New paper on FGC in Asia Pacific so important. Highlights a constant theme in recent work: multiple double-standards (race, religion, sex) and cultural bias in Western policy; FGC defenders rely on Western tolerance for MGC to justify continuance [THREAD] researchgate.net/profile/Abdul_…
Emphasis on explicit religious justification within many Muslim communities ... 
Explicit justification of practice in terms of ritual male circumcision (performed in the same communities & widely assumed to be permissible) ...
Emphasis on medicalization of ritual FGC & entrenchment among healthcare providers ...
Emphasis on explicit double standards w labiaplasty, increasingly performed on minors: what is allowed for white girls for superficial cosmetic reasons is prohibited for brown girls for deep cultural/religious reasons, even though latter is LESS invasive (type I or IV)
Emphasis on many motives for FGC even within a single 'type' (i.e., pricking, nicking, or partial removal of clitoral foreskin): not all down to patriarchy, sexism, desire to diminish female sexual pleasure/desire ...
1 big criticism. Paper starts w omnibus def. of "FGM" (some dozen+ practices from nicking to infibulation) then switches to singular language ("it"/"the practice"), falsely stating "strong association" w adverse obstet. outcomes ... NOT true for types I/IV, which paper is about!
Here I argue that all medically unnecessary genital cutting, however slight, & regardless of race, religion, sex, or gender is impermissible if non-consensual & explain why: Why cutting ANY child's genitals is wrong: female, male, or intersex buff.ly/2EdRElT
