Two American gynecologists propose that “minimalist” excisions be tolerated. A compromise that would respect cultural traditions and protect women’s health.
Two weeks after the International Day of Zero Tolerance to Sexual Mutilation, the proposal of two American gynecologists is shocking. To protect little girls and adolescents, they plead for “minimalist” excisions to be tolerated. According to doctors Kavita Shah Arora and Allan Jacobs, “this compromise respects cultural differences while protecting women’s health”.
Pragmatic compromise or lax point of view? Since the publication of their post in the Journal of Medical Ethics, the debate agitates the medical community and the associations who want to see this practice disappear. For the two gynecologists, the fight against this female violence has led nowhere until today. “Despite 30 years of mobilization, the prevalence of non-therapeutic female genital alterations in minors is stable in many countries, underline the gynecologists. Alternative approaches must therefore be considered”.
200 million circumcised women
In fact, according to the latest UNICEF report, 200 million women have been circumcised worldwide. These sexual mutilations concern the partial or total removal of the external genital organs of little or adolescent girls. Generally practiced by traditional midwives or healers, excision has no medical reason, but is most often dictated by religious rituals or a social norm.
These mutilations damage tissue and can lead to infections or even bleeding that can lead to death. They can also lead to pain during intercourse and lack of pleasure, as well as complications during childbirth.
Aware of these consequences, the two gynecologists believe, however, that two less risky and mutilating procedures could be accepted: those having no lasting impact on the functioning and appearance of the genitals or those modifying “slightly” their appearance without hindering their development. sex or the ability to have children. For these practices, gynecologists even reject the term “genital mutilation” and rather evoke “genital alterations” by comparing them to male circumcision.
A step back
“We are not saying that these practices on female genitalia are desirable. […] But we believe that certain procedures – all performed under anesthesia – should be tolerated in our liberal societies.” They also believe that these two excisions are not a violation of the human rights of young girls and women.
For many of their colleagues, this proposal is a big step backwards. In a comment published in the Journal of Medical Ethics, Professor Ruth Mackin, of the Albert Einstein Faculty of Medicine (New York), believes that “not all cultural traditions deserve respect” and recalls “that originally, female genital mutilation was intended to control women and their sexual appetite.
Read our survey: Excision, women are breaking the taboo
.
