It would be like castrating the entire penis and testicles.

More like removing the glans and foreskin, but that doesn't make it much better. There are definitely varying degrees of awfulness, but it's all bad.

While there are some truly evil and horrific practices like removing the clitoris or sewing the vulva shut, some female genital mutation is "just" removing the clitoral hood, which is directly analagous to the foreskin.

Most people can agree that this practice is deeply wrong, and that it is still genital mutilation. And so I think categorizing male genital mutilation separately as "circumcision" is downplaying it.

I'll just say it's very clear you've never seen what a botched circumcision does to a penis. You also don't seem to know the biology of the male genitals very well either if you think it's "just skin".

Why don't we instead focus on "bodily autonomy"? No one should have unnecessary medical procedures done against their will and without their consent. It's a pretty simple rule that applies to everyone and covers most of these issues simply.

It would be like castrating the entire penis and testicles.

That is very much not accurate. Genital mutilation (of both genders) generally focuses on removing the ability to obtain pleasure from sex while maintaining reproductive capability.

Circumcision is roughly analogous to clitoral hood amputation (one type of FGM). The foreskin also contains a substantial number of sensory nerves (Meissnar's corpuscles, and ~10k-20k nerve endings specialized for pleasure). Additionally, the glans (head) is subjected to the external environment in a manner which it was not adapted for, resulting in formation of thickened, layer of skin to protect it. These two things, taken together, result in greatly reduced sensory and pleasure capabilities in the penis. The reason for its commonality in the US is the historical puritanical belief that sexuality is wrong and desire to repress sexuality in little boys.

FGM is wrong. So is male genital mutilation. Inflicting either on those who can not consent is a crime against humanity that should not be accepted as commonplace.

I'm fine with adults mutilating their foreskin, but I want the decision left up to the individual. Having the parents do it when they are a baby leaves the individual with no choice

I’m curious: the person you replied to didn’t say they were comparable, so why did you feel the need bring it up?

In my experience, people who point that out when no one has made the comparison are usually insecure about an issue that affects men getting attention and potentially eclipsing the issue affecting women. Like people who point out that female victims of domestic violence die more often from their assaults during discussions about male victims of domestic violence.

You sure you wanna be that person? Try harder not to be, please.

FGM removes the both the clitoris and labia

There is an entire horrifying spectrum of FGM, not just what you posted.