Female Genital Mutilation: Human Rights vs. Cultural Practice
This paper examines female genital mutilation (FGM) as a global human rights issue, arguing that the practice is wrong regardless of cultural justification. It begins by defining FGM, detailing its physical and psychological consequences, and surveying its global prevalence—particularly in Sub-Saharan Africa and the Arab world. The paper then compares how two distinct cultural contexts, the United States and Europe, approach and regulate FGM, and explores the underlying patriarchal structures that sustain it. Finally, it engages the philosophical debate between universal human rights and cultural relativism, drawing on international conventions such as CEDAW and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to argue that no cultural tradition can legitimately override the fundamental rights of women and girls.
- Introduction: FGM defined as a global human rights violation
- Defining the Practice: Medical procedures, complications, and global prevalence
- How Two Cultures View FGM Differently: U.S. law versus European political tolerance of FGM
- Why the Cultural Difference Exists: Patriarchy, refugee populations, and Western attitudes
- The Objectivist Argument: Universal human rights versus cultural relativism debate
- Conclusion: Universal rights consensus demands ending FGM
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- It grounds the argument in concrete medical detail before moving to abstract rights claims, making the ethical case viscerally persuasive.
- The comparative cultural section (U.S. vs. Europe) gives the paper analytical structure, showing that legal and political context shapes how societies respond to the same practice.
- The paper fairly presents the cultural relativism counterargument before systematically dismantling it, demonstrating intellectual honesty.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper employs a refutation strategy: it introduces the strongest opposing position—cultural relativism and the sovereignty argument—then uses international legal frameworks (CEDAW, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) and philosophical reasoning (Locke's natural rights theory) to rebut it. This technique strengthens the thesis by showing it can withstand serious objections.
Structure breakdown
The paper moves from definition and evidence (what FGM is and what it does) to comparative analysis (how different societies regulate it) to philosophical argument (why universal rights should prevail). The conclusion synthesizes the normative claim without introducing new evidence, providing a clean resolution to the paper's central tension between cultural sovereignty and human rights universalism.
Introduction
The procedures that constitute the removal of the external genitalia of females, whether in part or wholly, are referred to as female genital mutilation, or FGM. The term also encompasses other forms of injury to such organs carried out for non-medical reasons. The practice is usually performed by traditional circumcisers who are recognized figures in their communities and are often present at important events such as childbirths. There are instances when healthcare providers carry out the procedures under the false assumption that doing so in a controlled medical facility makes it safe (UNICEF 87). However, the World Health Organization urges all medical professionals to refrain from performing such procedures.
The practice has been recognized worldwide as a violation of the rights of women. It is a sign of deep inequality between males and females and is a strong indicator of serious discrimination against women. It constitutes a major violation of children's rights, since it is normally carried out on minors. It is a blatant violation of one's right to health, physical integrity, security, and freedom from torture and ill-treatment, as well as the right to life itself, given that the procedure can and does lead to death (WHO 1).
This paper argues that FGM is a wrong practice regardless of cultural beliefs, as it constitutes a fundamental violation of human rights.
Defining the Practice
The procedure entails the partial or total removal of the external genitalia of a woman or girl. It is carried out on children of all ages, though it is most common among girls between the ages of 5 and 10. Although the procedure is sometimes performed by trained medical personnel, it is mostly done by individuals who have no formal medical training (Dorkenoo 8). The instruments used range from blades and scalpels to broken glass and even improvised cutting tools made from tins. In most cases, no anesthesia is applied to ease the pain. Instead, older women—usually close relatives who themselves underwent the procedure—hold the girl down during the mutilation. It is an extremely painful procedure whose suffering cannot be adequately described in words.
Physical complications are common. Girls and women frequently experience shock, injury to surrounding tissue and organs, and hemorrhage resulting from the struggles that occur as the mutilator carries out the procedure. Other complications commonly linked to FGM include obstruction of the urinary tract, incontinence, infection, and severe scarring that interferes with sexual intercourse and childbearing. Among the most consistent effects is the elimination of a woman's capacity to experience sexual sensation and pleasure, since all FGM procedures involve the removal of the clitoris (Scott 1).
The global scale of FGM is staggering. It is estimated that between 100 million and 140 million females are currently living with the consequences of FGM. These women are found predominantly in Sub-Saharan Africa and the Arab world, and prevalence rates continue to rise with population growth. Addressing the problem requires action on two fronts: protecting girls who are already living with the practice and preventing it from being inflicted on future generations. The urgency is compounded by the fact that FGM is most prevalent in countries with high population growth rates and large youth populations. For instance, in Gambia, Uganda, Somalia, and Mali, females under the age of 15 account for approximately 45% of the female population.
The severity of complications varies depending on factors such as the victim's health at the time of the procedure, the type of FGM performed, the experience of the person carrying it out, the environment in which it takes place, and the degree of resistance during the procedure. Immediate effects include shock, hemorrhage, urine retention, ulceration, urinary tract infection, septicemia, fever, and tetanus infection. Death can result from infection or hemorrhage. Long-term effects include the formation of abscesses and cysts, keloid scarring, incontinence, painful intercourse, sexual dysfunction, and psychological trauma. There is also an increased risk of contracting and transmitting HIV and of experiencing complications during childbirth.
Infibulation is among the most severe forms of FGM. Serious scar formation narrows or nearly closes the vaginal opening, leading to complications such as infertility, disrupted menstrual cycles, and chronic urinary tract and bladder infections. In certain cases, the vaginal channel is almost entirely blocked, causing menstrual flow to accumulate in the bladder and uterus. Women who have undergone infibulation must be cut open to allow intercourse after marriage, and again during childbirth because the opening is too small for normal delivery (UNPF 1).
How Two Cultures View FGM Differently
The United States has enacted strict laws against anyone who performs or facilitates FGM on females under the age of 18, with penalties including fines and imprisonment. Congress subsequently extended the legal reach to cover individuals who facilitate the practice by transporting girls under 18 out of the U.S. for the purpose of undergoing FGM—a practice commonly known in the U.S. as "vacation cutting." A national hotline exists for reporting violations of the FGM statute. The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) has recommended that new arrivals to the U.S. be screened for FGM, and it maintains a public information and support unit (USAID 1).
In Europe, by contrast, FGM has at times been tolerated for political reasons and out of an exaggerated sensitivity to cultural concerns. Although the media generally attempts to avoid linking FGM to Islam, there are geographic, historical, and doctrinal connections that remain largely unspoken. The prevailing impulse toward cultural sensitivity leads the media and the public to avoid associating the practice with any religion for fear of being perceived as religiously intolerant (Kern 1).
Conclusion
The supporters of universality argue that international human rights are superior because they emerge from a consensus among nations on ethical standards governing relations between people and governments. From this perspective, it is clear why FGM must be ended: doing so is the only way to guarantee every person freedom from torture and to secure for them the fundamental liberties enshrined in internationally recognized human rights instruments. Culture enriches human life, but it cannot be permitted to serve as justification for the mutilation of children. The campaign against FGM is, at its core, a campaign for the dignity and bodily integrity of women and girls everywhere.
References
Diallo, Khadi. "Taking the Dress." UNESCO Courier July 2001: 40.
Dorkenoo, Efua. Cutting the Rose: Female Genital Mutilation: The Practice and Its Prevention. London: Minority Rights Publishers, 1995.
England, Joseph. "Circumcision in America." The Objective Standard 10.1 (2015).
Kern, Soeren. UK: The Crisis of Female Genital Mutilation. 9 May 2013. 18 February 2016 <http://www.gatestoneinstitute.org/3705/uk-female-genital-mutilation>.
Musalo, Karen. "When Rights and Cultures Collide." Issues in Ethics 8.3 (1997).
Scott, Jennifer. Eliminating Female Genital Mutilation. <
UNICEF. Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting: A Statistical Overview and Exploration of the Dynamics of Change. New York: United Nations Children's Emergency Fund, 2013.
UNPF. Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) Frequently Asked Questions. December 2015. <
USAID. Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting: United States Government's Response. 4 February 2016. 18 February 2016 <https://www.usaid.gov/news-information/fact-sheets/female-genital-mutilation-cutting-usg-response>.
WHO. Female Genital Mutilation. February 2016. 18 February 2016 <http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs241/en/>.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.