Circumcision is bad, but it isn't FGM

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). Given you can teach your son to wear condoms and clean under his foreskin, its possible health benefits are irrelevant. If you can't do that, perhaps you aren't ready to have children. But, calling it "male genital mutilation" suggests a false moral equivalence with female genital mutilation. Sometimes, people use this phrase to describe pricking a girl's gentialia, which is less severe than circumsion. But, most of the time, it implies the destruction of a woman's clitoris o 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…