[AlaskaErik]

A spokesman for the Syedna, the Bohras' religious head in Mumbai, India, could not be reached for comment. The two men vying to succeed the Syedna, his half brother and the son of a former Syedna, have different views on female circumcision. The half brother says it is time to end the practice of female circumcision. The former Syedna's son, whom most Bohras accept as their new leader, says the tradition must continue and notes that Bohra men are also circumcised.

Why isn't circumcision considered a form of male genital mutilation?

[KC_for_Freedom]

When performed on the male, it does not eliminate sexual enjoyment later in life. This singular difference is what makes the two procedures not subject to relative discussion.

It is true that both procedures are done at a time before puberty and both procedures have religious and cultural justification, but that is where the comparison should end.

[Svartalfiar]

Why isn't circumcision considered a form of male genital mutilation?

Because it's not a mutilation, it's simply removing extra skin that can make diseases more easily contracted later in life. Here's a better way to think of it:

Male circumcision would be similar to cutting off part of the hood covering the clitoris, not digging the clitoris out.

Female 'circumcision' is similar to cutting off the entire head of the penis, maybe half the shaft, instead of just removing the foreskin.