You might see a fundamental difference between male circumcision and female circumcision, but the people that cut girls don't. Try debating with them. There are intelligent, educated, articulate women who will passionately defend it, and as well as using the same reasons that are used to defend male circumcision in the US, they will also point to male circumcision itself, as well as labiaplasty and breast operations, as evidence of western hypocrisy regarding female circumcision (they get incandescent if you call it "mutilation"). They will swear that female circumcision is cleaner, healthier, and that it has actually improved their sex life.
Many forms of female circumcision do less damage than the usual form of male circumcision. One just removes the clitoral hood (the female foreskin), so it's the exact equivalent of cutting off a boy's foreskin. In some countries, female circumcision is performed by doctors in operating theatres with pain relief. Conversely, male circumcision is often performed as a tribal practice. When circumstances are similar, so are outcomes, and 22 boys died of circumcision in Eastern Cape Province last year.
Women's genitals are harder to clean than men's but we don't cut parts off baby girls to make cleaning them easier. Babies aren't going to be getting any STI's before they're old enough to decide for themselves whether or not they want part of their genitals cutting off. It's their body; it should be their decision.
These latest studies are from Africa. A 29 year study of males in New Zealand showed a slightly *higher* rate of STI's among circumcised men:
http://www.jpeds.com/article/S0022-3476(07)00707-X/abstract
If we found out that cutting off part of a girl's genitals reduced her risk of contracting an STI, would that make it acceptable?
This study shows exactly that:
http://www.ias-2005.org/planner/Abstracts.aspx?AID=3138
Are you aware that the USA also used to practise female circumcision? Fortunately, it never caught on the same way as male circumcision, but there are middle-aged white US American women walking round today with no external clitoris because it was removed. Some of them don't even realise what has been done to them. There are frequent references to the practice in medical literature up until the late 1950's. Most of them point out the similarity with male circumcision, and suggest that it should be performed for the same reasons. Blue Cross/Blue Shield had a code for clitoridectomy till 1977.
One victim wrote a book about it:
Robinett, Patricia (2006). "The rape of innocence: One woman's story of female genital mutilation in the USA."
If it had caught on, we'd now have armies of researchers running studies looking for medical benefits to cutting off parts off girls' genitals.
If people are serious about stopping female circumcision, they also have to be against male circumcision. Even if you see a fundamental difference, the people that cut girls don't. The sooner boys are protected from genital mutilation in the west, the sooner those peoples that practice fgm will interpret western objections as something more than hypocritical cultural imperialism.
It's worth remembering that we wouldn't even be having this discussion if it weren't for the fact that 19th century doctors thought that :
a) masturbation caused various physical and mental problems (including epilepsy, convulsions, paralysis, tuberculosis etc), and
b) circumcision stopped masturbation.
Both of those sound ridiculous today I know, but if you don't believe me, then check out this link:
A Short History of Circumcision in North America: In the Physicians' Own Words
Over a hundred years later, circumcised men keep looking for new ways to defend the practice.
News just in last week: A jury in Atlanta has awarded $1.8 million to a boy whose penis was severed in a botched circumcision five years ago. The Fulton County jury also awarded the boy's mother another $500,000.
Cutting part of a baby boy's penis off isn't just another decision like what kind of diapers, or whether or not they should watch television. It's cutting part of someone's genitals off. It's illegal to make an incision on a baby girl's genitals, even if no tissue is removed, even if the parents want to do it because of strongly held religious or cultural beliefs, or even if they believe strongly that it's medically beneficial. Why don't boys get the same protection?