I do not see much difference between FGC and MGC.
The objections I have seen people raise to cutting girls include
* the pain they experience during and immediately after the procedure
* the risks of surgery (bleeding, death, etc)
* the physical problems they experience later in life, including a reduction in sexual experience
* the form of FGC most people think of is extreme (infibulation) in comparison to what they think of circumcision
* the lack of consent (children can't consent)
* lack of enough medical benefit to warrant non-therapeutic amputation of a body part (i.e. that the body part that is cut off will never get infected or get cancer isn't enough to justify cutting off a body part)
* being able to remember the operation
* the risk of cutting more than intended because the parts are so small
* unsanitary conditions and non-medical professionals doing the procedure
* that the intention of cutting girls is to suppress females
I think that all of the above (except the last one) either apply to boys, too, or are just silly. (Being able to remember it. Really? That's some people's objection? Not the lack of consent?!)
But what about the last one - the intent to suppress the whole group of women by cutting the girls? Do parents really seek out FGC for their daughter in order to suppress them? Don't some (most) do it out of just not knowing any different, they love their child, they think it's best, so they do what they think is best?
Does the intent matter? Does intent make it different from MGC? Do you see differences between MGC and FGC?
Thank you in advance for your answer.