Critical Discussion on Female Genital Cutting/Mutilation and Other Genital Alterations: Perspectives From a Women's Rights NGO

Purpose of ReviewThe goal of this paper is to discuss the juxtapositions between FGM/C and other medically unjustified genital alterations performed on adult women (aesthetical genital surgeries) and on children (male circumcision and intersex genital surgeries). The authors join the debate from their position as professionals working in Belgium's main "anti-FGM organization" as well as researchers.Recent FindingsRecent research and contributions from scholars have raised critique of policies around FGM/C, particularly in the global North. Some of the concerns include critiques of laws that infantilize adult women, problematic use of genital examination, discourses that stigmatize migrant persons from FGM/C practicing communities, and professionals who are insufficiently trained to support women with FGM/C in a respectful and empowering way. Scholars have also argued that there is a lack of medical distinction between different types of genital cutting such as FGM/C type I and type IV, male circumcision, and aesthetical genital cutting. Authors have stressed the discrepancy in terms of both discourse on genital cutting, and called for equal protection of girl, boy, and intersex children from medically unnecessary genital cutting, without discrimination in regard to ethnicity, religion, or immigration status of their parents.SummaryThe paper argues that the discussion on FGM/C and other genital alterations must consider existing socially constructed inequalities, particularly gender and "race", and how they affect those submitted to genital alterations. The authors highlight practical challenges raised in their daily work in a women's rights NGO and conclude with recommendations.