Hello new users from around the Stack Exchange Network
We are aware that this question is about a very emotionally laden topic. So we would like to make sure you are aware of the purpose of Politics Stack Exchange.
This website is for objective questions about governments, policies and political processes. It is not a place to advance opinions or debate, but rather for exchanging objective information about the policies, processes, and personalities that comprise the political arena.
Therefore we would ask you to abstain from engaging in opinionated debates in the comment sections of this question and its answers. Please only use comments for the purposes explained in the help article about the commenting privilege.
-Philipp, Moderator of Politics Stack Exchange
In 38 states, female genital mutilation (clitoridectomies on minors for non-medical reasons is type I) is illegal. There was once a female genital mutilation act (18 U.S. Code § 116), but it has been declared unconstitutional (as far as I know).
Circumcising minors is a controversial topic. In the U.S., guardians have found a host of ways to rationalise removing part of their sons’ penises, but it is not difficult to poke holes in these reasons. In fact, circumcision originally became prominent in the U.S. as a way to prevent masturbation (which obviously does not work).
That leads me to my question. Female genital mutilation also is rooted in attempting to limit sexuality—yet, unlike involuntary circumcision, it is illegal in most of the United States. So why is forced circumcision of minors legal? I’m looking for an answer that can reconcile the two.
Comment on accepted answer: I recognise that female genital mutilation is a barbaric practice and a major human rights epidemic. I do not mean to propagate the idea that they are of equal severity. I hope that accepting Ted Wrigley’s answer reflects that and can help spread wisdom about the problem.