Female genital cutting (FGC), also called female genital mutilation (FGM), has become the international symbol par excellence of the limit to cultural relativism and the universality of human rights for women and girls.

The World Health Organization classifies FGC into four categories, but the term encompasses all procedures involving “partial or total removal of the female external genitalia or other
injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons”. The procedure involves removing otherwise healthy female genital tissue and interfering with the primary functions of girls’ and women’s bodies. There are no health benefits to FGC; there are only health risks.

FGC is commonly practiced in traditional societies where it is upheld as a rite of passage into womanhood and is thought to preserve virginity and curb female sexuality. As a result, the United Nations categorises FGC as a “harmful traditional practice” constituting violence against women and girls which is normalised, accepted, and justified because of culture or religion.

FGC IN INTERNATIONAL LAW

FGC is widely recognised as violating a series of human rights principles enshrined in international law. Under the principle of due diligence, there is a legal obligation on states to enact and enforce domestic legislation against FGC and to eliminate cultural and religious justifications for its existence. As a result of a number of Western-led, top-down, legal reforms over the last decade, FGC is now criminalised in 26 countries in Africa and the Middle East, as well as 33 other countries with large migrant populations from practicing countries. 

However, despite legislative changes in favour of women’s rights, legal reforms have not been followed by a significant reduction in FGC incidence. According to 28 Too Many, of the 28 countries in Africa where FGC is practised, three countries that have anti-FGC laws are also home to 50% of the girls who have been cut. In Liberia, it was reported that the number of counties practicing FGC even increased during a temporary ban.

POLITICS OF WESTERN INTERVENTION

The disparity between women’s rights as enshrined in law and the reality of FGC on the ground has prompted renewed debate about Western intervention, imposing legislation without the consent of the communities affected. Global South feminists from within these communities highlight that the Western “anti-FGM” campaigning discourse has alienated practicing communities and revived animosity towards perceived Western cultural imperialism. This has ultimately hindered attempts to eliminate the practice. 

Nahid Toubia, Sudanese scholar and women’s health activist, argues that FGC has often been portrayed as irrefutable evidence of the "evil, barbaric and inherently patriarchal” cultures of so called “third world” countries. Wairimũ Ngaruiya Njambi also blames the language of “mutilation” for exacerbating tensions by contributing to the imagery of a typical “third world woman” as voiceless, subservient, and victimised, and whose sexual and reproductive potential is controlled by men in silence and without protest.

PAPER TIGER LAWS

The overall consensus is that Western-led efforts to eliminate FGC through legislation have been, at best, ineffective and, at worst, counter-productive. In some cases, the resolve of communities to continue the practice has been strengthened, as FGC forms a way of resisting and protesting foreign interference and imperialist narratives. This can be traced back to the colonial era itself. For example, in 1946 when the British colonial government attempted to ban FGC in Sudan, anti-colonial protests broke out following the arrest of practitioners.

 In more recent history, this resistance has been demonstrated by widespread challenges to the effective implementation and enforcement of FGC laws. According to a joint report by the UNFPA-UNICEF, in the majority of countries where FGC laws exist, very few cases have resulted in a conviction. In Djibouti, it was reported that police officers and judges were refusing to acknowledge the existence of the law due its widespread lack of public support.

In a further unintended consequence of top-down legal reform, the practice has been pushed underground. To avoid prosecution, perpetrators have adopted strategies such as cutting girls at infancy, in secrecy, or in neighbouring countries where FGC laws either do not exist or are not effectively enforced.

According to 28 Too Many, following the passing of the FGC 2011 Act in Kenya, families, and traditional circumcisers from the Kuria community secretly took girls over the border to cut them in Tanzania. Plan International also highlights that the practice remains prevalent in the UK but largely hidden, as during "cutting season” girls are flown abroad under the pretence of visiting relatives in order to undergo FGC, which reduces the likelihood of detection. 

ADVOCATING FOR A CHANGE IN APPROACH

An estimated 200 million women and girls alive today have undergone FGC, and if current rates persist, an estimated 68 million more will be cut by 2030. Emerging trends during the global pandemic have also revealed this may be an underestimate, with lockdowns and the closure of schools reducing means of safety and escape, and thereby placing even more girls at risk.

In light of this, there is a desperate need for a change in approach. International programmes that have demonstrated success in promoting community-wide abandonment of FGC, such as Tostan’s human rights-based Community Empowerment Programme, are most importantly non-coercive, non-judgemental, and empower communities to make this decision from within.

Decolonising international intervention, working at the grassroots level directly with practicing communities, and expressing cultural sensitivity to their wants, needs and concerns, is not optional to protect women’s and girls’ bodies from harm. For the women and girls who are subjected to FGC, it is, in many cases, a matter of life or death.

Amy holds a MA in Social and Political Thought from the University of Warwick, specialising in International Politics and Indigenous Feminism. Her areas of interest in the field of human rights are postcolonialism, racial justice and gender equality. She is currently working on research into gender-based violence legislation for the UK Parliament.

LinkedIn