par O'Neill, Sarah ;Bader, Dina;Kraus, Cynthia;Godin, Isabelle ;Abdulcadir, Jasmine;Alexander, Sophie
Référence Current sexual health reports, 12, 4, page (266-275)
Publication Publié, 2020-12-01
Article révisé par les pairs
Résumé : Abstract Purpose of Review Based on the discussions of a symposium co-organized by the Université Libre de Bruxelles (ULB) and the University of Lausanne (UNIL) in Brussels in 2019, this paper critically reflects upon the zero-tolerance strategy on “Female Genital Mutilation” (FGM) and its socio-political, legal and moral repercussions. We ask whether the strategy is effective given the empirical challenges highlighted during the symposium, and also whether it is credible. Recent Findings The anti-FGM zero-tolerance policy, first launched in 2003, aims to eliminate all types of “female genital mutilation” worldwide. The FGM definition of the World Health Organization condemns all forms of genital cutting (FGC) on the basis that they are harmful and degrading to women and infringe upon their rights to physical integrity. Yet, the zero-tolerance policy only applies to traditional and customary forms of genital cutting and not to cosmetic alterations of the female genitalia. Recent publications have shown that various popular forms of cosmetic genital surgery remove the same tissue as some forms of “FGM”. In response to the zero-tolerance policy, national laws banning traditional forms of FGC are enforced and increasingly scrutinize the performance of FGC as well as non-invasive rituals that are culturally meaningful to migrants. At the same time, cosmetic procedures such as labiaplasty have become more popular than ever before and are increasingly performed on adolescents. Summary This review shows that the socio-legal and ethical inconsistencies between “FGM” and cosmetic genital modification pose concrete dilemmas for professionals in the field that need to be addressed and researched.

Documents en relation

DI-fusion