A reader writes:
You wrote that male circumcision "is not as drastic or as hideous as female genital mutilation, where sexual feeling is removed, rather than merely blunted by scar tissue." But there are more than one type of female circumcision (FC), just as there are more than one type of male circumcision (MC). That is why, for example, the American Academy of Pediatrics' stance on FC [pdf] is that it "opposes all types of female genital cutting that pose risks of physical or psychological harm" (the linked-to AAP paper discusses four types of FC). To be sure, some of the FC procedures are significantly more drastic than some of the MC procedures, but the reverse is also true.
For example, some people who wish to adhere to religious tradition while inflicting minimal harm to a female infant conduct a procedure where the labia is pricked and a single drop of blood is drawn. That practice is prohibited under current federal law, which prohibits all forms of female circumcision, while it is perfectly legal to entirely remove an infant boy's foreskin. Similarly, many Jews are now conducting Bris Shalom ceremonies that do not involve circumcising the infant boy at all, or sometimes involve a procedure like the female genital "pricking," where the foreskin is nicked with a knife but not removed.
The false belief that there is one type of FC and one type of MC pervades the circumcision debate. Can you please help put it to rest?
The Dish 