Whenever FGM is being described by anti-FGM activists or mainstream media to emphasize how terrifying it is, what is regularly pointed out is not only the fact that female genitals are being mutilated, but that this is done in unhygienic conditions, with rusty razors, bottles, without anesthesia, in the bush, with the child being held down by older relatives, and so on.

But, we all know that, in countries where FGM is performed this way, male circumcision (I'll be using the term MGM to save time and space) is done the same way, with razors, bottles, lack of anesthesia, in the bush.... No difference in this regard.

But, these accompanying features of MGM are not sufficient for it to be banned. Hardly any anti-FGM activist or mainstream media journalist opposes MGM. The reason given is that MGM is not as damaging as FGM, because it only cuts the skin (foreskin) whereas FGM cuts off an organ (clitoris). Note: This is not even true, but let's leave this aside for a moment.

But, then why are they even talking about rusty razors and so on as if they are something so bad that merits immediate action, when all of these are also present in MGM and merit no action whatsoever.

Either rusty razors are bad enough to get banned, or they are not.

  1. If they are, then both MGM and FGM should be banned when done with rusty razors.

  2. If they are not, then they are not. But, then, why are they even mentioning rusty razors when talking about FGM. They should just say: "FGM is bad because an organ is cut. MGM is good because only the skin is cut", and forget about all other extras which are compeltely identical in both procedures.