposedly, this means that the two cannot be compared at all. However, the difference is one of degree, and not of basic principle.
(3) Both are justified by appeal to religion and "health" reasons.
Take a look at this case:
http://www.cbsnews.com/...
Some idiot parents decided that it was a brilliant idea to put tattoos on young children.
Georgia law rightly prohibits putting tattoos on children, even though:
(1) Tattoos are merely aesthetic and do not damage the body
(2) They can be removed, a way out that mutilated children don't have.
Why? Even if less invasive and damaging than genital mutilation, the state legislature thought it proper to prevent parents such as these from putting tattoos on their children. After all, people should decide for themselves, when they are old enough. The same thing would apply to cutting off a boy's earlobe, even though it serves no function (that I know of) - it would be a clear case of mutilation. A fortiori, if a parent is not allowed to put a small tattoo on a child's hand, then genital mutilation should certainly not be allowed.
Moreover, apologists for male genital mutilation should realize that their agitation undermines the case against female genital mutilation. As long as you hold that it is legitimate to put a knife to a boy's penis, how could you hold that a woman's clitoris is sacrosanct? It is a logical contradiction. It is rather difficult to argue against putting a knife to a defenseless girl's clitoris if you yourself are all to eager to do the same thing to a defenseless boy's penis. It would be logical and consistent to hold that the genitalia of both boys and girls are sacrosanct and should not be assaulted with sharp objects (even if it's "merely" nicking).
The only reason for such hypocrisy is that one form of mutilation is acceptable in our culture, while the other one is not. Logic, reason and morality hold that both girls and boys should have corporal autonomy, and decide for themselves what to do with their bodies, instead of having their bodies damaged by those who are supposed to protect them.
Let me stress that I do not intend to insult people. I recognize that these practices is generally carried out with good intentions. It is the mindset and ignorance that leads to such practices that is evil. Moreover, I am neither an anti-Semite nor anti-Muslim. Most instances are not carried out by Jews, and opposing male genital mutilation does not make one anti-Semitic or anti-Muslim, any more than one is anti-Hindu, or would be anti-Hindu in the 17th century, if one opposes or opposed sati.
Keep sharp objects away from the bodies of healthy children, mmmkaay?