Don't call Circumcision "Male Genital Mutilation"

For some reason, I've recently heard a lot of people refer to circumcision as "male genital mutilation." Objectively, this is simply correct. Circumcision destroys a healthy body part. It is a form of bodily mutilation, and it occurs on one's genitals. When done on small children, it is gravely immoral (if you're an adult, knock yourself out). But, calling it "male genital mutilation" suggests a false moral equivalence with female genital mutilation, which is far worse. It's unclear if circumcised men enjoy sex less than uncircumcised men. But everyone who has empirically investigated this seems to have an ideological ax to grind (unless I've missed something).1 And it's manifestly obvious that circumcised men enjoy sex, plenty of Jewish and Muslim men still seem to have fulfilling sex lives. But victims of female genital mutilation have intense chronic pain, and their ability to enjoy sex is severely hampered. Both violate the bodily integrity of children, and both ought to be…