TLDR: Western perceptions of female genital cutting (FGC) and male circumcision (MC) are not rooted in well-established empirical evidence, but instead on poorly substantiated tropes. The perception of FGC as sexually crippling and leading to poor health outcomes is not well substantiated by the best evidence. Similarly the motivations for FGC are varied, and with a few exceptions, FGC is not well explained by patriarchy.
The "double standard" is explained by noting that MC has always been a familiar practice in the West, whereas FGC is a "foreign" practice. People have always been disgusted by the bodily modificationsperception of other culturesMC (facial scarification, FGC/M, Chinese footbinding etc.male circumcision) whilst being disgusted that theirand FGC own bodily modification is not performed(female genital cutting) in the West are skewed by familiarity with MC (MCparticularly in the US). An additive effect to this was that, and unfamiliarity with FGC become linked to patriarchywhich is viewed as a barbaric "mutilating" practice practised by "outsiders" and "savages" in the 1970s dueAfrica. The common conception of FGC as a mutilating procedure done to restrict female sexuality drives the influenceseparation of the Hosken report. This report has since been largely repudiatedthese two practices in public discourse. Despite significant criticism from expertsBecause MC is a familiar practice in the field, the UN/WHO have entrenched this division, and the mainstream opinion remains that MCUS it is seen as benign and FGC are incomparableeven beneficial to health. On this basisThe US lawtakes a similar view on both female genital cosmetic surgeries (unsurprisinglyFGCS) treats the familiar MC as a "benign" and "harmless" practiceintersex normalisation surgeries, whilst treating anywhich are both viewed as enhancements and allbeneficial, despite distinct anatomical parallels to forms of FGC [1,9,10]. The key feature seems to be how familiar or foreign such a bodily modification is (including forms less invasive than MC)- throughout history people have viewed their own bodily modifications as utterly impermissiblebenign and beneficial and those of outsiders as barbaric and mutilating. See - Chinese foot binding, MC, FGC, corsetting, ritual scarification etc.
FurthermoreAn additive effect to this was that FGC become linked to patriarchy in the US (and more generally1970s due to the westinfluence of the Hosken report. This report has since been largely repudiated. Despite significant criticism from experts in the field, the UN/WHO have entrenched this division, WHO) adopt a double standard when it comes to female genital cosmetic surgeryand the mainstream opinion remains that MC and FGC are incomparable. On this basis US law (FGCS - E.g. labiaplasty, vaginal rejuvenation etc.unsurprisingly) treating these "Western" forms of FGCtreats the familiar MC as permissible despite close anatomical parallels to forms of FGC practices in Africa/Middle East/WE Asia [1,9,10]. The WHO definition of FGC applies to womena "benign" and girls"harmless" practice, whilst treating any and takes no accountall forms of consent statusFGC - yet FGCS practices in the West pass without comment or censure(including forms less invasive than MC) as utterly impermissible.
MoresoWestern perceptions of female genital cutting (FGC) and male circumcision (MC) are not rooted in well- the US frequently performs surgeriesestablished empirical evidence as surveyed by a team of leading researchers in FGC [1]. The common view relies on intersex children that arepoorly substantiated tropes. The perception of FGC as invasivesexually crippling and damaging as evenleading to poor health outcomes is not well substantiated by the most severe forms ofbest evidence [1]. Similarly the motivations for FGC, without medical indication are varied, based purely on the perceived need to "normalize their genitalia intoand with a male/female binaryfew exceptions, FGC is not well explained by patriarchy.
Put bluntly - the US adoptsthere is a hypocritical attitude todouble standard in how FGC practices in Africa are treated versus FGCS, MC and intersex surgeries. A wide ranging body of scholars has stated this clearly- see [7]. This hypocritical attitude is not based on a solid empirical understanding of the effects and motivations of FGC practices in Africa, and neither does it critically examine the evidence and motivations for MC within the US. Attitudes towards FGC are based on an "orientalizing" approach [8] towards outsider cultures and the global enforcement of FGM band reflects the far greater power of the global North vs the global South.
