Notice the culturally determined sexual double standard.
It is logically impossible that female circumcision would not have exactly the same effects in reducing the vulnerability of women to HIV infection as circumcision in men.
If the genital mucosa is the trojan horse, then it should be removed equally from both males and females.
Why should it be only men who get the benefit of armour-plated genitals?
It may well be that the lower rates of HIV in regions of Africa where circumcision is common is due to female circumcision,and not male circumcision and that this is what USAID should be promoting.
Western culture finds that idea abhorrent,
however, and would not even investigate the possibility.
Also, if female circumcision transmits AIDS, as western anti-FGM activists insist (and they are probably right),
it follows that male circumcision will do likewise;
no doubt the same instruments are frequently used for both surgeries.]
Another concern is that by promoting circumcision, circumcised men may mistakenly believe they are invulnerable to HIV.
They are not!!
“People who are circumcised still get HIV. It is still better to abstain, be faithful in marriage, or use condoms...