Cú Chulainn

All forms of FGM are rightfully illegal though. Even in 2010 when the AAP wanted to legalize a form of FGM known as "genital nicking" people (rightfully) fought against it. So why should MGM be legal?

Why are class A drugs treated differently from Alcohol, Nicotine, and Caffeine? Especially if we look at say the societal cost of Alcohol. Just because things on the face of it appear similar doesn't mean we can effectively conflate them.

Drugs are a completely different subject than removing tissue from an unconsenting human. Apples oranges.

I didn't say they were the same, neither was I conflating them. I didn't say apples were oranges, I was saying that you can conflate different problems together because of simplistic similarity, both are tissue removal, both are drugs. It simply is ineffective.

"both are tissue removal" And when healthy tissue is removed from a non-consenting baby it's a mutilation & a human rights violation.

Again my first entry into this thread begins with my acknowledging there is a case against circumcision. My point is that it is damaging to both arguments to conflate circumcision with FGM. No child can consent to any medical procedure, moot argument.

They're both a mutilation. MGM is homologous to FGM type 1a. Even if FGM is not as common- it's still considered an egregious assault on a girl.

I would disagree, perhaps you could argue the removal of the clitoral hood is roughly analogous, but this really *is* apples & oranges. There are significant practical differences, eg age of the victim in FGM means it is a remembered, worse because trusted adults participate.