University of Sussex
Browse
s41443-021-00514-8.pdf (435.88 kB)

“FGM” vs. female “cosmetic” surgeries: why do they continue to be treated separately?

Download (435.88 kB)
Version 2 2023-06-12, 08:12
Version 1 2023-06-10, 01:52
journal contribution
posted on 2023-06-12, 08:12 authored by Arianne ShahvisiArianne Shahvisi
In this article, I argue that the moral and legal distinction between “female genital cutting” and “female genital cosmetic surgeries” cannot be maintained without recourse to racist distinctions between the consent capacities of white women and women of colour. The physical procedures involved in these surgeries have significant overlap, as do their motivations, yet they are treated differently in everyday discourse and the law. This paper lays bare this double standard and presents and interrogates some of the reasons commonly given to justify their separate treatment. It concludes with the recommendation that the distinction be dropped in favour of more consistent consent-based stance, which avoids the racism and ethnocentrism that underwrites the present regime. According to this position, the only defensible moral and legal distinction is between those who can consent to these procedures, and those who cannot.

History

Publication status

  • Published

File Version

  • Published version

Journal

International Journal of Impotence Research

ISSN

0955-9930

Publisher

Springer Nature

Page range

1-5

Department affiliated with

  • Clinical and Experimental Medicine Publications

Full text available

  • Yes

Peer reviewed?

  • Yes

Legacy Posted Date

2021-11-25

First Open Access (FOA) Date

2022-01-10

First Compliant Deposit (FCD) Date

2021-11-25

Usage metrics

    University of Sussex (Publications)

    Categories

    No categories selected

    Licence

    Exports

    RefWorks
    BibTeX
    Ref. manager
    Endnote
    DataCite
    NLM
    DC