Obviously, I don't really believe that should ever happen, because it's wrong, evil, and barbaric (just like its male equivalent).

However, I can't think of a better way to get people to see how wrong male circumcision is than by satirically pretending to advocate for its direct equivalent for female babies and girls, or at least asking people who still defend male circumcision if they are in favor of clitoral hood cutting and want it legalized. When they say no, we can say, "See, you already know that male circumcision is wrong."

So many feminists try to derail comparisons of MGM with FGM by equating all FGM with only its most extreme types. With this tactic, with its shock value and all, they can't do that, since clitoral hood cutting and male circumcision are directly comparable by even the most conservative standards.

Being reasonable and trying to explain logically how we don't accept the equivalent of male circumcision for girls seems to be too easy to ignore. I feel like if we can scare some circumcision apologists into thinking that we want to extend it to girls too, and then let them feel the relief of knowing that, "No, we don't want that. We just want little boys to have equal protection of their genital integrity," the effect would be much more dramatic and harder to ignore.