For those that didn’t read the article...
He is talking about the Nevada legislature voting on the Equal Rights Amendment. Remember that blast from the past some 30 odd years ago?
It basically said that you could not treat two people differently based on their sex. While it sounds good, sort of, it would likely lead to all sort of unintended consequences like women being drafted, no clubs or sports separated by gender, etc.
This author makes a similar leap. Currently in Nevada female genital mutilation is illegal. Since the ERA would take the “sex” out of the law, it would mean that all genital mutilation is illegal, or conversely, all genital mutilation is legal.
He points out that circumcision is basically male genital mutilation and if we allowed it, we would have to allow female genital mutilation.
The whole thing is moot. The ERA cannot become law - the time limit for ratification has passed - so this is an entirely symbolic vote. Since no Democrat would ever want to be accused of NOT voting for equal rights, Dems are lining up to support it.
It does nothing, it means nothing, it is a total waste of time.
The difference between circumcision and FGM is that male gets some loose skin removed, while FGM is the removal of far more than just the clitoral hood. It’s the full removal of the clitoris itself.
To compare the two on more equal terms would require the discussion of amputating the glans of penises and nobody’s calling for that to happen.
We can’t allow the left to make a knowingly inaccurate comparison.