What you're hinting at could very well happen in the future - especially once boys born after the FGM ban start to turn 18 and thus would have standing in court - someone sues the government on the basis of unequal protection. If the case ever goes up to the Supreme Court it will be interesting to see how it turns out. The downside may be, like a poll in this thread of mine suggests, that because (male) circumcision is so enshrined in our culture that Congress would rather lift the FGM ban rather than ban MGM if the courts rule that they must treat the sexes equally in this regard. (Some religious groups might try to claim it's justified under the 1st Amendment, but freedom of religion does not apply once you force it on others.)
ITA! The ethical question is what other body parts can parents consent to the amputation of without immediate therapeutic concern? I have an awful history of ingrown toenails and no doc would take me seriously if I asked to have DDs toe removed with no imminent need. Where exactly does proxy consent start and end Ryan? Are there any body parts that you would remove from a child because the parents want it?
I'm waiting for the challenges to start against the FGM bill and equal protection. It is just a few more short years before the first boys whos rights were violated under this law reach the age of consent and can start a constitutional challenge. I'm not sure the FGM laws are in any danger of being overturned. Less than 2 years ago, the trade organization that represents the financial interests of American pediatricians tried to sneak in an exemption to allow their constituents to mutilate girls genitals in a clinical setting and the uproar was ASTONISHING! The request very quietly went away.