In a wide-ranging commentary, Brian Earp replies to a proposal from two American gynecologists that Western societies should tolerate and doctors should perform “mild” forms of female genital cutting on girls. This is the same argument that was advanced by bioethicist Dena Davis over a decade ago and which was adopted, very briefly, as the official policy of the American Academy of Pediatrics in 2010. The argument then, as now, was that since circumcision of boys was tolerated, it was discriminatory not to permit less damaging versions of female genital cutting. If the religious rites of groups that practised circumcision of boys were respected, it was consistent to respect the cultural/religious rites of groups that circumcised girls. In reply it was pointed out that the argument could just as well work the other way: that if genital cutting of girls was rejected as an abhorrent denial of human rights, why should similar (and often more severe) surgery on the genitals of boys be tolerated?

While Davis, the AAP and the latest team argue that they are trying to even things up, other critics noticed that the situation would still be very unequal. Under their proposals, girls would still be protected from all but the most minimal and harmless scratch, while boys were still to have their entire foreskin cut off - no change, and not much equality there. It is hard to avoid the conclusion that the real aim of these proposals is not to “show respect” for cultures that practise female genital cutting, but to make it easier to defend circumcision of boys. Over the past decade or so an increasing number of bioethicists, human rights experts and independent thinkers have questioned the “quarantining” of female genital mutilation from male circumcision and argued that the two practices have much in common, socially, ethically and even physically. If cutting a girl’s genitals is a violation of her human rights, it is hard to see why cutting a boy’s genitals is not a violation of his human rights. Arora and Jacobs have already published uncompromising (though somewhat confused) defences of specifically male circumcision and clearly recognise this problem; it seems likely that their latest “modest proposal” on female circumcision is intended to make male circumcision less vulnerable to criticism as an instance of sexism and double standards, and to make it more difficult for those who oppose the practice on bioethical and human rights grounds. In other words, A&J’s real and underlying aim is not to promote female circumcision, but to defend and preserve circumcision of boys as a cultural and medical rite.

In his commentary on A&J’s latest efforts in the Journal of Medical Ethics, Brian Earp argues that all children have the same human rights and should have equal protection from non-therapeutic genital surgeries.

Abstract: Arora and Jacobs (2016) assume that liberal societies should tolerate non-therapeutic infant male circumcision, and argue that it follows from this that they should similarly tolerate — or even encourage — what the authors regard as ‘de minimis’ forms of female genital mutilation (as defined by the World Health Organization). In this commentary, I argue that many serious problems would be likely to follow from a policy of increased tolerance for female genital mutilation, and that it may therefore be time to consider a less tolerant attitude toward non-therapeutic infant male circumcision. Ultimately, I suggest that children of whatever sex or gender should be free from having healthy parts of their most intimate sexual organs either damaged or removed, before they can understand what is at stake in such an intervention and agree to it themselves.

Brian Earp. In defence of genital autonomy for children. Journal of Medical Ethics, online first, 20 January 2016.

The full version of the paper, with supplementary material, may be read at Brian’s Academia Page or at ResearchGate.