2. Gender or genital autonomy? Why framing nontherapeutic genital cutting as a children's rights issue is both ethically and pragmatically necessary

Abstract

There are now prohibited forms of female genital cutting (e.g., the so-called ritual 'nick') that are less severe than permitted forms of male and intersex genital cutting (e.g., circumcision, clitoral reduction). Attempts to "quarantine" male vs. female forms of cutting (MGC, FGC) based on appeals to health consequences, parental intentions (regarding, e.g., sexual control), and religious versus cultural have been undermined by recent scholarship. Recognizing that a "zero tolerance" policy toward FGC may lead to restrictions on ritual MGC, defenders of the latter practice have begun to argue that purportedly "minor" forms of FGC should be considered morally acceptable and should be legally tolerated. This trend in the literature has emboldened proponents of female "circumcision," who are now basing their defense of the practice on Western tolerance and even promotion of MGC and intersex cutting, citing problematic (e.g., racialized) double standards. To push back against this trajectory, I argue that efforts to eliminate FGC must be rooted in a sex and gender-neutral (that is, human) right to bodily integrity and genital autonomy if they are to be successful in the long-run.