Thread by @briandavidearp

New paper: "Zero Tolerance for Genital Mutilation: Review of Moral Justifications" (in press with Current Sexual Health Reports). Analyzes culturally biased, unscientific, ethically incoherent position of @WHO on child genital cutting practices. Thread 1/ researchgate.net/publication/34…

Paper analyzes 2 main positions that have emerged in bioethics literature: equal opportunity defenders of parental/religious rights to cut children's genitals irrespective of sex/gender, & equal opportunity defenders of children's rights to be protected from genital cutting. 2/

But there is 3rd, incoherent, discriminatory & biased position held by @WHO: "selective zero tolerance" 4 medically unnecessary genital cutting -regardless of severity/motivation- of non-Western ppl w/ female-typical genitals only, yet tolerating comparable Western practices. 3/

Can such selective tolerance be justified in morally principled way that also accounts 4 real-world diversity of genital cutting (and motivations) affecting non-consenting ppl of different sexes? The paper argues "No." Are there categorical diffs in consent or harm? No. 4/

Is there categorical difference in health benefits? This is clearly not basis for WHO position, b/c it opposes medicalization of FGC & would consider it a human rights violation *even if* there were minor benefits that could be achieved w/o genital cutting (or w/ consent). 5/

What about different symbolic meanings? One claim is that "FGM" is "not religious" whereas (at least some forms of) male genital cutting are. Can this justify a categorical difference in treatment between the two? No, it is false empirically and confused conceptually. 6/

What about the idea that one is a form of sex discrimination while the other is not? Am working on a longer paper showing why this claim is anthropologically ignorant, but as discussed briefly in this paper, things are not so simple. 7/

But even supposing that gender inequality were at issue in the way that is commonly supposed, could this justify the categorically different treatment of vulnerable, non-consenting children on the basis of their sex? The legal theorist Kai Moller argues "No" (see below). 8/

The paper concludes that only 1 moral principle - the equal protection of children from medically unnecessary genital cutting, regardless of sex or gender, can explain why even 'ritual nicking' of the clitoral hood that does not remove tissue is a human rights violation. 9/

And as I shared yesterday, this brilliant discussion by Egyptian feminist Seham Abd el Salam explains why "bargaining" w/ patriarchy 2 allow non-consensual MGC so as to fight FGC upholds very structures of power that are problem in the first place noharmm.org/muted5.htm 10/

With colleagues, there are several more papers in pipeline analyzing WHO bias, hypocrisy, cultural imperialism, lack of moral integrity, & selective engagement w/ the research literature when it comes to protecting children from genital cutting. Stay tuned. 11/11