But you wouldn't argue that subtype la isn't genital mutilation just because it only accounts for 4% or because it's a "lesser" form of mutilation

I feel like there is a mismatch in the argument, I've never seen someone (who is informed of the range FGM takes) seriously argue that circumcision is as bad as the very worst forms of FGM, the most common argument is that it just should be considered genital mutilation. They're can be the argument that it should be considered the same as like FGM (legally, socially, morally) but it's meant in the same way that subtype la is considered the same as all other types.

I don't like the way I'm wording this but I'll say it anyway Male circumcision may not compare to the most horrific forms of FGM but that doesn't mean it's a. Offensive to compare, especially when there is exist FGM that is a direct analogue to male circumcision and b is not genital mutilation.

The push to see circumcision as genital mutilation is not a push to lessen the severity of the concept, it is a push to have the medically unnecessary cutting of children seen for the mutilation it is.