Category 1 includes procedures that should almost never have
a lasting effect on morphology or function if performed prop-
erly. A small nick in the vulvar skin fits into this category.
Category 2 consists of procedures that create morphological
changes, but are not expected to have an adverse effect on
reproduction or on the sexual satisfaction of the woman or her
partner. Examples include surgical retraction of the clitoral
hood or procedures resembling elective labiaplasty as performed
in Western nations. Surgical resection of the clitoral hood is the
vulvar procedure that most closely resembles male circumcision

While any proced-
ure is associated with several predictable short-term risks
(namely bleeding and infection), the long-term sequelae should
be rare for Category 1 and Category 2 procedures. In a WHO
study, there were no statistically significant differences in health
outcomes between those women that underwent Type I surgery
(equivalent to our Category 2) and those that had no surgery

Critics of FGA have pointed out that there is no medical
benefit to factor in the risk versus benefit calculus so often used
in medicine and when compared with male circumcision.29
However, up to recently, the medical benefits of male circumci-
sion were also thought to be tenuous, contested or so minor
that circumcision was classified as an elective, cosmetic proced-
ure.1 Thus, disallowing Categories 1 and 2 of FGA because it
lacks medical benefit is an unjust and inappropriate hurdle to
legalisation.