Abstract
In recent years, the dominant Western discourse on “female genital mutilation” (FGM) has increasingly been challenged by scholars. Numerous researchers contest both the terminology used and the empirical claims made in what has come to be called “the standard tale” of FGM (also termed “female genital cutting” [FGC]). The World Health Organization (WHO), a major player in setting the global agenda on this issue, maintains that all medically unnecessary cutting of the external female genitalia, no matter how slight, should be banned as torture and a violation of the human right to bodily integrity. However, the WHO targets only non-Western forms of female-only genital cutting, raising concerns about gender bias and cultural imperialism. Here, we summarize ongoing critiques of the WHO’s terminology, ethicolegal assumptions, and empirical claims, including the claim that non-Western FGC as such constitutes an extreme form of discrimination against women. To this end, we highlight recent comparative studies of medically unnecessary genital cutting of all types, including those affecting adult women and teenagers in Western societies, individuals with differences of sex development (DSD), transgender persons, and males. In so doing, we attempt to clarify the grounds for a growing critical consensus that current anti-FGM laws and policies may be ethically incoherent, empirically unsupportable, and legally unsustainable.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution
Access options
Subscribe to this journal
Receive 8 print issues and online access
$259.00 per year
only $32.38 per issue
Buy this article
- Purchase on Springer Link
- Instant access to full article PDF
Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
According to the Brussels Collaboration on Bodily Integrity [1], “an intervention to alter a bodily state is medically necessary when (a) the bodily state poses a serious, time-sensitive threat to the person’s well-being, typically due to a functional impairment in an associated somatic process, and (b) the intervention, as performed without delay, is the least harmful feasible means of changing the bodily state to one that alleviates the threat.” Definition based on [2].
There is now growing recognition that some people born with penises may not identify as boys/men, such as transgender women and some genderqueer individuals. At the same time, “the potential harms of neonatal or early-childhood [penile] circumcision for trans women who elect a penile inversion surgery—as a part of gender-affirming care, for example—has yet to receive much attention … the preemptive removal of a large proportion of sensitive, elastic genital tissue from the penis that could otherwise have been used in the construction of a neovagina—i.e., the penile foreskin—is undoubtedly of relevance to the welfare interests of such women” [7].
Please note that, due to a lack of space, in-text references have been condensed and pared down as much as possible. For the accepted version of the manuscript (pre-copy editing) with more exhaustive citations, see https://www.academia.edu/42281793.
As a reviewer notes, tattoos and piercings are often restricted for minors, at least in many Western legal jurisdictions, with the exception of ear piercing, which is usually allowed. One possibility, of course, is that ear piercing should not be allowed in such jurisdictions, at least in very young children who cannot provide their own informed consent, so as to bring it in line with other medically unnecessary skin-breaking procedures that might be imposed on pre-autonomous individuals. But even if one thinks that infant ear piercing (for example) should be permitted if the parents give their permission, there could still be reason to oppose medically unnecessary procedures affecting the genitals in particular due to their widely perceived special or “private” significance in many cultures [38]. We expand on this view in the concluding section.
Similar feelings and associated sexual harms, including decreased sexual satisfaction, have been documented among men, for instance, who were circumcised as children—that is, without their consent—as opposed to in adulthood, with their consent [49]. As a reviewer notes, some studies suggest that removal of the penile foreskin does not detectably affect certain quantitative somatosensory outcomes based on testing of the penile glans [50]. However, similar tests reliably show that the foreskin is, itself, the most sensitive part of the penis to light touch [51, 52], so its removal necessary changes the sensory profile of the organ in a way that may be regretted [53]. Like the clitoral prepuce, the penile prepuce (foreskin) covers, protects, and lubricates the clitoropenile glans [54, 55]; and like the female genital labia, the foreskin can be manually or orally manipulated during sex, masturbation, or foreplay, eliciting particular subjective sensations that are not possible if this tissue is removed [41, 56, 57]. Insofar as a person positively values the specific sensations afforded by manipulation of the labia or foreskin, the sheer state of being genitally intact, or having a choice about the matter, the nonvoluntary removal of these tissues would necessarily harm the person, even in the absence of surgical complications or other (further) effects on genital sensation or function [42, 58].
References
Brussels Collaboration on Bodily Integrity. Medically unnecessary genital cutting and the rights of the child: moving toward consensus. Am J Bioeth. 2019;19:17–28.
Earp BD. The child’s right to bodily integrity. In: Edmonds D, editor. Ethics and the contemporary world. Abingdon and New York: Routledge; 2019. p. 217–35.
Shell-Duncan B. From health to human rights: female genital cutting and the politics of intervention. Am Anthropol. 2008;110:225–36.
Leonard L. “We did it for pleasure only.” Hearing alternative tales of female circumcision. Qual Inq. 2000;6:212–28.
Hodson N, Earp BD, Townley L, Bewley S. Defining and regulating the boundaries of sex and sexuality. Med Law Rev. 2019;27:541–52.
Monro S, Crocetti D, Yeadon-Lee T, Garland F, Travis M. Intersex, variations of sex characteristics and DSD: the need for change. University of Huddersfield. Huddersfield, England; 2017.
Myers A, Earp BD. What is the best age to circumcise? A medical and ethical analysis. Bioeth. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1111/bioe.12714.
Johnsdotter S, Essén B. Genitals and ethnicity: the politics of genital modifications. Reprod Health Matters. 2010;18:29–37.
Leonard L. Interpreting female genital cutting: moving beyond the impasse. Ann Rev Sex Res. 2000;11:158–90.
Moreau A, Shell-Duncan B. Tracing change in female genital mutilation/cutting through social networks: an intersectional analysis of the influence of gender, generation, status, and structural inequality. Population Council; 2020. https://knowledgecommons.popcouncil.org/departments_sbsr-rh/1056.
Obermeyer CM. The consequences of female circumcision for health and sexuality: an update on the evidence. Cult Health Sex. 2005;7:443–61.
WHO/UN. Eliminating female genital mutilation: an interagency statement. World Health Organization. Geneva, Switzerland; 2008.
Oba AA. Female circumcision as female genital mutilation: human rights or cultural imperialism? Glob Jurist. 2008;8:1–38.
Rashid A, Iguchi Y. Female genital cutting in Malaysia: a mixed-methods study. BMJ Open. 2019;9:e025078.
Wahlberg A, Påfs J, Jordal M. Pricking in the African diaspora: current evidence and recurrent debates. Curr Sex Health Rep. 2019;5:1–7.
Earp BD. Between moral relativism and moral hypocrisy: reframing the debate on “FGM”. Kennedy Inst Ethics J. 2016;26:105–44.
Earp BD Mutilation or enhancement? What is morally at stake in body alterations. Practical Ethics. University of Oxford; 2019. http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2019/12/mutilation-or-enhancement-what-is-morally-at-stake-in-body-alterations/.
Pardy M, Rogers J, Seuffert N. Perversion and perpetration in female genital mutilation law: the unmaking of women as bearers of law. Soc Leg Stud. 2019;29:273–93.
Connor JJ, Brady SS, Chaisson N, Sharif Mohamed F, Robinson B “Bean” E. Understanding women’s responses to sexual pain after female genital cutting: an integrative psychological pain response model. Arch Sex Behav. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-019-1422-9.
Earp BD. Protecting children from medically unnecessary genital cutting without stigmatizing women’s bodies: implications for sexual pleasure and pain. Arch Sex Behav. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-020-01633-x.
Johnsdotter S. The growing demand in Europe for reconstructive clitoral surgery after female gential cutting: a looping effect of the dominant discourse? Droit et Cult. 2020;79:93–118.
Sharif Mohamed F, Wild V, Earp BD, Johnson-Agbakwu C, Abdulcadir J. Clitoral reconstruction after female genital mutilation/cutting: a review of surgical techniques and ethical debate. J Sex Med. 2020;17:531–42.
Villani M. Reconstructing sexuality after excision: the medical tools. Med Anthropol. 2020;39:269–81.
Vissandjée B, Denetto S, Migliardi P, Proctor J. Female genital cutting (FGC) and the ethics of care: community engagement and cultural sensitivity at the interface of migration experiences. BMC Int Health Hum Rts. 2014;14:1–10.
Boddy J. The normal and the aberrant in female genital cutting: shifting paradigms. HAU. 2016;6:41–69.
Shahvisi A, Earp BD. The law and ethics of female genital cutting. In: Creighton SM, Liao L-M, editors. Female genital cosmetic surgery: solution to what problem? Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2019. p. 58–71.
Liao L-M, Hegarty P, Creighton SM, Lundberg T, Roen K. Clitoral surgery on minors: an interview study with clinical experts of differences of sex development. BMJ Open. 2019;9:e025821.
Earp BD. Female genital mutilation and male circumcision: toward an autonomy-based ethical framework. Med Bioeth. 2015;5:89–104.
Ehrenreich N, Barr M. Intersex surgery, female genital cutting, and the selective condemnation of cultural practices. Harv Civ Rts-Civ Lib L Rev. 2005;40:71–140.
Johnsdotter S. Girls and boys as victims: asymmetries and dynamics in European public discourses on genital modifications in children. In: Fusaschi M, Cavatorta G, editors. FGM/C: from medicine to critical anthropology. Turin: Meti Edizioni; 2018. p. 31–50.
Njambi WN. Dualisms and female bodies in representations of African female circumcision: a feminist critique. Fem Theor. 2004;5:281–303.
Shweder RA. The goose and the gander: the genital wars. Glob Disc 2013;3:348–66.
Androus ZT. The United States, FGM, and global rights to bodily Integrity. In: The United States and Global Human Rights. University of Oxford; 2004. p. 1–7.
Hodžić S. Ascertaining deadly harms: aesthetics and politics of global evidence. Cult Anthropol. 2013;28:86–109.
Johansen REB, Diop NJ, Laverack G, Leye E. What works and what does not: a discussion of popular approaches for the abandonment of female genital mutilation. Obstet Gynec Int. 2013;348248:1–10.
Schein C, Gray K. The theory of dyadic morality: reinventing moral judgment by redefining harm. Pers Soc Psychol Rev. 2018;22:32–70.
Möller K. Male and female genital cutting: between the best interests of the child and genital mutilation. Ox J Leg Stud. 2020. http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/102212/.
Munzer SR. Examining nontherapeutic circumcision. Health Matrix. 2018;28:1–77.
Bruce L. A pot ignored boils on: sustained calls for explicit consent of intimate medical exams. HEC Forum. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10730-020-09399-4.
Earp BD. Sex and circumcision. Am J Bioeth. 2015;15:43–5.
Earp BD. In defence of genital autonomy for children. J Med Ethics. 2016;42:158–63.
Earp BD, Darby R. Circumcision, sexual experience, and harm. U Penn J Int Law. 2017;37:1–57. (2-online)
Earp BD, Steinfeld R. Genital autonomy and sexual well-being. Curr Sex Health Rep. 2018;10:7–17.
O’Connell HE, Sanjeevan KV, Hutson JM. Anatomy of the clitoris. J Urol. 2005;174:1189–95. (4 Part 1)
Abdulcadir J, Botsikas D, Bolmont M, Bilancioni A, Djema DA, Bianchi Demicheli F, et al. Sexual anatomy and function in women with and without genital mutilation: a cross-sectional study. J Sex Med. 2016;13:226–37.
Ahmadu FS, Shweder RA. Disputing the myth of the sexual dysfunction of circumcised women. Anthropol Today. 2009;25:14–17.
Catania L, Abdulcadir O, Puppo V, Verde JB, Abdulcadir J, Abdulcadir D. Pleasure and orgasm in women with female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C). J Sex Med. 2007;4:1666–78.
Berg RC, Denison E. Does female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C) affect women’s sexual functioning? A systematic review of the sexual consequences of FGM/C. Sex Res Soc Pol. 2012;9:41–56.
Bossio JA, Pukall CF. Attitude toward one’s circumcision status is more important than actual circumcision status for men’s body image and sexual functioning. Arch Sex Behav. 2018;47:771–81.
Bleustein CB, Fogarty JD, Eckholdt H, Arezzo JC, Melman A. Effect of neonatal circumcision on penile neurologic sensation. Urology. 2005;65:773–7.
Bossio JA, Pukall CF, Steele SS. Examining penile sensitivity in neonatally circumcised and intact men using quantitative sensory testing. J Urol. 2016;195:1848–53.
Sorrells ML, Snyder JL, Reiss MD, Eden C, Milos MF, Wilcox N, et al. Fine-touch pressure thresholds in the adult penis. BJU Int. 2007;99:864–9.
Earp BD. Infant circumcision and adult penile sensitivity: implications for sexual experience. Trends Urol Men Health. 2016;7:17–21.
Cold CJ, Taylor JR. The prepuce. BJU Int. 1999;83:34–44.
Fahmy MAB. Normal and abnormal prepuce. Cham: Springer International Publishing; 2020.
Ball PJ. A survey of subjective foreskin sensation in 600 intact men. In: Bodily integrity and the politics of circumcision. New York: Springer; 2006. p. 177–188.
Runacres SA, Wood PL. Cosmetic labiaplasty in an adolescent population. J Pediatr Adol Gynec. 2016;29:218–22.
Svoboda JS. Nontherapeutic circumcision of minors as an ethically problematic form of iatrogenic injury. AMA J Ethics. 2017;19:815–24.
Rahman S. Female sexual dysfunction among Muslim women: increasing awareness to improve overall evaluation and treatment. Sex Med Rev. 2018;6:535–47.
Gruenbaum E. Socio‐cultural dynamics of female genital cutting: research findings, gaps, and directions. Cult Health Sex. 2005;7:429–41.
Obiora LA. Bridges and barricades: rethinking polemics and intransigence in the campaign against female circumcision. Case West Res Law Rev. 1996;47:275–378.
Manne K. Down girl: the logic of misogyny. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2017.
Mende J. Normative and contextual feminism. Lessons from the debate around female genital mutilation/cutting. Gend Forum. 2018;2018:47–69.
Minow M. About women, about culture: about them, about us. Daedalus. 2000;129:125–145.
Manderson L. Local rites and body politics: tensions between cultural diversity and human rights. Int Fem J Pol. 2004;6:285–307.
Shweder RA. “What about female genital mutilation?” And why understanding culture matters in the first place. In: Shweder RA, Minow M, Markus HR, editors. Engaging cultural differences: the multicultural challenge in liberal democracies. New York: Russel Sage Foundation Press; 2002. p. 216–251.
Earp BD, Sardi L, Jellison W. False beliefs predict increased circumcision satisfaction in a sample of US American men. Cult Health Sex. 2018;20:945–59.
La Barbera MC. Ban without prosecution, conviction without punishment, and circumcision without cutting: a critical appraisal of anti-FGM laws in Europe. Glob Jurist. 2017;17:20160012.
Shahvisi A, Why UK. doctors should be troubled by female genital mutilation legislation. Clin Ethics. 2017;12:102–8.
Boddy J. Civilizing women: British crusades in colonial Sudan. Princeton: Princeton University Press; 2007.
Njambi WN. Colonizing bodies: a feminist science studies critique of anti-FGM discourse. Doctoral Dissertation. Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Tech; 2000.
Abdulcadir J, Ahmadu FS, Essen B, Gruenbaum E, Johnsdotter S, Johnson MC, et al. Seven things to know about female genital surgeries in Africa. Hastings Cent Rep. 2012;42:19–27.
Caldwell JC, Orubuloye IO, Caldwell P. Male and female circumcision in Africa from a regional to a specific Nigerian examination. Soc Sci Med. 1997;44:1181–93.
Robertson CC, James SM. Genital cutting and transnational sisterhood: disputing U.S. Polemics. Chicago: University of Illinois Press; 2002.
DeLaet DL. Framing male circumcision as a human rights issue? Contributions to the debate over the universality of human rights. J Hum Rts. 2009;8:405–26.
Earp BD, Steinfeld R. Gender and genital cutting: a new paradigm. In: Barbat TG, editor. Gifted women, fragile Men. Brussels: ALDE Group-EU Parliament; 2017.
Douglas M, Nyembezi A. Challenges facing traditional male circumcision in the Eastern Cape. Human Sciences Research Council. 2015. http://www.hsrc.ac.za/en/events/seminars/challenges-eastern-cape-province.
Andro A, Lesclingand M, Grieve M, Reeve P. Female genital mutilation. Overview and current knowledge. Population. 2016;71:215–96.
Wilcken A, Keil T, Dick B. Traditional male circumcision in eastern and southern Africa: a systematic review of prevalence and complications. Bull World Health Organ. 2010;88:907–14.
Boyle GJ, Goldman R, Svoboda JS, Fernandez E. Male circumcision: pain, trauma and psychosexual sequelae. J Health Psychol. 2002;7:329–43.
Darby R. A surgical temptation: the demonization of the foreskin and the rise of circumcision in Britain. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 2005.
Fox M, Thomson M. HIV/AIDS and male circumcision: discourses of race and masculinity. In: Fineman MA, Thomson M, editors. Exploring masculinities. Farnham, UK: Ashgate; 2016. p. 97–113.
Schlegel A, Barry H. Pain, fear, and circumcision in boys’ adolescent initiation ceremonies. Cross-Cult Res. 2017;1:1–29.
Ahmadu F. Male and female circumcision among the mandinka of the Gambia: understanding the dynamics of traditional dual-sex systems in a contemporary African society. Saarbrücken: LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing; 2016.
Clarence-Smith WG. Islam and female genital cutting in Southeast Asia: the weight of the past. FJEM. 2008;3:14–22.
Newland L. Female circumcision: Muslim identities and zero tolerance policies in rural West Java. Women’s Stud Int Forum. 2006;29:394–404.
Baumeister RF, Twenge JM. Cultural suppression of female sexuality. Rev Gen Psychol. 2002;6:166–203.
Vestbostad E, Blystad A. Reflections on female circumcision discourse in Hargeysa, Somaliland: purified or mutilated? Afr J Reprod Health. 2014;18:22–35.
Abathun AD, Sundby J, Ali Gele A. Attitude toward female genital mutilation among Somali and Harari people, Eastern Ethiopia. Int J Women’s Health. 2016;8:557–69.
Thomas LM. “Ngaitana (I will circumcise myself)”: the gender and generational politics of the 1956 ban on clitoridectomy in Meru, Kenya. Gend Hist. 1996;8:338–63.
UNICEF. Female genital mutilation/cutting: a statistical overview and exploration of the dynamics of change. Reprod Health Matters. 2013;21:184–90.
Varol N, Turkmani S, Black K, Hall J, Dawson A. The role of men in abandonment of female genital mutilation: a systematic review. BMC Pub Health. 2015;15:1034.
Johnsdotter S, Essén B Deinfibulation contextualized: delicacies of shared decision-making in the clinic. Arch Sex Behav. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-020-01676-0.
Latham S. The campaign against female genital cutting: empowering women or reinforcing global inequity? Ethics Soc Welf. 2016;10:108–21.
Merli C. Male and female genital cutting among Southern Thailand’s Muslims: rituals, biomedical practice and local discourses. Cult Health Sex. 2010;12:725–38.
Merli C. Sunat for girls in southern Thailand: its relation to traditional midwifery, male circumcision and other obstetrical practices. FJEM. 2008;3:32–41.
Earp BD. Systems thinking in gender and medicine. J Med Ethics. 2020;46:225–6.
Dekkers W, Hoffer C, Wils J-P. Bodily integrity and male and female circumcision. Med Health Care Philos. 2005;8:179–91.
Wynter S. “Genital mutilation” or “symbolic birth?” Female circumcision, lost origins, and the aculturalism of feminist/western thought. Case West Res Law Rev. 1997;47:501–52.
Yount KM, Cheong YF, Grose RG, Hayford SR. Community gender systems and a daughter’s risk of female genital mutilation/cutting: multilevel findings from Egypt. PLOS ONE. 2020;15:e0229917.
Benatar D. Why do Jewish egalitarians not circumcise their daughters? Jew Aff. 2008;63:21–23.
Cohen SJ. Why aren’t Jewish women circumcised? Gend Hist. 1997;9:560–578.
Kimmel MS. The kindest un-cut: feminism, Judaism, and my son’s foreskin. Tikkun. 2001;16:43–8.
Silverman EK. Anthropology and circumcision. Annu Rev Anthropol. 2004;33:419–45.
Grande E. Hegemonic human rights: the case of female circumcision. A call for taking multiculturalism seriously. Arch Antropol Mediterr. 2009;12:11–27.
Ahmadu FS. Rites and wrongs: an insider/outsider reflects on power and excision. In: Shell-Duncan B, Hernlund Y, editors. Female “circumcision” in Africa: culture, controversy, and change. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers; 2000. p. 283–315.
Knight M. Curing cut or ritual mutilation? Some remarks on the practice of female and male circumcision in Graeco-Roman Egypt. Isis. 2001;92:317–38.
Oyewumi O. Conceptualizing gender: the eurocentric foundations of feminist concepts and the challenge of African epistemologies. JENdA. 2002;2:1–5.
Mire S. We won’t eradicate FGM if we keep misunderstanding its history. The Guardian. 2020. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/mar/09/eradicate-fgm-misunderstanding-history.
Berer M. The history and role of the criminal law in anti-FGM campaigns: is the criminal law what is needed, at least in countries like Great Britain? Reprod Health Matters. 2015;23:145–57.
Dustin M. Female genital mutilation/cutting in the UK: challenging the inconsistencies. Eur J Women’s Stud. 2010;17:7–23.
Bootwala. A review of female genital cutting (FGC) in the Dawoodi Bohra community: parts 1, 2, and 3. Curr Sex Health Rep. 2019;11:212–35.
Byrne E. Even “symbolic” female genital mutilation illegal, High Court rules. ABC News. 2019. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-10-16/high-court-rules-female-genital-mutilation-illegal-in-all-forms/11606396.
Earp BD, Hendry J, Thomson M. Reason and paradox in medical and family law: shaping children’s bodies. Med Law Rev. 2017;25:604–27.
Rogers J. The first case addressing female genital mutilation in Australia: where is the harm? Alt Law J. 2016;41:235–8.
Taylor JR, Lockwood AP, Taylor AJ. The prepuce: specialized mucosa of the penis and its loss to circumcision. Brit J Urol. 1996;77:291–295.
NYC Health. Metzitzah b’peh (direct oral suctioning). 2020. https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/health/health-topics/safe-bris.page.
Davis DS. Male and female genital alteration: a collision course with the law. Health Matrix. 2001;11:487–570.
Earp BD. Why was the U.S. ban on female genital mutilation ruled unconstitutional, and what does this have to do with male circumcision? Ethics Med Public Health. 2020. (In press).
Mason C. Exorcising excision: medico-legal issues arising from male and female genital surgery in Australia. J Law Med. 2001;9:58–67.
Karlsen S, Carver N, Mogilnicka M, Pantazis C. “Putting salt on the wound.” Understanding the impact of FGM-safeguarding in healthcare settings on people with a British Somali heritage living in Britain. BMJ Open. (In press).
Creighton SM, Samuel Z, Otoo-Oyortey N, Hodes D. Tackling female genital mutilation in the UK. BMJ. 2019;364:l15.
Karlsen S, Mogilnicka M, Carver N, Pantazis C. Female genital mutilation: empirical evidence supports concerns about statistics and safeguarding. BMJ. 2019;364:l915.
Johnsdotter S. Meaning well while doing harm: compulsory genital examinations in Swedish African girls. Sex Reprod Health Matters. 2019;27:1–13.
Bond SL, State laws criminalizing female circumcision: a violation of the equal protection clause of the fourteenth amendment? J Marshall L Rev. 1999;32:353–80.
Svoboda JS, Adler PW, Van Howe RS. Is circumcision unethical and unlawful? A response to Morris et al. J Med Law Ethics. 2019;7:72–92.
Arora KS, Jacobs AJ. Female genital alteration: a compromise solution. J Med Ethics. 2016;42:148–54.
Boyle GJ, Svoboda J, Price C, Turner JN. Circumcision of healthy boys: criminal assault? J Law Med. 2000;7:301–10.
Merkel R, Putzke H. After Cologne: male circumcision and the law. Parental right, religious liberty or criminal assault? J Med Ethics. 2013;39:444–9.
Earp BD. Gender or genital autonomy? Why framing nontherapeutic genital cutting as a children’s rights issue is both ethically and pragmatically necessary. J Obstet Gynaec Can 2020;42:e17.
Townsend KG. The child’s right to genital integrity. Philos Soc Crit. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1177/0191453719854212.
Svoboda JS. Promoting genital autonomy by exploring commonalities between male, female, intersex, and cosmetic female genital cutting. Glob Disc 2013;3:237–55.
Lunde IB, Hauge M-I, Johansen REB, Sagbakken M. ‘Why did I circumcise him?’ Unexpected comparisons to male circumcision in a qualitative study on female genital cutting among Kurdish–Norwegians. Ethnicities. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1177/1468796819896089.
Duivenbode R, Padela AI. Female genital cutting (FGC) and the cultural boundaries of medical practice. Am J Bioeth. 2019;19:3–6.
WHO. Manual for early infant male circumcision under local anaesthesia. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2010.
Davis S, Toledo C, Lewis L, Maughan-Brown B, Ayalew K, Kharsany ABM. Does voluntary medical male circumcision protect against sexually transmitted infections among men and women in real-world scale-up settings? Findings of a household survey in KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa. BMJ Glob Health. 2019;4:e001389.
Rosenberg MS, Gómez-Olivé FX, Rohr JK, Kahn K, Bärnighausen TW. Are circumcised men safer sex partners? Findings from the HAALSI cohort in rural South Africa. PLOS One. 2018;13:e0201445.
Garenne M, Matthews A. Voluntary medical male circumcision and HIV in Zambia: expectations and observations. J Biosoc Sci. 2019. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0021932019000634.
Darby R. Moral hypocrisy or intellectual inconsistency? A historical perspective on our habit of placing male and female genital cutting in separate ethical boxes. Kennedy Inst Ethics J. 2016;26:155–63.
Gollaher DL. From ritual to science: the medical transformation of circumcision in America. J Soc Hist. 1994;28:5–36.
Earp BD. Does female genital mutilation have health benefits? The problem with medicalizing morality. Practical Ethics. University of Oxford; 2017. http://blog.practicalethics.ox.ac.uk/2017/08/does-female-genital-mutilation-have-health-benefits-the-problem-with-medicalizing-morality/.
Bell K. Genital cutting and Western discourses on sexuality. Med Anthropol Q. 2005;19:125–48.
Shell-Duncan B. The medicalization of female “circumcision”: harm reduction or promotion of a dangerous practice? Soc Sci Med. 2001;52:1013–28.
Askew I, Chaiban T, Kalasa B, Sen P. A repeat call for complete abandonment of FGM. J Med Ethics. 2016;42:619–20.
Svoboda JS. Circumcision of male infants as a human rights violation. J Med Ethics. 2013;39:469–74.
Carpenter M. Joint statement on the International Classification of Diseases 11. Intersex Human Rights Australia. 2019. https://ihra.org.au/35299/joint-statement-icd-11/
Quigley CA, Bellis AD, Marschke KB, El-Awady MK, Wilson EM, French FS. Androgen receptor defects: historical, clinical, and molecular perspectives. Endocr Rev. 1995;16:271–321.
Frederick JK. Don’t call me mutilated! Orchid Project. 2016. https://www.orchidproject.org/dont-call-me-mutilated/
Renaldi A, Kusumadirezza I, Poa J. We visited a mass female circumcision ceremony in indonesia. Vice. 2020. https://www.vice.com/en_au/article/akwdb5/mass-female-circumcision-ceremony-indonesia
Mire S. Divine fertility: the continuity in transformation of an ideology of sacred kinship in Northeast Africa. New York: Routledge; 2020.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary information
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Earp, B.D., Johnsdotter, S. Current critiques of the WHO policy on female genital mutilation. Int J Impot Res 33, 196–209 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-020-0302-0
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41443-020-0302-0
This article is cited by
-
Rethinking the Definition of Medicalized Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting
Archives of Sexual Behavior (2024)
-
The Need for Standardized Nomenclature in Electronic Documentation of Female Genital Cutting in Health Records
Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health (2024)
-
Gendered genital modifications in critical anthropology: from discourses on FGM/C to new technologies in the sex/gender system
International Journal of Impotence Research (2023)
-
Clitoral reconstruction: challenges and new directions
International Journal of Impotence Research (2023)
-
Health outcomes and female genital mutilation/cutting: how much is due to the cutting itself?
International Journal of Impotence Research (2023)