Final answer:
Bob can oppose intersex genital mutilation while maintaining that pre-pubescent children cannot consent to sexual acts since the issues are different in nature and revolve around the ability to provide informed consent.
Step-by-step explanation:
Bob can hold the view against intersex genital mutilation (IGM) without condoning sexual acts with minors as these issues differ in terms of consent and the nature of harm involved. The debate on genital-altering surgery for intersex children touches on the ethics of consent, bodily autonomy, and medical best practices. Medical ethicist Kevin Behrens suggests that surgeries should wait until the child can give informed consent, indicating that pre-pubescent children do not have the competency to consent to such life-altering decisions.
This echoes the overarching principle that parents can consent on their children's behalf for medical treatments that serve the child's best interests. Contrastingly, consensual sexual acts imply an understanding and voluntariness that pre-pubescent children are universally recognized as incapable of providing. This distinction is supported by laws protecting minors from sexual exploitation and by ethical standards that emphasize consent as a key factor in sexual activities. Hence, advocating for the deferral of genital-altering surgeries until informed consent can be provided by the individual doesn't logically equate to an endorsement of consent for sexual acts with adults by minors.