Suspending human rights & Requiring balance in debating

Its funny how only on the subject of infant male circumcision are we required to suspend human rights and and demand BALANCE to both sides of the argument,  In female circumcision, or genital cutting or FGM, no such suspension of human rights or balance ever seems required (in western nations), its rightly denounced with no excuses for it. One word HYPOCRACY!!!!

A ritual nick on the genitals of a female child is seen as a human rights violation (No tissue is lost, sexual function is unaltered), but you can slice off the whole of the male foreskin, a functional male sex organ which is lost forever in male circumcision, and the subject of human rights is to be suspended, and balance is required?  My morals and ethics tells me there's something disgustingly wrong in all this!! Some people call it cultural relativism, that because male circumcision has been common, and it is part of certain religious or tribal practices then it is to be tolerated.  Well if there;s such a thing as human rights, then they are either universal to both male and female, and the right to genital integrity is fundamental to both sexes, or human rights are just meaningless.