Genital Mutilation Is One Cause

Owen at Oggy Bloggy Ogwr posted a fascinating discussion on International Women’s Day – Life, Ethics & Independence III – Circumcision. He’s thorough and makes a strong case, summarized with this:

I think the point I’m trying to make here is that perceived injustices that might be deemed “the same cause” for both sexes might not be similar at all. It’s issues like this that mean we have/need an International Women’s Day in the first place.

There are millions of women who currently have to endure some of the worst abuses humankind can throw at them for simply being born the “wrong gender”, and who don’t have much of a voice – except on days like today.

His post is strong because he addresses the issues involved rather than defending International Women’s Day with the rhetorical equivalent of “Shut up, men”. I disagree with very few of his points in the post. However, those few lead me to disagree with his defense of his conclusion, while accepting his conclusion that there is value in addressing the injustices women and girls still face and doing so on their own. Basically, his second paragraph stands without the incorrect qualification presented in the first.

My primary disagreement is here:

Is there a double standard here?


If female circumcision only ever involved removing the clitoral hood – the female equivalent of a foreskin – and was still deemed “genital mutilation” then you would have a point. I doubt you can compare this with women making an informed and conscious choice to have various “body modifications” either.

The UK and US anti-FGM acts prohibit all non-therapeutic female genital cutting, including that which is analogous or less damaging than male circumcision. They prohibit “procedures that intentionally alter or injure female genital organs for non-medical reasons.” The WHO fact sheet on FGM defines it as “removing and damaging healthy and normal female genital tissue, and interferes with the natural functions of girls’ and women’s bodies.” All non-therapeutic cutting on a female without her consent is (rightly) considered mutilation.

Male circumcision fits within both descriptions above, as well as the definition of mutilation. There is no valid reason to distinguish non-therapeutic genital cutting on a non-consenting individual as mutilation or somehow not. The lack of consent to any level of permanent, non-therapeutic surgical harm is the critical issue in identifying genital mutilation. Male circumcision or hoodectomy or any other non-therapeutic cutting is ethically acceptable only when voluntarily chosen by the individual receiving it. Proxy consent is still lack of consent.

I recognize the often great difference in severity from what is typically done to males and females. That matters, and should inform penalties, whether criminal or civil. This difference should not inform legality. (The challenge of enforceability can’t be ignored, of course, but that’s separate from what “should be”.) As I’ve said before, a punch to the face is still battery even though a knife to the gut generally causes more damage.

To be fair, Owen made it clear that he understands the problem inherent in male circumcision. He disagrees with imposing it on children. I am not saying anyone needs to fight male circumcision in their fight against FGM, even though they are the same cause in principle. My point is that FGM is bad enough on its own that making that case doesn’t need a separation of male circumcision from mutilation. This is also true because separating male circumcision from mutilation is counter-factual.

(Conversely, the case against male circumcision can be made without a comparison to FGM.)

One thought on “Genital Mutilation Is One Cause”

  1. People just accept that there is this firewall between male and female circumcision without giving it too much thought.

    As if the “severity,” the fact that circumcision is claimed to have “medical benefits,” and the “intention” really make all that difference.

    Well, research is finding out that female circumcision isn’t as catastrophic as people would like others to believe.

    Perhaps circumcision isn’t so devastating in men. But you know what? Neither is it in women.

    Research shows that sex and its enjoyment are quite possible without a clitoris.

    Other research shows that female circumcision may lower the incidence of HIV. (If we buy the same correlation hypothesis that exists in the so-called “trials” in Africa for men.)

    Doctors are now performing labiaplasties and clitoral “unroofing” for females that want them, as “sexual enhancers.”

    (These same procedures are called “mutilation” when performed by shamanesses in the woods.)

    There would never be enough “research” that would ever justify the forced genital mutilation of girls and women.

    Not even if it prevented AIDS, not even if it could be made painless would we ever consider lifting the ban on female circumcision.

    That we keep a firewall between male and female circumcision indicates that we are yet a blind, sexist country.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.