There is a lot of work on this; much of it is cited in this review article by Sara Johnsdotter and myself nature.com/articles/s4144… … I’ll add refs to individual papers by (eg) post colonial and African studies scholars below
Take this chapter by Birgitte Essén, perhaps the most senior gynecologist & medical expert who has extensive clinical experience working directly w. women affected by FGC. She notes that for over 50 years, the @WHO has published guidelines on FGC re: health consequences ... 6/
& other empirical claims concerning different types of FGC, but "without the usual concern" for high quality evidence, based on "uncritical" thinking re: causes & consequences, "skewed or insufficient data" & "misleading conclusions." This has v. bad real-world implications 7/
Focusing on a Danish case for which she served as an expert witness, Essén notes that trial doctors -- whose testimony led to conviction & more than a year of imprisonment of 2 parents of Somali origin, separating them from their children -- had *NO EXPERTISE* in FGC 8/
Heartbreaking: up to 40% of Filipino boys experience infection (drdf.org.ph/sites/default/…), and up to 70%, PTSD (sciencedirect.com/science/articl…), from their public circumcision rites each year. I wonder why @WHO doesn't view this as a human rights violation? One possibility is that ...
routine & religious male circumcision—common in U.S. & Jewish/Muslim families, respectively—is a tradition among many of the most influential “gatekeepers” of the global human rights agenda: “the practice is prevalent in their own social networks”(amazon.com/Lost-Causes-Ve…) ...
Per Carpenter: “Unlike other practices human rights professionals condemn but don't participate in, circ was widespread” among them. "Confronting it evoked defensiveness from those who had circumcised their own boys, loath to think of themselves as human rights abusers” ...
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/
Very disturbing to see this lack of scientific nuance from one of the main people responsible for driving US policy & funding toward a mass surgical campaign affecting the genitals of millions of Africans. There are multiple things wrong with this statement ... [THREAD]
First, it is false there is "no debate in science community" re original RCTs. Rather, those with critiques were ignored or shut out by those driving agenda, a small network of circumcision advocates active in all stages of the science-to-policy pipeline ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25646671
Second, even if one accepts RCT findings at face value, despite critiques (e.g., re: confounds & obvious lack of placebo control), they pertain to adult, voluntary circ under "ideal" clinical conditions as part of trials led by long-time circ proponents; (cont'd)
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) ...