ANormalOne, I have done post-graduate feminist research on FGM, dear. Granted, it was about 10 years ago, and at the time, we did not look closely at things like symbolic pinpricks, because there was some question as to whether it even happened or not, and Level 3 FGM included cauterisation and so on at the time.
However, one thing that is the same as it was back then at that is that male genital mutilation, MGM, is not an offically recognised term. It is a term hijacked from FGM by activists with their own agenda. FGM is called that because it is a literal medical description of what happens.
The majority experience of FGM is far, far worse than anything done in male circumcision. Most FGM is level 1-2, and the only comparable experience of male circumcision would be that terrible case of the little boy whose experimental laser circumcision went so wrong that they cackhandedly advised his parents to bring him up as a girl. The damage, the level of mutilation done to him was appalling, but it was a single case (albeit that we know of, academically) - comparable damage is done to hundreds, if not thousands of girls old enough to remember the experience, every single day.
I actually used the example of removal of penis head and testicles to point out exactly what you are not grasping - that it is disgraceful and ridiculous to try to nitpick. That it is absurd to try to make comparisons. And I am now, in my responses to you, making deliberately nitpicking and even silly extremes to prove theoretically that removing the testicles and penis-head doesn't really affect a man 'that much', because focusing on pinpricks (which has always been used as an example of what people could be doing, or which they could be urged to do symbolically instead of the full FGM shebang, there's no proof it's what is actually sometimes done) and orgasms in FGM victims is incredibly nitpicking and minimising of you. Especially as the study you used included victims who have had procedures done to reverse some of the FGM.
Male circumcision is just not as bad as FGM. You cannot persuade me, or others that it is, because, um, er, that would be because it is not as bad. Not as bad physically, or culturally, or ACTUALLY. These pinpricks that you want to focus on more than the other,majority forms of FGM aren't even proven to be something that's done, they're just an example given as to what could be categorised as FGM, as I said above.
Male circumcision is bad. I don't agree with it, unless there are proper medical reasons. Incidentally, Phimosis at birth is a problem that runs in my family, and I have several male relatives who had to be circumcised due to that. But I don't agree with it for non-necessary reasons. I'm glad people are. Campaigning against it for all other reasons. HOWEVER, linking it with FGM is wrong. The reasons why FGM is done, the effects, the extremity of what is done to the majority of victims, are very different from the reasons and effects ofmale circumcision, and especially in the case of the extremity.
By linking the two, people campaigning against male circumcision who insist that it and FGM are basically the same, basically as bad as each other, make themselves look ignorant, insensitive and misogynist, as well as being medically incorrect.
The campaign against male circumcision does not have to hijack FGM in order to be legitimate and important. Just because it is not as extreme or painful, and culturally problematic as FGM, doesn't mean that it shouldn't be complained about. But it actually shoots itself in the foot by insisting that the two are identically problematic.