
Illustration by Cecilia Salama
On Monday, November 26th, we had more to celebrate than some closeted online shopping for Cyber Monday. U.N. General Assembly’s human rights committee approved a resolution to globally ban female genital mutilation.
Female genital mutilation, or FGM, involves the removal of a woman’s clitoris and sometimes also other genital parts, and it is usually done in early adolescence. It can lead to infection, death, painful sexual intercourse, complications in childbirth. It is a mechanism used to control women’s sexuality, as it eliminates any pleasure for women during sex, either because it is required by religion, or to “enhance fertility”.
With 110 sponsors, the resolution is almost certain to be approved in mid-December by the full General Assembly. Although not legally binding, U.N. assembly resolutions carry great moral and political weight.
According to the U.N. around 70 million girls and women had undergone the procedure in 2010, and the World Health Organization declared that around 6,000 girls were circumcised every day. 96% of Somalian women have endured FGM before it was recently banned by the Somalian government in August.
It is a common procedure in 28 countries within Africa as well as in Yemen, Iraq, Malaysia, Indonesia and among certain ethnic groups in South America, but it is perceived as a world-wide problem because it is also practiced by diaspora communities.
Some people who are Pro-FGM argue that it is hypocritical to allow vaginal rejuvenation surgery to be performed, which is portrayed on television to be socially acceptable, but which in fact has very similar side effects to FGM, especially those in regards to childbirth complications. Although some vaginal cosmetic surgeries may enhance a person’s quality of life, such as female circumcision reversal, it does work under the same premise, that there is something wrong with a woman’s body that only a knife can fix.
Others argue that it is unfair to allow male circumcision, also a religious tradition that started thousands of years ago, but not female. The impact on sexual health and function is much more insignificant than that of female circumcision, however. It is also interesting to note that earlier this summer San Francisco’s municipal ballot would have included a measure to ban circumcision of males under the age of eighteen. Oh California, always on the cutting edge. Or in this case, not on the cutting edge?