Why do those that carry out MGM in NSW have immunity from prosecution. Oh that doesn't concern you? Hypocrite.

Steel,

There is no corresponding offence of male genital mutilation, so the issue of immunity from prosecution does not arise.

Sylvia.

Exactly. There is no offence for it. It is interesting how the same people who 'care' about FGM are silent on MGM, indicating hypocrisy. There shouldn't be any gender prefix. It should simply be "Genital Mutilation".

Steel,

Banjo has identified a specific issue related to the fact that there is a law against female genital mutilation which people seem able to ignore with impunity. The issue he or she raised focuses on the impunity, not on the law itself. Since there is no law against male genital mutilation, it is not possible for Banjo to raise concerns about violations of it.

Maybe there should be a law about male genital mutilation, and maybe Banjo has views about that. I don't doubt that Banjo has views about many things. The mere fact that he or she has not chosen to express those views in this thread tells you nothing. You certainly cannot infer an indifference about it, so your accusation of hypocrisy is not based on anything resembling evidence.

Sylvia.

Banjo's choice between an existing law and a non-existent law is enough. The pattern of sexism that has formed in debate and policy due to that choice is as plain as the legal incongruity itself.

There is no incongruity either in law or in practice.
The male equivalent would be removal of seven eights of the penis whilst leaving the ability to produce and eject sperm.
FGM ruins a woman's enjoyment of her sex life or at the very least seriously diminishes it.
Circumcision possibly enhances the males enjoyment and in certain cases is medically necessary.