By "nebulous" I mean that it is not always clear what it includes and what it doesn't include, and that this is liable to change over time. The relevant question should always be whether something does sufficient harm to children to justify legal sanction, not whether it can be characterised as in some sense constituting a kind of child abuse.

So, in this context, I would see it as wholly right for "female circumcision" to be illegal, but wrong for such a ban to extend to cover male circumcision as practiced by Jews and Moslems. That's based on a judgement about the balance of harm and good that such a ban would produce. (There are some forms of "male circumcision" for which a ban would certainly be appropriate.)