yeah. that sounds about right.

I think that’s missing the point of what people are generally comparing. I’m no expert on the community, but the way I’ve generally heard the argument go is that the ethical implications are very similar. Both are involuntary procedures that are normally performed on babies-toddlers. Both procedures cause irreparable bodily alterations that CAN have serious side effects, up to and including chronic pain and discomfort, infection, reduced sexual satisfaction and libido, and all manner of bad stuff. (Maybe here is where you think it’s not comparable because of severity of symptoms? I think that’s missing the point still, so I’ll move on.) Both procedures generally have no medical use or benefit, and are associated with cultural or religious norms towards the human body and sexuality.

Given how many similarities there are, it seems perfectly rational to compare the two, and appropriate to condemn both on the grounds that we aren’t respecting the bodily autonomy of children and are causing permanent physical harm. Pointing out problematic parts of a community is one thing, but to suddenly imply the entire discussion of moral equivalence is illegitimate belittles the experience of those who have, arguably, suffered a great harm. It only serves to silence voices trying to raise awareness on an issue that you yourself acknowledge is bad.