` :::::So, there seem to be four parts to your argument: :::::*You believe that the term ``female circumcision`` is ``extremely unpleasant`` to those who hold a certain point of view, and therefore we should use it (it's not clear whether this is to spite those who hold a particular point of view, or in a form of resistance against a particular point of view). :::::*You believe that the term ``female genital cutting`` is ``an agreeable or inoffensive expression`` (and therefore violates WP:NPOV in some unexplored but counter-intuitive way). :::::*You disagree with the reliable sources who argue against use of the term ``female circumcision``, and consider at least one of these arguments to be ``ridiculous``. :::::*You believe that there are ulterior motives for the opposition to the term ``female circumcision``, and therefore believe that those expressing this view should be ignored at the least. :::::As far as I can tell, you seem to be arguing against WP:NPOV, and on the basis of original research.   `