Why was the U.S. ban on ‘female genital mutilation ruled unconstitutional, and what does this have to do with male circumcision?

• Published in: Ethics, medicine, and public health medicine, and public health, 2020-10, Vol.15, Article 100533
• Main Author: Earp, B.D.
• Format: Article
• Language: English
• Subjects: Circoncision masculine; Coupe génitale intersexuée; Female genital mutilation; Intersex genital cutting; Male circumcision; Medically unnecessary; Mutilation génitale féminine; Médicalement inutile; United States; États Unis
• ISSN: 2352-5525; 2352-5525
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jemep.2020.100533

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. Attempts to discursively quarantine the male and female forms of cutting (MGC, FGC) from one another based on appeals to health outcomes, symbolic meanings, and religious versus cultural status have been undermined by a large body of recent scholarship. Recognizing that a zero-tolerance policy toward ritual FGC may lead to restrictions on ritual MGC, prominent defenders of the latter practice have begun to argue that what they regard as “minor” forms of ritual FGC should in fact be seen as morally permissible—even when non-consensual—and should be legally allowed in Western societies. In a striking development in late 2018, a federal judge ruled that the longstanding U.S. law prohibiting “female genital mutilation” (FGM) was unconstitutional on jurisdictional grounds, while also acknowledging the relevance of arguments concerning non-discrimination on the basis of sex or gender. It now appears that anti-FGM laws in other Western countries similarly risk being struck down. To resist this trajectory, feminist scholars and advocates of children's rights now increasingly argue that efforts to protect girls from non-consensual FGC must be rooted in a sex- and gender-neutral (that is, human) right to bodily integrity, if these efforts are to be successful in the long-run. Il existe maintenant des formes légalement interdites d’excision féminine médicalement inutile – y compris la « piqûre rituelle »– qui sont moins graves que les formes autorisées d’excision masculine médicalement inutile et d’excision intersexuelle. Les tentatives de mise en quarantaine discursive des formes d’excision masculine et féminine (MGC, FGC) l’une par rapport à l’autre sur la base d’appels à des résultats de santé, de significations symboliques et de statut religieux ou culturel ont été minées par un grand nombre d’études récentes. Reconnaissant qu’une politique de tolérance zéro à l’égard de l’excision rituelle peut conduire à des restrictions de l’excision rituelle, d’éminents défenseurs de cette dernière pratique ont commencé à faire valoir que ce qu’ils considèrent comme des formes « mineures » d’excision rituelle devrait en fait être considérées comme moralement admissibles – même lorsqu’elles ne sont pas consensuelles – et devraient être légalement autorisée