In Malaysia "health & hygiene" most common reasons given for female "circumcision" (type IV nicking) (buff.ly/35nMWLD); I argue if "health benefits" seen 2 justify genital cutting children, pro-female "circumcision" ppl will adopt those arguments: buff.ly/2RX3SBC 
Tendency toward trivialization non-consensual genital cutting in female "circumcision" among its supporters: "it's like ear-piercing, and that's okay, so what's the big deal?" bmjopen.bmj.com/content/9/4/e0…
Female "circumcision" in Malaysia increasingly carried out by doctors, with belief they have better expertise and it will be safer. Again, unless non-consensual genital cutting of children is regarded as *wronging* the child regardless of harm-level, medicalization will continue.
As with male circumcision, a complex mix of reasons offered for why it must be done ... religion, tradition, hygiene ... the reasons change, but the perceived need to cut children's genitals before they can consent or withhold consent continues bmjopen.bmj.com/content/9/4/e0…
Why must it be done on children? The exact same reasons as given for male circumcision: child easier to restrain, skin is thinner (less developed blood vessels), less embarrassment and pain, and quicker would healing. Compare reasons for FGC on left with MGC on right.
Again: if medically unnecessary genital cutting of boys is seen as permissible for any reason (religion, health, culture, tradition, doesn't matter), then female "circumcision" defenders need only parrot Western justifications for their own "harmless" practice.
But not only is the "harmless" claim highly contestable in both cases, the more important point is that, *regardless* of the level of harm caused, it *wrongs* the child to cut its most intimate anatomy before it can consent absent medical necessity tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.10…
