I'm of two minds about this at present. To the one, I acknowledge the sentiment that any mandatory female genital mutilation is savage. To the other, though, it's not just the lesser of all evils, but rather a long-term outlook.
If a tiny nick satisfies the cultural demand, the practice can have a long-term effect. The topic article notes that the ritual nick has made "some progress toward eradication or amelioration", and in the context of eradication, if this practice replaces full-blown mutilation, there will be many whose outlook is one of fence-sitting with some deference to cultural demand who will eventually view the nicking as pointless. Over the course of a couple generations, societies can make great progress toward eradication.
And this is a good thing. The problem is that FGM won't disappear overnight. While the hard line against the practice has merit, it isn't necessarily a practical approach. Hardline headbanging often results in nothing more than mutual headaches.
Certainly, in this long-term outlook, there will be some prejudice against those who have been fully mutilated, and this is problematic, but if full-blown FGM is culturally marginalized, yes, we can call that progress.
____________________
Notes:
American Academy of Pediatrics Committee on Bioethics. Policy Statement Ritual Genital Cutting of Female Minors. Pediatrics. April 26, 2010. Pediatrics.AAPpublications.org. July 21, 2010. http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/reprint/peds.2010-0187v1.pdf
This is correct.