The child’s right to genital integrity

Abstract

People in liberal societies tend to feel a little uncomfortable talking about male genital cutting, but generally do not think it is morally abhorrent. But female genital cutting is widely considered to be morally repulsive. This common social intuition – that male genital cutting is benign, but female genital cutting is impermissibly harmful – is mirrored in the policies of real-world liberal governments and real-world international liberal institutions. The difference in attitudes towards these practices could be explained by investigation into the cultural biases of people in liberal societies, where social preference is given to practices conducted by majority and established minority group members over those practised by members of marginalised groups. In this article, I argue that the intuition cannot be defended from a liberal position committed to equal children’s rights. I defend children’s equal right to bodily integrity. I claim that in practice children’s right to bodily integrity is conditional on it serving their greater interests – which sometimes require adults to interfere with children’s bodies in ways that we would not interfere with adults’ bodies. But, I argue, this practical conditionality ought not to mean that the state treat male and female children differently. I make a case for the child’s inviolable right to genital integrity, based on the relationship between the child’s genital integrity and their sexual and genital autonomy in adulthood. I outline and respond to potential criticisms, namely that (i) male genital cutting has medical benefits that outweigh its harms and that (ii) female genital cutting is more socially harmful than male genital cutting.

‘Why did I circumcise him?’ Unexpected comparisons to male circumcision in a qualitative study on female genital cutting among Kurdish–Norwegians

“…Perhaps as a way to reconcile the often contradictory medical, religious, cultural and moral arguments, some academics have placed both practices within the framework of children's experiences and rights to bodily autonomy as a way to compare them (e.g. Abu-Sahlieh, 2001; Brussels Collaboration on Bodily Integrity, 2019; Denniston et al, 2007;Dustin, 2010;Earp, 2015;Mason, 2001;Townsend, 2019).…”

Defending an inclusive right to genital and bodily integrity for children

“…The idea of the child's right to bodily integrity has increasingly been defended in bioethical, philosophical, and legal scholarship [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]. Some authors argue in favour of the child's right to genital integrity grounded in the value of genital and sexual autonomy for all individuals [6][7][8].…”

“…

At the time of writing in mid-2021, policy on child genital cutting and modification is inconsistent in the UK, US, and most European states, and there is growing consensus that this inconsistency should end [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10]. The question addressed here, is whether Western liberal democracies ought to discourage, if not legally prohibit, all forms of medically unnecessary child genital cutting and modification, or permit some relatively minor forms.

…”

Medically Unnecessary Genital Cutting and the Rights of the Child: Moving Toward Consensus

“…Certainly, this is the case in Western countries with a strong tradition of individual rights, such as the United States. In these countries, children are taught from a young age that their genitals are not even to be touched by others, apart from required medical examinations or other limited exceptions (Box 3), before they can exercise their sexual autonomy (Earp and Steinfeld 2018;Townsend 2019).…”