Changes

In ironic terms, Von Kellenbach assumes that the [[genital autonomy]] movement "''aims to outman the political battle against FGM''" and seems to mock the movement by saying that "''suddenly, men must be rescued from marginalization and traumatization''". In this she ignores that the [[genital autonomy]] movement aims to protect all children, not adult men (or women for the matter). The [[genital autonomy]] movement also aims to protect [[intersex ]] children, often the victims of horrific medical experiments. In fact, in the [[United States]], the [[genital autonomy]] movement represented in [[Intact America]], was [http://www.intactamerica.org/aap_fgm one of the first organizations to oppose] the [http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/07/health/policy/07cuts.html?_r=0 Policy Statement on Ritual Genital Cutting of Female Minors] of the [[American Academy of Pediatrics ]] in 2010, one statement that tried to argue for allowing American pediatricians to perform a ritual nick on the genitals of female minors to appease parents from regions where female genital mutilation is practiced.

Von Kellenbach commits a logical fallacy frequently repeated by critics of the [[genital autonomy]] movement, in misrepresenting that male [[circumcision ]] is considered by intactivists to be '''biologically''' equivalent to female genital mutilation. The [[intactivist ]] argument is explained to be on an '''ethical''' level: non-medically indicated procedures that remove part of the external genitalia of a minor who has no need for the procedure, did not consent to it and cannot remove himself or herself from the situation, performed mostly to appease the cultural or religious traditions of the parents, in spite of real existent risks and harms.