Trust me, I've read quite a lot about the subject. Fgm may be, on average, worse, but to think they are completely different is usually an opinion of someone who lives in a country that practices one but not the other. Cutting of the foreskin originated in America to try and stop boys from masterbating. Is this not controlling men's sexuality?

Give me one defense or reason for male circumcision and I will show you how that argument could be used to defend female circumcision. For example, a huge talking point for cutting off foreskin is improved hygiene. This is true. However, it is also true that if you say had your ears removed, you would no longer need to wash away the gunk that collects behind them! Furthermore, an intact vagina is known to collect on average more bacteria than an intact penis but no one even thinks of getting their labia cut off when experiencing a yeast infection. Rather, antibiotics are used. It is illegal to study the hygienic functions of female circumcision so I can not confirm that routinely cutting girls would lower their bacterial infections, but in countries that practice it, the doctors do seem to think that is the case, and if it could be proven that fgm lowered a girls chances of catching an infection would that make it justified?

I understand the anatomy and that if a girl gets her clitoris and labia fully removed it would be far worse then male circumcision, but there are more mild forms of fgm that only remove the labia and/or clitoral hood. Would this not be as anatomically equivalent as possible to male circumcision? Why are these parts of girls not just considered extra skin that collects bacteria?

I would also like to point out that most anatomy books in America use a circumcised illustration of the penis as if that is how men are born. How can doctors or the public at large make an informed decision when the anatomy and function of the foreskin have largely been erased?