Female circumcision is called a type of "mutilation" because 1). it is mutilation of babies that have not been consulted 2). western feminists, sitting on their perfectly unmutilated vaginas were deeply horrified at the thought of this "barbaric practice" (which it is) being done to them.. Because 3). we never see circumcised vaginas in porn, so it's far less socially accepted a barbaric practice and 4). all uncircumcised women would be horrified if it was done to them, knowing what's at stake.

Except, (almost) all of this applies to male circumcision. Uncircumcised men feel just as uncomfortable about the thought of it being done to them, knowing what's at stake, being an equally barbaric practice (for the most common forms), on babies that have not been consulted. The difference - it's a socially acceptable barbaric practice because Americans make a lot of the worlds porn, yet are backward enough to still practice it for no good reason, and it's been much more common and openly discussed in western culture. Being uncircumcised is almost universally the case for women who influence society in the west - unlike men, where a significant number are circumcised.

It makes some sense to circumcise your boy if he's going to be a cowboy/settler in the wild west of the US - washing was far, far less frequent, and they had a lot of religious nut-jobs, pushing all sorts of masturbation suppression bullshit. But still, a foreskin could be a health hazard. In the 21st century, it's called soap and running water. Similar was true for women in Africa. This is like having a hysterectomy to stop the health hazard of not being able to clean up your periods.

Removing only a few skin cells from a baby girls vagina is illegal. Removing a 5 inch (round) by 1 inch (long) fold of the most sensitive skin on the penis - far more than the average, most common form of female circumcision (which is only the clitoral hood and the exact analogous piece from male circumcision, except tiny for females) is not only legal - people think it's socially acceptable, even worse a preference. Attempting to remove a boy's foreskin, but fucking up the operation and killing the baby boy - is, you guessed it legal. And it happens. So is slipping during the operation and chopping his whole dick off. Doesn't matter, as long as he's male, and you can claim "religion". Maybe medical negligence, but still legal, if he's a boy.

Both were and still are justified by sexuality controlling, religious dogma about masturbation - all total bullshit - the reason they existed was to allow people to wash far less frequently than in a modern world yet stay relatively healthy - again still used for men, but (rightly) not even entertained as a valid reason for any type for women. Neither women nor men need this in the 21st century. It's now only fucking barbaric, more so than it's ever been, because soap-and-clean-running-water, which we all have.

Also, yes there are rarer types where a lot more is cut off women than just the tiny clitoral hood, causes incontinence etc. etc. - of course this is worse, but it's a totally moot point because just the most common, clitoral hood cutting specifically is illegal for women - the type that is closest, and less bad than male circumcision - yet illegal.. because they're women, and men are still being born at risk of mutilation (ask any man with a foreskin if he'd consider it mutilation). We can all agree that the (rare) worse types for women are worse, and the worst, but this doesn't change the fact that anything is illegal to be done to girl's vagina - yet you can still chop off parts of men because religious stupidity, and false equivalences on rare types of sexuality controlling female circumcision.. which are illegal anyway.

Most female circumcision is pressured to be performed by circumcised mothers - it's cultural (correlation with America today?). In the UK they've had the ability to prosecute people attempting to circumcise their daughters for decades, but have barely arrested anyone - because the feminists enforcing it only want to hold up examples of men doing it to women, to back up their dogma. Mothers and grandmothers have gone unpunished and girls continued at risk of mutilation because it didn't fit the feminist narrative, and the stats they wanted to show. These were people they could supposedly deal with by giving them a nice little chat, and telling them not to let down women's solidarity. These are the people that pushed the activist term "FGM", and the people that also say "it's not mutilation when parts are sliced off a baby's penis - how dare you compare them". I agree with them on using the term "FGM", but this is where feminism jumps on the bandwagon propelled by the American porn industry (the irony) and joins in keeping Male Genital Mutilation "just circumcision".. (not because circumcised US men in porn mean to do this - they have no choice but to be who they are, but this is the unwitting effect it has). The hypocrisy, of all who join in criticising the use of the term "MGM" for tribal political reasons, while supporting the illegality of "FGM".. is massive.