They both impact the anatomy but not nearly to the same degree. One has minor benefits the other doesn't hence why one is illegal and one is not.
If we shouldn't be arguing over which is worse then why did your entire involvement in this thread start with you claiming male circumcision IS WORSE.
Being able to reach orgasm is the main quantifiable difference between the cut and uncut and is the only thing that can be used to claim that circumcision is sexually inhibiting. So of course that makes it less harmful than FGM.
Men circumcised as adults frequently report the same things that men who restore do because it's mainly psychological. If you're unhappy with your status and you change it because you believe it will be better then of course you're going to report that it's better after the change.
If it were universally better for u circumcised guys then the ones cut as adults who experienced it both ways wouldn't say there's little to no difference or even report that it's better after.
Men who were RIC say they're fine because orgasm are amazing. Many men cut as adults say their orgasm are BETTER.
Obviously it's a different experience but that doesn't make one worse than the other. Conflating ejaculation and orgasm is a mistake men can orgasm without ejaculating and vice versa. Conflating orgasm and being able to get pregnant is an even dumber thing to conflate.
Compare orgasm to orgasm. And you'll find fgm much more harmful.
They're not both severely damaging though, as all the evidence shows.
Youf first claim was the fgm was less harmful so don't change your tune now. You made false claims that the majority of fgm cases are less harmful than circumcision which is flat out false and now you're saying "oh well some are" so my point stands.
The vast majority of circumcised men experience zero loss of sexual function and the vast majority of fgm victims experience major damage.
Also MGM is not a thing.
Seriously now you're going to go into comparing uncut to extremely rare botched circumcision that result in disfigurement and death.
Infant trauma is bullshit give me a break.
Both damage the anatomy, one far more than the other, one is done to co trol girls the other is done for minor health benefits and social benefits and while I don't think people should RIC there kids and I wouldn't do it, but there's not enough evidence that it does any significant level of harm that makes banning it outright justifiable.