While both female genital mutilation (FGM) and male circumcision involve genital alteration, comparing the two procedures is misleading and minimizes the severity of FGM. While male circumcision, often performed without consent, carries potential health risks, FGM results in a significantly greater range of severe acute and long-term complications. This distinction elevates FGM to a different level of ethical concern and risk assessment.
The Severity of FGM: Beyond Simple Comparison
FGM encompasses a range of procedures, with the most extreme form, Type III infibulation, involving the removal of the clitoris, labia minora, and labia majora, followed by the stitching together of the vaginal opening. This practice leads to numerous complications, including:
- Urinary difficulties: Infibulation often results in painful and obstructed urination.
- Menstrual problems: Women with FGM frequently experience excruciatingly painful periods (dysmenorrhea) and the accumulation of menstrual blood in the vagina (hematocolpos).
- Childbirth complications: Women who have undergone infibulation require surgical reopening (defibulation) before childbirth, posing significant risks to both mother and child.
- Psychological trauma: The experience of FGM, often performed on young girls without anesthesia or consent, can lead to profound and lasting psychological trauma.
Health Risks and Barriers to Care
Beyond immediate complications, FGM creates long-term health risks:
- Gynecological health: The altered anatomy and associated pain often deter women from seeking essential gynecological screenings, increasing their vulnerability to undetected infections and diseases.
- Infections: The procedure itself carries a high risk of infection, and the resulting scarring can further increase susceptibility to urinary tract infections.
- Mental health: The trauma and physical consequences of FGM contribute to a higher risk of mental health issues, such as anxiety, depression, and PTSD.
- Social isolation: In some communities, FGM leads to social isolation and stigmatization, further compounding the psychological harm.
Cultural Context and Legal Implications
FGM is often rooted in cultural traditions and beliefs, making its eradication a complex challenge. Despite being illegal in many countries, including the UK, prosecutions remain rare. The practice persists due to:
- “Holidays” abroad: Parents may take their daughters to countries where FGM is practiced to circumvent legal restrictions.
- “Cutters” within communities: Individuals who perform FGM may operate clandestinely within communities, perpetuating the practice despite legal prohibitions.
Debunking False Claims About FGM
Online claims promoting FGM as healthier or cleaner are demonstrably false and often based on misinterpretations of scientific data. Some studies suggesting a link between FGM and reduced HIV prevalence fail to account for confounding factors, such as lower sexual activity among women with FGM due to pain and lack of pleasure. This correlation does not imply causation. In contrast, reputable research has shown a correlation between both male and female genital cutting and an increased risk of HIV infection.
Conclusion: Distinct Procedures, Different Ethical Considerations
While both male and female genital cutting raise ethical concerns, particularly regarding consent, the severity and long-term consequences of FGM distinguish it as a far more harmful practice. Advocating for informed consent in male circumcision is crucial, but equating it to the extensive physical and psychological damage inflicted by FGM is a dangerous oversimplification. Efforts to eradicate FGM must continue to be prioritized, recognizing its profound and lasting impact on the health and well-being of girls and women worldwide.
