Brian Earp; Why was the U.S. ban on female genital mutilation ruled unconstitutional, and what does this have to do with male circumcision?

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Brian Earp; Why was the U.S. ban on female genital mutilation ruled unconstitutional, and what does this have to do with male circumcision?

      There are now legally prohibited forms of medically unnecessary female genital cutting-including the so-called ritual nick-that are less severe than permitted forms of medically unnecessary male and intersex genital cutting. Attempts to discursively quarantine the male and female forms of cutting (MGC, FGC) from one another based on appeals to health outcomes, symbolic meanings, and religious versus cultural status have been undermined by a large body of recent scholarship. Recognizing that a zero-tolerance policy toward ritual FGC may lead to restrictions on ritual MGC, prominent defenders of the latter practice have begun to argue that what they regard as "minor" forms of ritual FGC should in fact be seen as morally permissible-even when non-consensual-and should be legally allowed in Western societies. In a striking development in late 2018, a federal judge ruled that the longstanding U.S. law prohibiting "female genital mutilation" (FGM) was unconstitutional on federalist grounds, while also acknowledging the relevance of arguments concerning non-discrimination on the basis of sex or gender. It now appears that anti-FGM laws in other Western countries similarly risk being struck down. To resist this trajectory, feminist scholars and advocates of children's rights now increasingly argue that efforts to protect girls from non-consensual FGC must be rooted in a sex and gender-neutral (that is, human) right to bodily integrity, if these efforts are to be successful in the long-run.
      researchgate.net/publication/3…do_with_male_circumcision
      Tea for the Tillerman
      Peace for the Pillermann