"The 2007 report from NBHW (Schwedisches Gesundheitsinstitut) distinguishes the child as a Jewish child, a Muslim child and African child: “The groups concerned are foremost Jewish, Muslim and many African boys.” (p.27). Through this use of categorization the child is therefore suggested to be someone who is pre-destined to inherit a religion and a tradition. The religion and tradition is arguably to be taken as an intrinsic part of the child’s identity at birth by labeling the child in this way. The NBHW report further emphasizes the particularity of the Jewish and Muslim cultural heritage by separating these groups from other Europeans and religious groups:
There could be a coalition of interests where the child’s right goes opposite that of its parents. This conflict is described from a Western European or Christian discourse. For the Jewish and Muslim groups there is no such conflict of interest. It is the child’s interest to become a part of the family’s faith and tradition. (NBWH, 2007, p.28)"

"It is important to once again underline the fundamental differences between circumcision
of boys and genital mutilation of girls. Genital mutilation is not anchored in religion and is completely banned in Sweden and in large parts of the world. (p. 20).
The categories boys and girls showcase a disparity between the sexes but it also relates back to what Delaet (2009) points out. The differential treatment of male and female circumcision has something to say about the tension between the Universalist and the Cultural relativist perspectives that is found in the human rights context. The disparate standard for male and female circumcision illustrates the complexities of ideology as only one side argues that the disparity implies not all children have their rights respected."