Cutting Away Rights: Why Female Genital Mutilation Must End
"Exploring the human rights violations and cultural complexities surrounding female genital mutilation."
Female genital mutilation (FGM), also known as female circumcision, is a practice involving the partial or total removal of external female genitalia or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons. It is a deeply entrenched tradition in certain cultures, often performed due to social, religious, or cultural beliefs.
This article aims to dissect the complex issue of FGM, exploring its origins, the various forms it takes, and the justifications offered by those who practice it. It will also address the core debate between universal human rights and cultural relativism, and ultimately demonstrate how FGM constitutes a severe violation of the fundamental human rights of women and girls.
By examining the arguments for and against FGM, and highlighting its devastating consequences on health, equality, and physical integrity, this article seeks to advocate for its complete eradication and to promote the protection of the rights of all women and girls.
Global Scale and Impact
UNICEF reported in March 2024 that more than 230 million girls and women worldwide had undergone FGM, representing a 15 percent increase, or 30 million more people, compared with data released eight years earlier. The UNFPA FGM Dashboard compiles prevalence and practice data from the latest Demographic and Health Surveys and Multiple Indicator Cluster Surveys. UNICEF also frames elimination of FGM by 2030 as a development goal and emphasizes amplifying survivors' voices and supporting bodily autonomy.
Rights-Based Prevention
Human-rights approaches identify FGM as a violation of women’s and children’s rights, while also recognizing possible consequences including hemorrhage, sepsis, disability, sexual dysfunction, post-traumatic stress disorder, and death. A review examined standards from the UN Human Rights Council, treaty-monitoring bodies, and Special Rapporteur reports, and connected those standards with guidance for care such as deinfibulation, mental-health support, and sexual-health services. However, the existence of laws prohibiting FGM does not guarantee effective enforcement, so prevention also requires policy implementation, community education, and healthcare-worker training.
Origins and Changing Definitions
Historical research on FGM examines the social factors behind the practice through anthropological accounts and newer empirical studies of its origins. A historical review reports that forms of female genital mutilation were documented for centuries in European countries. It also describes how interest intensified in the 1860s after Isaac Baker Brown linked masturbation, based on observations at the London Surgical Home for Women, to illness and promoted surgical intervention.
Understanding the Roots and Rationales of FGM
While the exact origins of FGM remain unclear, evidence suggests it has been practiced for over 2,000 years, with roots in ancient Egypt and potentially other regions like Greece, Rome, and pre-Islamic Arabia. Historically, it has even been used in some Western countries to prevent masturbation or cure hysteria. Today, FGM is primarily concentrated in about 30 countries in Africa and the Middle East, but also exists within diaspora communities in other parts of the world.
- Socio-cultural Reasons: FGM is often seen as a rite of passage, marking a girl's transition into womanhood and preparing her for marriage and community life.
- Psychosexual Reasons: It is believed that FGM reduces a woman's sexual desire, ensuring premarital virginity and marital fidelity.
- Religious Reasons: Some communities mistakenly believe that FGM is a religious requirement, despite the fact that it is not prescribed in the core texts of Islam or Christianity.
- Hygienic and Aesthetic Reasons: The external female genitalia are sometimes considered dirty or unsightly, and FGM is performed to promote cleanliness and improve appearance.
Continuing Evidence Review
Current research on FGM continues to examine its health, human-rights, social, and legal dimensions. Findings should be interpreted carefully because evidence may differ across countries, communities, study designs, and available surveys. A balanced review therefore benefits from survivor-informed perspectives, reliable prevalence data, and attention to both prevention and healthcare needs.
Why Prohibition Alone Fails
Arguments that treat FGM as merely a private or cultural matter conflict with evidence identifying it as a serious violation of women’s and children’s rights, with potentially severe health consequences. The FBI describes FGM as illegal and provides information on why it is prohibited and how it can be reported. UNICEF states that prevention requires a multisectoral approach grounded in human rights and gender equality, illustrated by Djibouti’s stated commitment to eliminating the practice.
Comparing Responses
Comparisons of FGM responses should account for differences in law, enforcement, healthcare access, community norms, and the quality of available data. Legal prohibition may establish an important rights framework, but its practical effect can vary when implementation and reporting systems are weak. A useful comparison therefore considers both formal protections and the services and community engagement available to prevent cutting and support survivors.
The Path Towards Eradication
FGM is a complex issue deeply intertwined with cultural beliefs and social norms. However, it is unequivocally a violation of human rights that inflicts severe physical and psychological harm on women and girls. The justifications offered by practitioners cannot outweigh the fundamental rights to health, equality, and physical integrity.
Rights-Based Synthesis
Expert and scholarly commentary describes FGM as a deeply rooted and highly symbolic traditional practice in communities where it occurs, while also characterizing it as violence against women and a human-rights violation. The international framing is associated with the 2008 interagency statement, “Eliminating female genital mutilation,” involving the World Health Organization and other UN bodies. Rights-based advocacy should distinguish FGM from gender-affirming care rather than conflating the two, as Equality Now’s 2025 policy brief argues in the US context.
Building the Next Response
Future efforts will likely need to combine stronger implementation of existing protections with prevention that is sensitive to local community dynamics. Priorities may include survivor-informed services, better data collection, and sustained education for families and professionals. Progress should be assessed cautiously because available evidence and implementation capacity can vary substantially across settings.
Systems Behind Persistence
FGM cannot be addressed through criminal law alone when social expectations, gender inequality, healthcare systems, and access to protection shape whether the practice continues. Effective responses therefore require coordination among legal institutions, health services, educators, community organizations, and survivors. The scale and complexity of these systems mean that durable change is likely to require sustained rather than isolated interventions.
Survivors and Cross-Border Risk
FGM/C is described as a human-rights violation and a form of child abuse involving the partial or total removal of external female genitalia, or injury to female genital organs, for non-medical reasons. Recent qualitative work has examined who and what controls the continuation and medicalisation of FGM/C, its health impacts, healthcare responses, and prevention strategies, including the experiences of survivors living in Spain. A UNICEF case study from Uganda highlights the cross-border dimension, including girls and young women seeking to be cut across the border in Kenya.
International human rights instruments provide a framework for addressing FGM as a violation of these rights, placing responsibility on governments to protect their citizens from harmful practices. While laws are essential, they are not enough. Effective strategies must also include education, community engagement, and challenging the underlying beliefs that perpetuate FGM.
Ultimately, eradicating FGM requires a multi-faceted approach guided by respect for human rights and a commitment to empowering women and girls to make their own choices about their bodies and their futures. Only then can we ensure that all women and girls can live free from violence, discrimination, and harmful traditional practices.