Did you not realize that in this case I was agreeing with you? Your first post rightly pointed out the problem in not criticizing FGM due to respect for "cultural diversity." I concurred, and pointed to a NYT article that purposely calls FGM by a more euphemistic name because FGM is, the author believed, a "culturally loaded term." I pointed to the NYT article as a negative example of what not to do. Isn't that exactly in line with the criticism you made in your first post? FGM is a barbaric practice which needs to be plainly exposed as such. Calling it "Female genital cutting" downplays the severity of it.

On another note, you apparently have difficulty understanding how sources work. If X source quotes person Y verbatim, then it doesn't matter what source is X, what matters is what person Y said. In this case, person Y said :

"I never minced words in describing exactly what form of cutting was involved, and there are many gradations of severity, and the terrible damage it did, and stayed away from the euphemistic circumcision, but chose to use the less culturally loaded term, genital cutting. There’s a gulf between the Western (and some African) advocates who campaign against the practice and the people who follow the rite, and I felt the language used widened that chasm."

This quote is in both the Fox News article and the original NYT article (which I also provided). Interesting how you avoid mentioning the NYT article...