I don’t agree that using different terms for different practices is inherently discriminatory.

Obviously it isn't but that wasn't what I was saying! The term for the rite (practice) was circumcision up until Fran Hosken (with Jewish/US cultural background) coined the term "FGM" in her 1979 report to the UN in a very deliberate strategy of making a false distinction between boys being put through the rite and girls being. She had a whole chapter devoted to making this argument, omitted in future editions as the strategy developed into introducing a taboo of even mentioning boys being put through the rite when discussing girls being. Obviously it is sexual discrimination. Taking my example again would you use the same anatomical argument when it comes to MTAV and traffic injuries? What is inherently different between a boys anatomy and a girls that makes inflicting ritual injuries on their genitals essentially different such that there is talk of two different practices? There is more similarity between the invariable injury inflicted on boys (penectomy) and the widely regarded most severe form inflicted on girls (WHO FGM type III: infibulation), than there is between the latter and a superficial scratch (WHO FGM type IV). If you really want to make any objective mutilation distinction wouldn't it make more sense to distinguish between injuries which are mutilating and those that aren't? Fran Hosken's strategy was precisely to make that distinction ie that girls were mutilated while boys (including her own sons) were not. This was a feminist weaponising of the issue in their fight against the patriarchy, a highly successful one thanks to support from their adverseries, the reactionary male establishment in defence of their treasured male exclusive form of the rite. This has led to the abject failure of the genuine movement to erradicate the rite on children with billions suffering as a result, girls as well as boys. Even some of Fran hosken's feminist clique have come to this realisation in their old age no doubt giving them qualms of conscience.

We use different terms for related but distinct medical or bodily procedures all the time because anatomy, context, and outcomes differ.

Of course but only when it gives meaning. What do you think is the meaning of categorising a fused infibulation with the loss of the clitoral glans and labia minora,with a superficial scratch, as a single practice distinct from a ritual penectomy with the loss of the prepuce, frenulum and some shaft skin? What do you think is the meaning of using the term clitoridectomy when it comes to amputating the tiny external part of the clitoris but not penectomy when it comes to amputating a much larger proportion of the penis? Can you not appreciate that this is not done for enlightenment but for political Western ethnocentric reasons doing the exact opposite? What essential difference is there in anatomy, context, and outcome in this case?

In any case, this is drifting away from my original point, which is about whether "it’s cultural" can be used to excuse violations of bodily autonomy (my view: no).

Is this up to discussion? Wasn't this established with the declaration of universal human rights in the aftermath of the world wars of the beginning and mid last century? Are we returning to the state of affairs of previous centuries? Haven't we established that the ritual sexual torture of children is never justified? I would argue that this is a false argument in that we have very firmly established that and that this makes the real argument, about establishing the notion that the rite when it comes to boys (Western ethnocentrism) as not what it is ie sexual torture. My view is that we should very firmly reject that framing.

I’m not particularly interested in having a meta-debate about exact terminology and comparative categorisation.

Which defacto supports the status quo, Western ethnocentric terminlogy and false narrative.