Global phylogenetic analysis reveals multiple origins and correlates of genital mutilation/cutting

Šaffa, Gabriel; Zrzavý, Jan; Duda, Pavel

doi:10.1038/s41562-022-01321-x

Cited by 14 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 71 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Regarding male genital cutting (MGC), although the WHO firmly opposes all non-Western-associated FGC (Table 1), including non-tissue-removing forms (e.g., sanitized "nicking" of the clitoral foreskin or prepuce undertaken for religious purposes) (Bootwala, 2019;Shweder, 2022bShweder, , 2023, it does not condemn any form of medically unnecessary MGC, including relatively severe and unhygienic forms, irrespective of how much healthy genital tissue is damaged or removed. This latter inconsistency is particularly striking given that, wherever non-Western-associated FGC is performed, MGC is virtually always performed within the same communities, typically on children of a similar age under comparable conditions (DeMeo, 1997;Abdulcadir et al, 2012;Johnsdotter, 2018;Šaffa et al, 2022). In other words, wherever girls are cut for cultural or religious reasons, whether in a modern clinic or a rural homestead, their brothers are cut as well (but not vice versa).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The empirical and conceptual flaws can be summarized as follows. First, with respect to the claim that non-Westernassociated FGC constitutes an extreme form of discrimination against women, one must rehearse the point that, as far as anthropologists are aware, women and girls are rarely if ever 19 exclusively targeted for genital cutting, whereas, by contrast, boys in many cultures are so targeted (Abdulcadir et al, 2012;Šaffa et al, 2022; see also Gruenbaum et al, in press). In such "MGC-only" cultures, moreover, while boys may be advantaged along some dimensions, they are specifically disadvantaged by genital cutting, specifically because they are boys.…”

Section: Genital Cutting and Gender Oppressionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Rather, a focus on children's rights could motivate campaigns against all non-consensual, medically unnecessary genital cutting of minors-female, male, or intersex-aimed at protecting the most vulnerable members of society on a nondiscriminatory basis from adult interference with their sexual anatomy (Junos, 1998;Svoboda, 2013;Earp and Steinfeld, 2017;Townsend, 2022). In fact, given the symbolic and functional linkages between FGC and MGC in societies that practice both together-sometimes also alongside IGC; see Box 1such a conjoined effort may be necessary for the successful abandonment of either (Abu-Sahlieh, 1994;Martí, 2010;Prazak, 2017;Šaffa et al, 2022).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Genital Cutting as Gender Oppression: Time to Revisit the WHO Paradigm

Earp

2022

Front. Hum. Dyn.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The World Health Organization (WHO) condemns all medically unnecessary female genital cutting (FGC) that is primarily associated with people of color and the Global South, claiming that such FGC violates the human right to bodily integrity regardless of harm-level, degree of medicalization, or consent. However, the WHO does not condemn medically unnecessary FGC that is primarily associated with Western culture, such as elective labiaplasty or genital piercing, even when performed by non-medical practitioners (e.g., body artists) or on adolescent girls. Nor does it campaign against any form of medically unnecessary intersex genital cutting (IGC) or male genital cutting (MGC), including forms that are non-consensual or comparably harmful to some types of FGC. These and other apparent inconsistencies risk undermining the perceived authority of the WHO to pronounce on human rights. This paper considers whether the WHO could justify its selective condemnation of non-Western-associated FGC by appealing to the distinctive role of such practices in upholding patriarchal gender systems and furthering sex-based discrimination against women and girls. The paper argues that such a justification would not succeed. To the contrary, dismantling patriarchal power structures and reducing sex-based discrimination in FGC-practicing societies requires principled opposition to medically unnecessary, non-consensual genital cutting of all vulnerable persons, including insufficiently autonomous children, irrespective of their sex traits or socially assigned gender. This conclusion is based, in part, on an assessment of the overlapping and often mutually reinforcing roles of different types of child genital cutting—FGC, MGC, and IGC—in reproducing oppressive gender systems. These systems, in turn, tend to subordinate women and girls as well as non-dominant males and sexual and gender minorities. The selective efforts of the WHO to eliminate only non-Western-associated FGC exposes the organization to credible accusations of racism and cultural imperialism and paradoxically undermines its own stated goals: namely, securing the long-term interests and equal rights of women and girls in FGC-practicing societies.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Genital Cutting and Gender Oppressionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Genital Cutting as Gender Oppression: Time to Revisit the WHO Paradigm

Earp

2022

Front. Hum. Dyn.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Our finding that FGM is associated with an increased mortality rate equivalent to around 44,320 excess deaths per year in the countries in our sample, shows how urgent and important the results of this literature are. They suggest that identifying strategies to reduce or eliminate FGM has the potential to save a great number of lives 11 , 29 – 34 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Estimating excess mortality due to female genital mutilation

Ghosh

Flowe

Rockey

2023

Sci Rep

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Globally, over 200 million women and girls have been subjected to Female Genital Mutilation (FGM). This practice, illegal in most countries, often happens in unsanitary conditions and without clinical supervision with consequent bleeding and infection. However, little is known about its contribution to the global epidemiology of child mortality. We matched data on the proportion of girls of a given age group subject to FGM to age-gender-year specific mortality rates during 1990–2020 in 15 countries where FGM is practised. We used fixed-effects regressions to separate the effect of FGM on mortality-rates from variation in mortality in that country in that year. Using our estimated effect, we calculated total annual excess mortality due to FGM. Our estimates imply that a 50% increase in the number of girls subject to FGM increases their 5-year mortality rate by 0.075 percentage point (95% CI $$0\cdot 065$$ 0 · 065 –$$0\cdot 085$$ 0 · 085 ). This increased mortality rate translates into an estimated 44,320 excess deaths per year across countries where FGM is practised. These estimates imply that FGM is a leading cause of the death of girls and young women in those countries where it is practised accounting for more deaths than any cause other than Enteric Infections, Respiratory Infections, or Malaria.

show abstract

“…Thus, in addition to boundary-pushing work on ritual or religious cutting of girls' vulvas (most common in parts of Africa, South and Southeast Asia, and the Middle East, where it is done in conjunction with ritual circumcision of boys in nearly all practicing communities) [31][32][33][34], this collection features critiques of anatomically comparable [35][36][37] vulvar modifications that are more closely associated with Western culture and which are described in that context as being "cosmetic" in nature [38][39][40][41]. These include such modifications as clitoral "unhooding" or other forms of reshaping, vaginal "rejuvenation" procedures, and the more familiar labiaplasty-the last of which is increasingly performed on adolescent girls in parts of Europe, Australasia, and the Americas [42,43].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%