After doing lots of research on the topic of circumcision and other forms of genital cutting, I have identified a clear double standard that I would like to talk about and address here.

This is of course NOT to downplay FGM because it is a brutal and horrific practice and I am not trying to make this a contest about who has it worse. I am merely trying to point out the double standard we have in the West on these two practices, and trying to encourage a solution to this dilemma that incorporates the rights of children (their right to genital integrity and informed consent) regardless of their sex or genitalia. So, without further ado, let's begin.

There are forms of FGM today that are less invasive than male circumcision, such as the 'ritual nick' which are criminalized, illegal, and seen as a severe human rights violation, and yet the more severe male procedure is legal and not frowned upon as such.

Davis 2001 writes:

• “...federal and state laws criminalizing genital alteration on female minors are so broad that they cover even procedures significantly less substantial than newborn male circumcision.”
• “...a complete laissez-faire attitude toward one practice coupled with total criminalization of the other, runs afoul of the ‘free exercise’ clause of the First Amendment. There are also troubling implications for the constitutional requirement of equal protection because the laws appear to protect little girls, but not little boys, from religious and culturally motivated surgery."

Arora et al. 2016 wrote in a paper published in The British Journal of Medical Ethics:

• “Male circumcision is legal in USA and tolerated in most of the world, even when done by non-medical practitioners in the home. Yet comparable or less radical procedures in women are deemed misogynistic and human rights violations.”
• “..the International Federation of Gynecology and Obstetrics as well as WHO have labelled all forms of FGA as a human rights violation as it violates ‘bodily integrity in the absence of any medical benefit’ and victimises vulnerable girls. However, male circumcision is also a procedure that violates bodily integrity and up to recently was thought not to have justifiable medical benefit—but was instead tolerated due to religious and cultural freedom and the lack of long-term harm.”

Earp 2020 also noted:

• “There are now legally prohibited forms of medically unnecessary female genital cutting—including the so-called ritual nick—that are less severe than permitted forms of medically unnecessary male and intersex genital cutting."

He also writes about the differences in 'khatna,' which is the genital cutting procedures practiced for both sexes in Islam. The male procedure is more severe and yet completely legal, whereas the female procedure is criminal in all 50 states and treated as a 'mutilation.'

• “The Bohras practice what they call “khatna” – an Arabic word for circumcision – on both girls and boys within their community...In the female case, “a pinch of skin” is typically cut or removed from the clitoral hood, often leaving no visible sign of alteration. In the male case, the entire penile foreskin is removed, leaving an unmistakably altered sexual organ. According to the ruling by Friedman discussed in the previous section, the less severe female procedure is already illegal in all 50 states—as a criminal assault. It might seem, then, that the more severe male procedure must also be a criminal assault. In fact, that has been a dominant view among legal scholars who have addressed the issue since 1984. However, the male procedure continues to be treated as legal regardless of jurisdiction, including in its more dangerous forms.”

The double standards don't stop there. There is a procedure that ultra-Orthodox Jews perform called 'metzizah b'peh' which is an ancient, unhygienic form of male circumcision where the “mohel” (traditional circumciser) tears the immature foreskin from the penile glans, typically without pain control, and then takes the baby’s penis into his mouth to staunch the blood and supposedly “cleanse” the wound. This has been known to have caused many cases of herpes and led to two cases of serious brain damage and two deaths in one year alone. Not only is this practice not treated as illegal—it isn’t even regulated. City officials ultimately dropped even an informal plan to require that parents sign a consent form.

However, any forms of female genital cutting, including ones done in sterilized and anesthetized manners are seen as illegal and criminal, full stop.

Now, some might respond with something to the degree of: "Circumcision has health benefits whereas FGM has none."

Well, the question I would ask is: "If it was demonstrated that FGM had health benefits, would you concede your position that it is a moral wrong?" Presumably not, and this is merely a moral red herring. If so, then you might have to be prepared to give up your view, as some health benefits have also been noted for FGM in many scholarly sources.

For example, there has been found: "a lower risk of vaginal cancer … fewer infections from microbes gathering under the hood of the clitoris, and protection against herpes and genital ulcers.” - Source 1, Source 2

Moreover, at least two studies by Western scientists have shown a negative correlation between female genital cutting and HIV. The authors of one of the studies, both seasoned statisticians who expected to find the opposite relationship, described their findings as a “significant and perplexing inverse association between reported female circumcision and HIV seropositivity.”

Again, no one would ever consider making FGM legal on the basis of these potential, prophylactic health benefits.

I would also like to bring to your attention something known as ‘cosmetic’ female genital cutting, which typically consists of medically unnecessary procedures involving partial or total removal of the external female genitalia or other alterations to the female genital organs for perceived cosmesis—widely practiced in Western countries and generally considered acceptable if performed with the informed consent of the individual. These consist of the same procedures that are typically classified as FGM.

Given that there is overlap (or a close anatomical parallel) between each form of WHO-defined ‘mutilation’ and Western- style ‘cosmetic’ female genital cutting, neither of which is medically necessary, one must ask what the widely perceived categorical moral difference is between these two sets of procedures. Controlling for clinical context varies across the two sets and is often functionally similar—the most promising candidate for such a difference appears to be the typical age, and hence presumed or likely consent-status, of the subject. But if that is correct, it is not ultimately the degree of invasiveness (which ranges widely across both sets of practices), specific tissues affected, or the precise medical or non-medical benefit- to-risk profile of medically unnecessary (female) genital cutting that is most central to determining its perceived moral acceptability. Rather, it is the extent to which the affected individual desires the genital cutting and can consent to it. This suggests that the core of the putative rights violation is the lack of consent regarding a medically unnecessary intervention into one’s sexual anatomy. This consideration applies regardless of the sex or gender of the non-consenting person.

Thanks for reading!