top of page

International Day of Zero Tolerance for Female Genital Mutilation


According to the World Health Organization (WHO), female genital mutilation (FGM), also known as female genital cutting (FGC), comprises all procedures that involve partial or total removal of the external female genitalia, or other harmful procedures to the female genitalia organs, for non-medical reasons. This is however a western term, and, in countries where FGM is common, the practice’s many variants are reflected in dozens of terms. It is also important to note that the term ‘female’ refers to people who were assigned the gender female at birth, meaning that people who do not identify as female may as well have experienced FGM.


FGM is commonly carried out by traditional female practitioners and it is practiced mostly in African and Middle Eastern countries, affecting over a hundred million girls and women. It is a traditional socio-cultural practice and initiation rite based on beliefs surrounding female sexuality and purity maintained through significant pressure by family members, communities, and peers.

Regional and international human rights treaties, such as the Convention on the Elimination of all Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) and the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR) on the Rights of Women in Africa, and treaty bodies and special procedures have classified FGM as a form of gender-based violence that violates a series of rights of the girl-child and women (freedom from torture and other ill-treatment, right to health, right to non-discrimination). Indeed, the cutting frequently results in short-term complications such as severe pain, shock, excessive bleeding, infections, and difficulty in passing urine, as well as long-term consequences for these girls and women sexual and reproductive health and mental health.

FGM has become a focal point for intense debates about cultural relativism and feminism. What makes it particularly challenging is that it is a deep-rooted practice that is often seemingly endorsed by women themselves.



If it is only communities or ‘cultures’ themselves that can define the validity of rights and practices, FGM may be justified on the grounds of the legitimacy it commands.

In contrast, Western feminists, have called it a violation that is based on discrimination and coercion. According to this perspective, the girls and women supporting this practice have internalized the dominant discourse that legitimizes FGM. However, advocacy based on the argument that FGM is violent, despicable, and wrong has proved counterproductive.

This matter has put in opposition those advocating the application of universal human rights standards against those demanding respect for cultural diversity. On the positive side, however, such debate has been healthy as it has stressed the need for a crosscultural understanding and a sharpening of strategies on how best to respond to harmful practices.


Several states have adopted legislation that outlaws FGM, which has in many instances been complemented by awareness campaigns. The prohibition and criminalization of FGM as a means of protecting women’s rights is an important step, both as a public rejection of the practice and as a deterrent. However, experiences show that these measures alone often have limited effectiveness.

A UNICEF study on FGM identified several key elements of change, namely: non-coercive and non-judgemental approaches with focus on empowerment; awareness on the part of the community of the harm caused by FGM; the decision to abandon FGM as a collective choice; public affirmation; organised diffusion from one community to another; and an environment that enables and supports change.



These elements, based on practical experiences, demonstrate that discussions that frame the issue of FGM and women’s rights as a clash between universal human rights and culture may miss the point. Instead, it has been shown that FGM is often an embedded practice that those concerned may be willing to change under the right circumstances. In this context, the language of human rights becomes part of a broader package of persuasion that will only succeed if translated and related to local practices and concerns.


Do you want to know more about this topic? Then check the links below and join the movement!


And join our lecture on the topic, which will take place online, on the 6th February (18h CET), with two experts in the field! For more info, check our socials!

43 views0 comments

Recent Posts

See All

Comments


bottom of page