Against legalising female ‘circumcision’ of minors: a reply to ‘The prosecution of Dawoodi Bohra women’ by Richard Shweder

Abstract

Defenders of male circumcision increasingly argue that female ‘circumcision’ (cutting of the clitoral hood or labia) should be legally allowed in Western liberal democracies even when non-consensual. In his target article, Richard Shweder (2021) gives perhaps the most persuasive articulation of this argument to have so far appeared in the literature. In my own work, I argue that no person should be subjected to medically unnecessary genital cutting of any kind without their own informed consent, regardless of the sex characteristics with which they were born or the religious or cultural background of their parents. Professor Shweder and I agree that Western law and policy on child genital cutting is currently beset with cultural, religious and sex-based double standards. We disagree about what should be done about this. In this commentary, I argue that ‘legalising’ childhood FGC so as to bring it into line with current treatment of childhood MGC is not an acceptable solution to these problems. Instead, all medically unnecessary genital cutting of non-consenting persons should be opposed on moral and legal grounds and discouraged by all appropriate means.<br /><br />Key messages<br /><ul><li>Under current legal norms, children with female-typical sex traits, male-typical sex traits, and intersex traits are treated fundamentally differently when it comes to protection from medically unnecessary, non-consensual genital cutting</li><br /><li>Defenders of non-consensual male circumcision increasingly argue that non-consensual female ‘circumcision’ should be legalized in Western liberal democracies</li><br /><li>Advocates of children’s rights counter that all non-consenting persons, irrespective of their sex-characteristics, should be protected from medically unnecessary, non-consensual genital cutting</li><br /><li>An emerging view is that non-consensual child genital cutting of any type is already contrary to criminal law, constituting physical assault and battery; parents cannot legally “consent” to the physical assault of their children</li><br /><li>Nevertheless, questions remain about the prudence of applying criminal sanctions (at least in the immediate future) to parents or providers who authorize or perform child genital cutting</li></ul>

Introduction: gender equality in Abrahamic circumcision – why or why not?

“…In the first article, Fuambai Ahmadu and Tatu Kamau (2022), who analyse the paradox of the treatment of FGC in Kenyan law, in which legislation appears to privilege gender-confirming surgery in a cultural context with less fluid gender norms. Brian Earp (2022) then shows how he and Shweder agree on the presence of double standards but depart in their normative conclusions, with Earp rejecting all medically unnecessary medical cutting of children. Next, Allan J.…”