How does FGM & Routine Infant Circumcision compare?

The World Health Organisation definition of FGM is found below with my additions in bold contrasting Routine Infant Male Circumcision.  Note: Degree of severity and comparing the 2 is not discussed in any detail here, but rather the general principles.  For the Record = Some forms of FGM are more severe than infant circumcision, and infant circumcision is more severe than the least invasive forms of FGM.

Female genital mutilation (FGM) comprises all procedures that involve partial or total removal of the external female genitalia, or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons. Routine Male Infant circumcision comprises the total removal of the male foreskin which has 20,000 pleasure nerves, for non-medical reasons as the foreskin is a normal part of the male sexual anatomy and at birth there is no therapeutic need for its removal.
The practice is mostly carried out by traditional circumcisers, who often play other central roles in communities, such as attending childbirths. Increasingly, however, FGM is being performed by health care providers. In religious routine male infant circumcisions traditional circumcisers such as mohel's carry out the procedure however in countries like the USA health care providers predominantly perform it.
FGM is recognized internationally as a violation of the human rights of girls and women. Increasingly infant male circumcision is being seen as a violation of the human rights of boys and men.  It reflects deep-rooted inequality between the sexes, and constitutes an extreme form of discrimination against women. It is nearly always carried out on minors and is a violation of the rights of children. Routine infant circumcision is always carried out on minors and is a violation of the rights of children. The practice also violates a person's rights to health, security and physical integrity, the right to be free from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, and the right to life when the procedure results in death. The practice also violates a a male persons rights to health, security and physical integrity, the right to be free from torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, and the right to life when the procedure results in death.  Male infant circumcision has many complications with it, and including penile amputation, and the recorded deaths of many male infants and children.

 

Why some people/cultures value circumcision above human life

In trying to understand this we need to look at human evolution, anthropology and the basic human need to affiliate and survive.  Early in human history humans realised that their chances for survival were enhanced if they grouped together with other humans in tribes.  Belonging to a tribe, meant a greater chance for survival.  Therefore whatever rituals Tribes evolved to mark belonging to that tribe, took on a meaning of survival.  In a very primitive unconscious way tribal rituals became imbedded in the human psyche to denote survival.  Taboos, Shaming tactics, ostracization all became tools in ensuring individuals conformed to the tribe.  This is very deeply embedded within the human psyche, and anything that threatens the tribe or its practices, can provoke an alarm response, signalling that a threat to survival exists.

So when we hear of an infant or child dying from the complications of a circumcision, instead of a total human outcry to ban the practice and stopping a preventable death, we see many who practice circumcision, defending the practice of circumcision, & many of us shake our heads in despair.  Unfortunately, It is deeply imbedded within the human psyche to defend primitive tribal practices such as circumcision, and even though it is unnecessary and doesnt belong in the 21st century, people will value the practice above a human life.  Falsely the human psyche of those in circumcision cultures, responds to threats to end circumcision as if their very own survival is threatened if the ritual is threatened.