Super Artikel von Kameel Ahmady, der die Ungleichbehandlung auf den Punkt bringt:
The social pressures that enforce FGM and MGM are legitimized by a shared and surprisingly consistent set of cultural beliefs, particularly notions of purity, modesty, and cleanliness. In many traditions that practice both forms of cutting, it is believed that the female clitoris connotes undesirable maleness, whereas the male penile foreskin connotes undesirable femaleness. Therefore, their removal is seen as a necessary act of purification, required to create a “proper” or aesthetically complete gendered body. This parallel was keenly observed by Lightfoot-Klein (1989), who wrote that “the [main] reasons given for FGM in Africa and… for routine male circumcision in the US. is essentially the same. Both promise cleanliness, the absence of odors … greater attractiveness and acceptability”
A Glaring Inconsistency: Situating MGM within a Human Rights Framework
While the sociocultural parallels between FGM and MGM are compelling, the most significant and consequential area of comparison lies within the prism of international human rights. A robust legal and ethical consensus has firmly established that FGM, irrespective of how or where it is practiced, constitutes a grave violation of universal human rights principles, including the right to personal integrity, the right to health, and the right to be free from gender-based violence. The mutilation of the external female genitalia is unequivocally recognized as a form of physical harm that, in its most severe forms, has been likened to torture by international bodies (United Nations Human Rights Council, 2016). Therefore, any non-consensual and medically unnecessary mutilation of a child’s genitals, including the penis, must be scrutinized under the same rigorous principles of equality and non-discrimination. Such acts violate a suite of fundamental protections, including the right to freedom from cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment; the right to the highest attainable standard of health; the right to physical integrity; and the fundamental rights of the child. In the most tragic cases involving complications such as hemorrhage or infection, risks that have been linked to infant deaths in the United States can even violate the right to life