I am not trying to say it's comparable in to FGM. I don't know where I said this. I stated multiple times that FGM is much much worse in other comments. I only said that you can use the same argument to condemn both as they are both severe violations of bodily autonomy, and even if the comment that you're replying to I explained that even though they are both horrible they have different severities.
Circumcision is not safe. Like I stated in the comment I linked to (and gave a source for), over 1% of circumcisions result in death in the USA. Even then, it's possible that there have been more because many deaths by circumcision are concealed by saying that an infection or bleeding because of the circumcision was the actual case of death. Even though they wouldn't have died if there was no cutting. Any studies done on circumcision deaths have shown that it is not 100 percent safe. What other thing this dangerous do we subject children to for no reason? Jews and Muslims have been killing children by doing this (heck, the talmud explicitly states this. If three infants of a mother die by circumcision then the 4th is allowed to not be circumcised. It happened so it was written in the talmud, otherwise it wouldn't be necessary. https://www.sefaria.org/Yevamot.64b.9?lang=bi&with=all&lang2=en I don't know if I linked it correctly but just ctrl f circumcision). Many studies that show it has a low complication rate often only focus on specific hospitals/clinics or doctors. But many of infantile circumcisions are carried out by people who wouldn't have the qualifications to do it to an adult with their consent.
What you do by saying every type of circumcision should just be lumped in as horrible with an actually horrible practice is trivialize the horrible practice and make it unlikely to be resolved.
I really don't understand why you think I'm saying this. I only started talking about circumcision because multiple people were defending it. The WHO categorizes FGM into multiple different groups but is still able to say that it is all horrible.
Are you sure what I'm saying goes against what Brown is saying?
“I never condoned slavery. My argument was that, by limiting our notion of slavery to owning someone, we’re blinding ourselves to institutions of exploitation in the past and present in which people are technically not “owned” at all, like incarcerated labor in US prisons. And there have been instances in history where people were technically owned by others but not exploited, like the grand viziers of the Ottoman Empire. Ownership is complicated in any legal system. Exploitation is easy to spot.”
“Slavery cannot just be treated as a moral evil in and of itself because slavery doesn’t mean anything. The moral evil is extreme forms of deprivation of rights and extreme forms of control and extreme forms of exploitation. I don’t think it’s morally evil to own somebody because we own lots of people all around us and were owned by people and this obsession about thinking of slavery as property … it’s just inconceivable sin. I think that’s actually a really odd and unhelpful way to think about slavery. It kind of gets you locked in this way of thinking that if you talk about ownership and people that you’ve already transgressed some moral boundary that you can’t come back from. I don’t think that’s true at all.”
I agree with this. I can say that all these things are forms of infant genital mutilation with varying severities, but that doesn't matter. What these things are categorized as doesn't matter. What matters is the very real relative effects of injury, death, trauma, etc that occur because of these actions.