It's a valid medical reason for the operation. Not to mention the above mentioned.
Not only do your facts not hold up to a brief Google, but the reputation of the people suggesting this could have made you think twice.
Twice about the possible motivations. And that could have given you again doubts.
And calling it mutilation implies those who have and want to have this engage in mutilation akin to FGM. It's irresponsible.
It is akin to FGM when it's done nonconsensually (which it is, in the vast majority of cases for both sexes). Disclaimer: I understand that FGM is much more sexually debilitating and AFAIK never has a medical need behind it, but victims of circumcision are also being (usually needlessly) deprived of a functional part of their sexual organ.
FGM is evil, plain and simple. MGM/circumcision has interesting points on both sides, and while there might be a stronger argument against it than for, it's not strong enough to be a hill I'd choose to die on. But to each their own, I suppose.
I was referring to Types I-III as described here:
http://www.endfgm.eu/female-genital-mutilation/what-is-fgm/
Those are very clearly wrong, with no redeeming value and cause a great deal of harm to the woman, beyond any subjectivity. Nobody is signing up to have this done to them for aesthetic reasons. Compared to this, circumcision is only low-moderately invasive and damaging. If you are going to argue against circumcision, do so on its own merits, not by comparing it to something far worse.