In the interest of fighting ignorance, I will point out that medical experts are by no means unanimous in their condemnation of circumcision when practiced on males. If anything, the opposite: the Center for Disease Control in the US, the World Health Organization, the American Academy of Pediatrics, and the UN’s focus group on HIV all recommend that “male circumcision efforts be scaled up” or at the very least be available to families and men that want it. That’s for health reasons backed by research:
“Male circumcision reduces the risk for HIV and some STDs in heterosexual men. Three randomized, controlled trials performed in regions of sub-Saharan Africa where generalized HIV epidemics involving predominantly heterosexual transmission were occurring demonstrated that male circumcision reduced the risk for HIV acquisition among men by 50%–60% (51–53). In these trials, circumcision was also protective against other STDs, including high-risk genital HPV infection and genital herpes (54-56). Follow up studies have demonstrated sustained benefit of circumcision for HIV prevention (57) and that the effect is not mediated solely through a reduction in herpes simplex virus type 2 (HSV-2) infection or genital ulcer disease.”
I am not aware of any corresponding medical/scientific research that suggests any health benefits for female circumcision.
I know male circumcision is a complicated question and a controversial topic for reasons that go beyond questions of health, and a lot of people don’t want to buy into any research that suggests removal of the foreskin is anything but evil. But, well, the research is there, and a lot of very well-informed people do accept it, and until and unless there is scientific evidence of value to female circumcision the two are really not comparable.