Harms of the current global anti-FGM campaign
Fuambai Ahmadu, Dina Bader, Janice Boddy, Mamasa Camara, Natasha Carver, Rosie Duivenbode, Brian D. Earp, Birgitta Essén, Ellen Gruenbaum, Saida Hodžić, Sara Johnsdotter, Saffron Karlsen, Sophia Koukoui, Cynthia Kraus, MaríaCaterina La Barbera, Lori Leonard, Carlos D. Londoño Sulkin, Ruth M. Mestre i Mestre, Sarah O’Neill, Christina Pantazis, Maree Pardy, Juliet Rogers, Nan Seuffert, Arianne Shahvisi, Richard A. Shweder, Lotta Wendel
Abstract
Traditional female genital practices, though long-standing in many cultures, have become the focus of an expansive global campaign against 'female genital mutilation' (FGM). In this article, we critically examine the harms produced by the anti-FGM discourse and policies, despite their grounding in human rights and health advocacy. We argue that a ubiquitous 'standard tale' obscures the diversity of practices, meanings and experiences among those affected. This discourse, driven by a heavily racialised and ethnocentric framework, has led to unintended but serious consequences: the erosion of trust in healthcare settings, the silencing of dissenting or nuanced community voices, racial profiling and disproportionate legal surveillance of migrant families. Moreover, we highlight a troubling double standard that legitimises comparable genital surgeries in Western contexts while condemning similar procedures in others. We call for more balanced and evidence-based journalism, policy and public discourse-ones that account for cultural complexity and avoid the reductive and stigmatising force of the term 'mutilation'. A re-evaluation of advocacy strategies is needed to ensure that they do not reproduce the very injustices they aim to challenge.