Entitled, empowered or victims - an analysis of discourses on male and female circumcision, genital mutilation/cutting and genital cosmetic surgery

Male and female circumcision/genital cutting/mutilation involve conflicting human rights, such as the right to bodily integrity and the right to culture or religion. However, operations performed on (even neonatal) male genitalia are widely accepted, whereas any operation for cultural or religious reasons on female genitalia - whether infant or adult - is considered a human rights violation. This article analyses the differences in human rights discourses on these topics and questions the validity of and the justifications for these different approaches. It looks beyond the 'children's rights vs. parent's/family rights' - discourses and focuses on revealing and analysing the underlying gendered structures that cause different approaches to male and female circumcision/genital cutting/mutilation and that affect adults as well as children. In this analysis, it will also compare female circumcision/genital cutting/mutilation to genital cosmetic surgeries. The article will also employ feminist and Foucault-s theories on power to explain why and how these different approaches in human rights discourses are created, and how they both enforce and rely on heteronormative structures in societies. These processes place people in different positions according to their culture and gender, and can simultaneously either offer or deny protection against human rights violations, victimise or empower.