Gender Bias in Circumcision: Addressing FGM and MGM through Intactivism

Apr 14, 2024

Circumcision, the surgical removal of the foreskin from the male penis or the external genitalia of females, often sparks heated debate. Discussions typically focus on the supposed medical, religious, and cultural justifications behind the practices. However, gender bias, inherent in the perception and legalization of circumcision practices—specifically, the differences between Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) and Male Genital Mutilation (MGM) is practically neglected in the larger conversation. 

In this article, we advocate for intactivism, the movement opposing all forms of non-consensual genital surgeries.

• Explore the double standards in the legal and cultural treatment of FGM and MGM
• Examine the medical myths versus the realities of genital surgeries
• Highlight the intactivism perspective and its reasons for opposing non-consensual circumcision

In this discussion, we will take a closer look into the biases that differentiate the treatment of FGM and MGM and advocate for a unified approach to protecting all children from genital cutting, regardless of gender.

“As Americans self-righteously decry FGM, the American government and funders such as the Gates  and Clinton foundations are pushing male circumcision on misinformed and disadvantaged adult men and, increasingly, on male infants who cannot consent. Removing normal genitalia is not a legitimate public health intervention, yet they continue to relentlessly promote it. Whole ranks of international health specialists are building their academic and foundation careers on this worthless, unethical surgery carried out on third-world men, and American doctors continue to rake in the cash for inflicting it on American baby boys. And all of them are willfully, conveniently ignoring any discussion of the ethical disconnects and cultural biases that prevent honest comparison of FGM and MGM.” 

— Georganne Chapin, Founder Executive Director, Intact America

Gender Bias in Circumcision: FGM and MGM

Legal and Cultural Double Standards

Defining FGM and MGM

Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) refers to any procedure that intentionally alters or injures the female genital organs for non-medical reasons and is categorized into four major types, ranging from clitoridectomy and excision to more severe forms such as infibulation. The World Health Organization (WHO) classifies FGM as a severe violation of human rights and a form of gender-based violence that can lead to long-term physical, psychological, and sexual harm.

In contrast, Male Genital Mutilation (MGM), commonly known as male circumcision, involves the surgical removal of the male foreskin. This practice is also often conducted without the individual’s consent and can result in severe, lifelong psychological, physical, and emotional complications.

Legal Protections Against FGM

Globally, FGM is banned in numerous countries and strongly condemned by various international organizations, including the United Nations and the World Health Organization. These entities advocate for eradicating the practice, recognizing it as a grave human rights violation with no health benefits, only harm. In over 30 countries, including the United States, Canada, and the United Kingdom, FGM is illegal and considered a criminal offense, with legislation in place that protects girls from this form of mutilation.

The global consensus against FGM highlights a commitment to protecting female minors from bodily harm that is recognized internationally as neither medically necessary nor ethically justifiable.

The Legal Grey Area Surrounding MGM

Conversely, the practice of MGM, or male circumcision, is treated entirely differently by many of the same jurisdictions where FGM is rigorously prosecuted. In countries like the United States, male circumcision is legal and widely practiced; it is perpetuated even by medical professionals who have sworn to uphold the Hippocratic oath. 

This legal inconsistency arises from historical, cultural, and religious biases that contribute to male circumcision being perceived differently from female genital mutilation. The culturally ingrained nature of MGM in many societies contributes to its acceptance, whereas FGM is viewed with condemnation and disgust.

Intactivists—advocates for the ending of all non-consensual genital surgeries—argue that just like FGM, MGM also constitutes non-consensual bodily alteration and should similarly be viewed through the lens of human rights and child protection. The movement pushes for legal and societal recognition that all children, regardless of gender, have the right to bodily integrity and protection from unnecessary harm.

Examining the Double Standards of FGM and MGM

The stark legal and cultural distinctions between how FGM and MGM are treated highlight a blatant gender bias. FGM’s legal prohibition internationally, backed by substantial human rights advocacy, contrasts sharply with the widespread legality and acceptance of MGM, underscoring a societal double standard rooted in tradition and gender discrimination.

As intactivists, we advocate for a universal standard that protects all children from genital alterations without their consent, aiming to align the legal treatment of MGM with that of FGM. We are committed to equality, non-discrimination, and the fundamental rights of children. The intactivist movement seeks to protect children from non-consensual genital cutting, educate societies about the harms associated with these practices, and to shift cultural perceptions towards respect for bodily autonomy and integrity.

Medical Myths vs. Realities of MGM and FGM

Health Benefits Deliberately Exaggerated

Revisiting the Claimed Health Benefits of MGM

Proponents of Male Genital Mutilation (MGM), commonly referred to as male circumcision, often tout several potential health benefits as justifications for the procedure. These benefits are said to include a lower risk of urinary tract infections in infancy, a reduced risk of penile cancer, and a decreased risk of transmission of certain sexually transmitted infections, including HIV. 

However, the vast majority of these purported benefits are either not statistically significant enough to be worth the risks and dangers of MGM, or the pros of circumcision amount to little more than propaganda. 

• Urinary Tract Infections: Some studies suggest that circumcision reduces the risk of urinary tract infections; however, the actual risk reduction is minimal. For instance, to prevent one UTI, up to 100 circumcisions would need to be performed, which is a high intervention rate for a relatively uncommon condition.
• Penile Cancer: The American Cancer Society notes that penile cancer is rare in both circumcised and uncircumcised men, with other factors, such as HPV infection, playing a more significant role than circumcision status. The minimal risk reduction does not justify the routine removal of the foreskin.
• HIV Transmission: While there are studies that suggest circumcision reduces the risk of heterosexual transmission of HIV among men in high-risk populations (primarily studies conducted in sub-Saharan Africa), these findings are highly questionable due to other factors, such as hygiene practices and cultural elements that were not properly accounted for as variables.

Underestimated Complications of MGM

The risks and complications associated with MGM are frequently underestimated and can vary from minor to severe, including both immediate and long-term consequences:

• Immediate Complications: These can include bleeding, infection, and the removal of too much or too little foreskin (our stance is that any foreskin removal constitutes “too much”), which may require further surgical interventions.
• Meatal Stenosis: This is a narrowing of the urethra that can occur due to irritation and infection of the exposed urethral meatus following circumcision. It often requires surgical correction and can be painful and problematic.
• Long-term Effects: These include potential issues with sexual function and sensitivity, as well as psychological effects due to the traumatic nature of the pain experienced during the procedure without consent. Studies have shown that the foreskin is rich in sensory nerves, and its removal can fundamentally alter the sexual experience.

Furthermore, the psychological impact of undergoing a non-consensual, painful procedure can have long-lasting effects on an individual’s perception of bodily autonomy and psychological well-being. These aspects are seldom considered in the public health discourse around the practice.

FGM Misconceptions Cleared

Like MGM, Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) has been defended by some cultures under the guise of tradition and supposed benefits, which include claims of enhanced hygiene and societal acceptance. However, these justifications fall apart under scrutiny:

• Hygiene and Health: There is no health benefit to FGM; instead, the practice can cause severe harm, including chronic pain, infections, increased risk of childbirth complications, and even death.
• Societal Acceptance: While FGM might be culturally significant in some communities, this does not outweigh the ethical imperatives to end a practice that causes significant harm and violates individual rights to bodily integrity.

Both MGM and FGM are upheld by various societal, cultural, and even medical justifications. Still, a critical evaluation reveals that these practices are medically unnecessary and ethically indefensible when performed non-consensually.

Intactivism and the Case against Non-consensual Circumcision

Intactivism: Advocating for Genital Autonomy

Intactivist groups like Intact America advocate for the bodily autonomy of all individuals, arguing that children of any gender should be protected from non-consensual genital alterations. Our movement emphasizes the right to intact genitals, free from modifications until the individual can make an informed decision about their own body.

• Ethical and Human Rights Perspective: Intactivism aligns with principles of medical ethics, including autonomy and informed consent, which cannot be obtained from infants or children. The movement seeks to protect children from irreversible bodily changes that they may not have chosen for themselves.
• Promoting Equality and Non-discrimination: By opposing all non-consensual genital cutting, intactivists promote a stance of non-discrimination based on sex. They argue that the protections afforded to girls concerning genital alterations should be equally afforded to boys.
• Legislative and Cultural Change: Intactivists call for legislative reforms to align the legal treatment of MGM with that of FGM, advocating for a consistent approach that respects the rights of all children to bodily integrity. They also work to shift cultural perceptions, promoting understanding of the harms associated with genital cutting and the benefits of remaining intact.

Ethical Considerations and Human Rights

From an ethical and human rights perspective, both Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) and Male Genital Mutilation (MGM) involve significant ethical violations, primarily the non-consensual alteration of a child’s body. This practice breaches fundamental human rights, notably the right to bodily integrity and the right to be free from torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment as outlined in several international human rights treaties.

• Violation of Bodily Integrity: The right to bodily integrity is a core principle of human rights, emphasizing an individual’s autonomy over their own body. Both FGM and MGM fundamentally violate this right, as they involve altering a child’s genitalia without consent. This alteration can have permanent physical and psychological effects, which the child must live with for life.
• Children’s Rights: The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) advocates that in all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities, or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration. Non-consensual genital cutting clearly contradicts this principle, as it prioritizes cultural, religious, or parental preferences over the child’s own rights and best interests.
• Ethical Dilemmas: Ethically, both practices raise serious questions about the moral responsibilities of medical professionals and the limits of parental rights. Medical ethics, underpinned by principles such as do no harm (non-maleficence) and maximizing benefits (beneficence), are compromised when doctors perform surgeries that are not medically necessary and potentially harmful.

Push for Legislative Change around MGM

We at Intact America, along with other intactivist groups, are vigorously campaigning for legislative reforms to eradicate gender bias in the legal treatment of genital mutilation. The objective is to harmonize the laws governing MGM with those established for FGM, providing equitable protections across all genders. This campaign includes several strategic and legal shifts:

• Reevaluating Medical Guidelines: Medical associations globally are urged to update their guidelines to reflect contemporary understandings of human rights and medical ethics. This includes acknowledging the lack of sufficient medical benefits to justify routine neonatal circumcision and recognizing the procedure’s potential harms.
• Increasing Public Awareness: Intactivists seek to raise awareness about the harms associated with non-consensual genital cutting through educational campaigns, seminars, and partnerships with global health organizations. This effort aims to shift public opinion and generate broad-based support for legislative and cultural change.
• Promoting Cultural Shifts: Beyond legal reforms, there is a strong push to shift cultural practices that favor genital mutilation. Through community engagement and advocacy, intactivists work to replace invasive rites of passage with non-invasive cultural celebrations that honor children’s rights and bodily integrity.
• Legislative Reforms: The call for legal change is perhaps the most critical. Intactivists urge national legislatures to extend the protections that currently apply to females under the FGM laws to males, which would involve criminalizing non-consensual MGM. These laws would protect children from non-consensual genital alterations and uphold gender equity in child protection laws.

Throughout this discussion, the clear biases and inconsistencies in the treatment of male and female genital mutilation have been highlighted, illustrating a complex interplay of medical, cultural, and legal factors. By advocating for intactivism, we challenge these norms, proposing that the rights of all children to bodily integrity be universally recognized and legally protected.

This call to action is about opposing unnecessary medical procedures and affirming the human rights of every child to have a say over their own bodies. As we move forward, it is crucial to foster dialogue, reshape legal frameworks, and transform cultural attitudes towards a more ethical and equitable treatment of all children, regardless of gender.