I think you need to read the posts in more detail. Did you read the original article?
I made it clear in the thread that I found the practice abhorrent. If you read the article it discusses the possibility of a "ritual nick" being performed in Australia. The SMH states "The US paediatrics body released a new policy last month, and retracted it this week, which raised the idea of doctors being able to prick or nick a girl's clitoral skin in order to satisfy cultural requirements in some Muslim communities." So it is a prick or small cut of skin around the clitoris. This compares to the entire removal of the foreskin, an area containing a massive amount of nerve endings, in males. My comment was that the former seems less barbaric than the latter. Do you disagree? Maybe you do disagree, but I do not see where I was supporting the practice.
My second comment was that Western women choose to get their genitals altered. This was in the context of whether it was appropriate for an adult female to undergo female circumcision by choice. It was a debate about adult choices not the forced circumcision of children who can not consent.
As I say, I think you need to read the entire thread in context.
