Female genital cutting (or female genital mutilation) is sometimes called 'female circumcision', yet this term is problematic. As Toubia explains:
In the communities where FGM takes place, it is referred to as "female circumcision." This term, however, implies a fallacious analogy to nonmutilating male circumcision, in which the foreskin is cut off from the tip of the penis without damaging the organ itself. The degree of cutting in female circumcision is anatomically much more extensive. The male equivalent of clitoridectomy (in which all or part of the clitoris is removed) would be the amputation of most of the penis. The male equivalent of infibulation (which involves not only clitoridectomy but alsdo the removal or closing off of the sensitive tissue around the vagina) would be the removal of all the penis, its root of soft tissue, and part of the scrotal skin.
Toubia N. Female Genital Mutilation. In: Women's Rights, Human Rights: International Feminist Perspectives, eds Peters J, Wolper A. Routledge, 1995. ISBN 0415909953. p226.
Writing from a bioethical perspective, Benatar and Benatar comment:
It is this harm that separates female genital excision from male circumcision. [...] There are other differences, of course, between the removal of male and female preputial tissue. For instance, although there is some evidence about the medical value of male circumcision there is none about a comparable benefit in females.
Benatar M, Benatar D. Between prophylaxis and child abuse: the ethics of neonatal male circumcision. Am J Bioeth. 2003 Spring;3(2):35-48. [full text]
Writing on behalf of the American Academy of Pediatrics 1999 Circumcision Task Force, Lannon stated that:
The critical distinction between female genital mutilation and male circumcision is the potential medical benefits of male circumcision. These potential benefits warrant a parental role in decision making about this procedure.
Lannon CM. Circumcision—The Debates Goes On [author's reply]. Pediatrics 2000; 105 (3): 681-4. [full text]
A similar position is taken by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights. In a 1997 report, the Special Rapporteur on traditional practices affecting the health of women and children wrote:
Certain universities are beginning to take a closer look at the problem. In early January 1997, for example, a lecturer from the Swiss Institute of Comparative Law sent the Special Rapporteur a questionnaire that was to serve as a basis for a book on male and female circumcision. In her reply, the Special Rapporteur made a point of mentioning that the circumcision of male children did not concern the United Nations as only female circumcision was deemed a harmful practice to be eradicated. Consequently, it would seem inappropriate to consider under one head both female circumcision which is harmful to health and male circumcision which has no undesirable effect and it even considered to be beneficial.
United Nations Commission on Human Rights. The implementation of the human rights of women traditional practices affecting the health of women and children: Follow-up report of the Special Rapporteur on traditional practices affecting the health of women and children. 1997. [full text]
And in 2000:
For the sake of transparency, the Special Rapporteur would like to mention the fact that she has received a few letters condemning male circumcision. In order to close once and for all an acrimonious debate, which has led to personal attacks against herself, she would like to recall that her mandate by the Sub-Commission on the Promotion and Protection of Human Rights concerns traditional practices affecting the health of women and the girl child. The same mandate applies with regard to the General Assembly or other United Nations bodies. By restricting herself to female circumcision, the Special Rapporteur is therefore only keeping to her terms of reference. Furthermore, she considers that the harmful effects of male circumcision cannot in any way be compared or equated with the violence, danger and risk faced by girl children and women.
To close this aside, the Special Rapporteur might draw attention to a study published at the beginning of the year by the University of Washington (Seattle), which concludes that the great majority of boys suffer no complications as a result of circumcision. What is more, the Sunday Times (United Kingdom) of 26 March 2000 published a scientific study carried out by specialists of Melbourne University in Australia, according to which male circumcision may be related to a lower risk of HIV transmission from women to men.
United Nations Commission on Human Rights. The implementation of the human rights of women traditional practices affecting the health of women and children: Fourth report on the situation regarding the elimination of traditional practices affecting the health of women and the girl child. 2000. [full text]