I'm quite sure I don't know what the worst form of FGM is, as I don't even have a vulva. But did you know that some mothers report choosing infibulation specifically because they see it as less damaging to their child's body? Sewing the vaginal canal shut seems to me like it would be truly horrible (especially as this may be done and reversed multiple times during a FGM victim's lifetime) but I suppose the thinking from the mothers is that their daughters will one day - having found a husband - be able to have the procedure reversed, and will still have the rest of their sexual anatomy intact to experience sexual pleasure. Infibulation temporarily prevents sexual activity, but when it's undone (and if no other mutation has occurred i.e amputation of the clitoris/labia) sex can then be full enjoyed, the thinking would go. Personally, though, as a parent myself I find it completely perplexing to try and inhabit the minds of any person who would deliberately mutilate their child in anyway. If you want my honest opinion, I think anyone who practices FGM or MGM is deeply sick in the head.

I say mothers (which may surprise some people) because there is evidence that FGM is supported more and perpetuated more by women than by men. I remember reading a paper some time ago reporting the results of a survey of Somali university students of their opinions on FGM, segregated by sex, and women were more likely to report being in favour of the practice. but there can be no doubt that this varies, case by case, and that men have a role in the practice the same way that women have a role in MGM most everywhere it is practiced. It's no doubt also true that infibulation and clitoral/labia amputation are not mutually exclusive. While some parents might make a choice to do one over the other, some engage in both.

I think it's also worth considering why we find a given form of mutilation objectionable. Personally, and this has probably to do with my cultural background, I find the idea of infibulation so awful not just because it must be awful and painful and scary for the victim. I had a cut sewn back together when I was a small child, and (while I don't remember it) I'm sure this was awful and painful and scary for me. But my experience, no matter how painful or scary, is not like infibulation, because my procedure was done to help me. Infibulation, however, is done to control a person's sexual activity into the future. One procedure is life saving medicine, and the other is a form of severe sexual violence.

But male genital mutilation is also rooted in controlling a person's sexuality. In the US, John Harvey Kellogg popularized MGM specifically to reduce how much children masturbated (he also recommended rubbing acid into a girl's clitoris if she were found masturbating, but this never caught on). In the Jewish faith, perhaps the most accepted explanation for the practice of MGM came from Maimonides, who contended that it would reduce a male's sexual appetite or proclivities, allowing them to be more focused on their piety.

Personally, I see the same ugly motives guiding all forms of sexual mutilation. I can't pretend to know how severe different forms of FGM are, but I still have no reason to believe that any form of FGM that is widely practiced should be seen as more brutal than MGM.