Abstract
I am a practicing urologist with expertise in female genital cutting. In this commentary, I respond to Dr Dina Bader's article “From the War on Terror to the Moral Crusade Against Female Genital Mutilation.” I outline the current climate around genital cutting, the various actors shaping female genital cutting (FGC) legislation, and public perceptions surrounding the issue. I conclude that legislative changes sweeping across the United States to ban FGC have a variety of motivations. Some are to lift politicians’ profiles; some are to prevent destination FGC cutting domestically. The possibility of increased racial profiling or increased Islamophobia is perhaps underrecognized by liberals, and perhaps a discreet and intentional agenda for conservative lawmakers. The effect of this legislation also increases attention on the genital alteration of all children, male, female, and intersex, which could be the greatest benefit of all.
I am a practicing urologist with expertise in female genital cutting, and I was invited to respond with commentary on Dr. Dina Bader's article “From the War on Terror to the Moral Crusade Against Female Genital Mutilation: Anti-Muslim Racism and Femonationalism in the United States.” Dr Bader highlights how the U.S. Republican Party championed the effort to facilitate the legislative banning of female genital cutting (FGC; see Note 1 for a note on terminology and Table 1 for WHO typology of Classification of “female genital mutilation [FGM]”) on a state and federal level since the Nagarwala case in 2017, and Dr Bader explores the motivations behind this phenomenon in the setting of increasing xenophobia and Islamophobia. I will further outline the current climate around genital cutting, the various actors shaping FGC legislation, and public perceptions surrounding the issue.
WHO Classification of Female Genital Mutilation (FGM)2.
Many parallels exist between FGC and medically unnecessary male circumcision and infant intersex surgery. In the Global North, male circumcision and alteration of infant genitalia in the intersex population are deeply entrenched and accepted social norms. FGC is practiced in the Global South due to long-standing social norms, justified on grounds of culture and religion. Some diaspora immigrant populations are maintaining FGC in their new countries (Cappa et al., 2019). The true numbers are difficult to know, many estimates of prevalence assume that FGC is practiced by diaspora communities, although this could be inaccurate especially according to acculturation studies (Johnson-Agbakwu & Manin, 2021). With the widespread acceptance of routine nonmedical male circumcision and medically unnecessary surgery for children with disorders of sexual differentiation, a zero-tolerance FGC policy prescribes a hegemonic discourse favoring Western norms.
Since the 2017 Detroit FGC case of Nagarwala v. USA, there is increased attention on FGC as a problem for Muslim women. There are more than two billion Muslims worldwide (World Population Review, n.d.). Dawoodhi Bohras are less than 1% of all Muslims (Bootwala, 2019). There is a heated debate among Muslims on whether FGC is part of preferred religious practices for women or if it is forbidden. Saudi Arabia, for example, is an Islamic state, yet FGC is not endemic but more common among migrant populations and along the border with Yemen (Orchid Project, n.d.).
Bohra women wear ridas, colorful burqas, that make them very easy to identify (Bootwala, 2019). Inevitably, the images of Dr Jumana Nagarwala in her traditional clothing have strengthened the association of Islam and FGC in the minds of many people around the world. The moral crusade against FGC began in the 1970s with vocal European feminists needing to “save African women” (Public Policy Advisory Network on Female Genital Surgeries in Africa, 2012). It is noteworthy that there is a historical precedence of colonial countries justifying acts of violence to “save Muslim women.” For example, in 1958, young Algerian women made a show of removing their white haiks (distinctive white wrap of North African women) and burning them during Algeria's anti-colonial fight for independence from France. European and French soldiers pushed this agenda, as the removal of the veil symbolized the emancipation of these Muslim women. Historian Neil McMasters unpacked this and showed how the French military coerced some of these women to participate in the removal of their veils, publicly by arresting and torturing their family members. He also notes that during the war, French soldiers massacred Algerian people and raped thousands of Algerian women (Phipps, 2021).
Another historical example of “saving Muslim women” comes from the United States, which justified bombing Afghanistan in 2001 due to the war on terror but also in the name of human rights abuses against women (Farris, 2017). Since the United States has left Afghanistan in August 2021, the Taliban quickly resumed control and the conditions for women are worsening. Secondary schools remain closed for girls and the Hazara minority is persecuted (Morris & Melen, 2022). These historical examples illustrate how colonial powers have claimed to be trying to “save Muslim women” when in fact the situation for Muslim women does not seem to improve and arguably is worse after their interventions. Saving Muslim women is received well in the Global North public eye, but it is important to consider the voice of the women themselves, which is essentially missing from the dialogue around FGC. Next, I will look at the actors shaping, impacting, and affected by the FGC dialog.
Actor 1: The Media
The media have an increasingly powerful role in what individuals believe. Social media tends to drive people toward an information pathway that is more and more extreme in nature. FGC is often presented with a highly sensational tone in news outlets. The media do not highlight any of the nuance surrounding FGC (Sobel, 2015). As described in Note 1, regarding terminology, there is oversimplification regarding what FGC means and no reference to the different motivations, the different ages, the different methods of conducting the practice. Most commonly, any reference to FGC typically equates to “Type 3 FGM” per the WHO classification, which is the least commonly performed and the most severe form involving sewing the labia together with a very small aperture for urine to pass, with or without clitoral reduction and with or without excision of the labia minora or majora (World Health Organization, 2018).
Actor 2: The Politicians
Politicians are driven by gaining votes and popularity. Mobilizing around FGC is a low-risk endeavor with high returns. The reality is that politicians involved with passing legislation most likely have a very superficial understanding of FGC. However, it is an issue that garners bipartisan support and the attention of many Democrats. The suggestion that passing FGC legislation purely aligns with an anti-immigrant agenda is an unfair characterization. FGC legislation can also encourage a deeper look at the medically unnecessary alteration of children's genitalia, which may that can increase protection for all children.
Actor 3: Islamaphobic Groups
Dr Bader highlights that Islamophobic groups have been integral in drafting legislation and supporting Republican lawmakers. She suggests Islamophobic groups are exploiting anti-FGC campaigns to foster anti-Islam rhetoric. Act for America is designated a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center. Act for America was founded by Brigitte Gabriel, an immigrant to the United States, who was born to Christian parents and survived the Lebanese Civil War. Gabriel suffered trauma in Lebanon as her home was bombed. She suffered a shrapnel injury at age 10, and she ultimately lived in an underground bomb shelter for 7 years. In some of her books, she equates Islamic fundamentalism with the practice of Islam (Goodstein, 2011). She was a victim of violence and war which can cause posttraumatic stress disorder. Her personal experiences do not justify demonizing all Muslims. Ultimately, being a Muslim does not equate to being an Islamic fundamentalist.
Actor 4: Women's Rights Advocates
Women's rights advocates assert that Muslim women need to be saved. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, founder of the AHA Foundation, is a former Muslim who denounced her religion shortly after the 9/11 World Trade Center attacks in 2001 and is now a self-proclaimed atheist. She has garnered much attention, both positive and negative. She has many extremely respectable and noble goals to lift women's rights around the world. At the same time, Muslims who feel she is misrepresenting their faith have sent her death threats. Olivier Roy, a French political scientist and professor at the European University Institute in Florence, wrote about Islam and democracy, highlighting that those falling into the reformist camp are often from outside of the religion and often Western intellectuals (Roy, 2012). The AHA Foundation has “model legislation” posted on its website to guide state legislation that has likely shaped several bills passed since 2017 (AHA Foundation, 2022).
Actor 5: Islamic Extremists
Islamic extremists and fundamentalists globally are not representative of the global Muslim population. The conservative and right-wing media and politicians suggest that Muslims are trying to take over Western countries and increase terrorist acts. Dr. Anthony Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies reported that the “majority of extremist and violent terrorist incidents … occur in largely Muslim states.” Islamic extremists are generally inflicting violence on other Muslims (Cordesman, 2017). There have been many Republican legislative efforts to ban the “Shariah” law. This is in direct contrast to Republican values of protecting the freedom to practice religion. Shariah is a code of conduct describing a way of life for Muslims; this is not equivalent to a specific set of laws.
Actor 6: Peaceful Muslims
Olivier Roy highlights the turn of events since the Arab Spring, focusing on how pressure from within Muslim communities has resulted in political changes. He highlights Turkey's Justice and Development Party winning three elections by focusing on economic development and conservative values without explicit Islamic references (Roy, 2012). This is emblematic of a shift internally among Muslims who desire economic stability.
The Washington Post published an account of a Turkish mother on the island of San Juan, Washington, who was wrongfully accused of performing FGC on her infant. The babysitter noted an abnormality and contacted a tip line on FGC after she had another woman look at the child's genitalia without parental consent. When the detective inquired about why the women thought the child had FGC versus having a medical condition, they both invoked the Turkish Muslim background of the mother. The Department of Homeland Security became involved through Operation Limelight and ultimately closed the case when no evidence of FGC was found (Allam, 2022). The Turkish mother was extremely distraught and felt her child and her privacy had been violated.
In conclusion, the legislative changes sweeping across the United States to ban FGC have a variety of motivations. Some are to lift politicians’ profiles; some are to prevent destination FGC cutting domestically. The possibility of increased racial profiling or increased Islamophobia is perhaps underrecognized by liberals, and perhaps a very discreet and intentional agenda item for conservative lawmakers. In my opinion, the effect of this legislation also increases attention on the genital alteration of all children—male, female, and intersex—which could be the greatest benefit of all.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.