Ok, You can stand against both practices, but any attempts to compare the two as equivalent practices when they are not takes away from the unique seriousness of female "circumcision/mutilation,” as most cases of FGM involve the partial or complete removal of the genitalia, done at a developmentally vulnerable stage, which makes intercourse extremely difficult and painful, and can be the cause of a number of serious medical complications, including not only haemorrhage but also urinary retention, urinary infection, wound infection, and septicaemia, hepatitis, and tetanus, as well as being "always torture" and taking a year to heal. 

I DON'T condone circumcision, I'm just cautioning against labelling it as morally equivalent to FGM - the INTENT is a fundamental difference between these practices. FGM is "to control the girl’s sexuality, maintaining purity" - oppressive, controlling, subjugation. Circumcision is done mostly "as a religious/cultural ritual", an innately neutral intent.