Shaping Genitals, Shaping Perceptions
| DOI | 10.1177/016934411203000404 |
| Date | 01 December 2012 |
| Published date | 01 December 2012 |
| Subject Matter | Part A: Article |
Netherlands Q uarterly of Human R ights, Vol. 30/4, 431–459, 2012.
© Netherlands I nstitute of Human Rig hts (SIM), Printed in the Net herlands. 417
SHAPING GENITALS, SHAPING PERCEPTIONS
A Frame Analysis of Male and Female Circumcision
M B and J T*
Abstract
Human rights claim universal validity, which implies that bias in their applicability as
we ll a s i n t he i r a pp li c at io n s ho u ld be av o id ed . Fr om th is p er sp e ct iv e i t i s ra th er re m ar ka b le
that female circumcision is a major cause for human rights concerns, whereas male
circumcision is rarely addressed in the conte xt of human rights. is raises the question
whether practices of female circumcision are really that di erent from forms of male
circumcision. ere is at least some evidence that there are more similarities between
male and fem ale circumcision than commonly perceived . Taking this as a startin g point,
on the basis of facts, gures and rational es, we distinguish three types of circumci sion: the
‘African’, the ‘American’ and the ‘Abrahamic’ type. Whereas mal e circumcision may ful l
the characteristics of any of these three types, female circumcision seems to t only the
African type. e ty po log y a llo ws f or a n an aly si s of the fra me s us ed i n th e de ba te t o ju sti fy
or delegitimise male and femal e circumcision. Frames that feature in the debates on male
circumcision are a ‘medical/hea lth frame’ and a ‘cultural/religious frame’, both with an
‘accessory human rights frame’. e debate on female circumcision (mostly referred to
as female genital mutilation or FGM), on the other hand, is predominantly a ‘women’s
rights frame’. e di erences in normative framing as well as the consequences thereof
for the human rights protection of men and women do not se em entirely justi ed by the
di erences between the practices of ma le and female circumcision. We discuss three form s
of bias – related to culture, religion and to ge nder – that may help explain the diverging
normative framings. Irrespective of one’s normative assessment of the compatibility of
circumcision practices w ith human rights norms, the universality claim of human r ights
requires the application of the same standards to similar prac tices, regardless of sex.
Keywords: bodily integrity; circumcision; framing; gender equality; genital
mutilation; human rights; u niversality
* Both authors are a ssistant professor at t he Utrecht Law School, Utrecht Univer sity, the Netherlands .
e authors like to thank Wibren van den Burg and other participa nts of the Semi nar ‘Framing
multicultu ral issues in terms of human rights: solution or problem?’ held at Utrecht University,
14November 2011, as well as the anonymous revi ewers for their usef ul comments on earl ier versions
of this paper.
Marjolein va n den Brink and Jet Tigchela ar
418 Intersentia
1. INTRODUCTION
Female circumcision became a n issue of international (in partic ular: Western) concern
in the 1970s.1 It has been condemned by the World Health Organisation (WHO),
by virtually all human rights bodies, by governments and by NGOs alike. Male
circumcision, on the other hand, has for many years remained unnoticed, escaping
both normative evaluation a nd condemnation. It has generally been regarded, a nd even
been promoted, as bene cia l for men’s health. In t he last ten years or so, however, male
circumcision has received signi cantly more attention, both positive and negative.
An important proponent of male circ umcision is the WHO, which currently strongly
advocates male circumcision becaus e it is thought to help prevent the spread of HIV/
AIDS.2 Opposed to male circumcision are men’s rights groups, mainly US-based,
that try to reduce or even eli minate routine circumcision of newborn boys, invoking
arguments of bodily integrity and personal autonomy.3 O en, these attempts focus
on circumcision unrelated to relig ious practices, t hus avoiding discussions related to
freedom of religion.4 However, this seems to be changing, especially in Europe, with
the decision of the District Court of Cologne of 7May 2012 being a case in point.
1 See Coomaraswamy, R., Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women, Its Causes a nd
Consequences, I ntegration of the Human Rig hts of Women and the Gender Perspective: Violence
Against Women, UN Doc . E/CN.4/2002/83 (2002), para 17. According to UN Fact Sheet No. 23,
specialised UN agencies a nd human rights bodies began considering the pr actice already in the
1950s, but not in a very con sistent manner nor at any la rge scale. See U N Fact Sheet No. 23, Harm ful
Traditional Prac tices A ecting t he Health of Women and Children , August 1995, p.2, available at:
www.ohchr.org/D ocuments/Publicat ions/Fact Sheet23en .pdf (last accesse d 20September 2012).
2 E.g. WHO, Male Circumcision Information Package: Insert 3 – Health Bene ts and Associated
Risks; Insert 4 – Male Circ umcision as an H IV Prevention Met hod, 2007, available at
www.who.int/hiv/pub/malecircumcision/infopack/en/index.html (last accessed 18 October 2012).
See also: WHO, Ma nual for Early In fant Male Circu mcision under Lo cal Anaest hesia, 2010, available
at: www.who.int/hi v/pub/malecircumcision/in fopack/en/index.htm l (last accessed 1Ju ly 2012).
3 Some also arg ue that the WHO should drop its male c ircumcision campaign be cause it allegedly
raises false feelings of security, stating that men in Africa in particular are lining up to be
circumcise d in order to be protected agai nst HIV/AIDS forever a er, thus e ectively undermining
the whole campaign and endangering the healt h of their sexual partners. See for this a nd other
critiques of the p olicy of circumcision in Af rica in order to prevent the spread of HI V/AIDS: Fox,
M. and omson, M., ‘ e New Pol itics of Male Circumcision : HIV/AIDS, Hea lth Law and Social
Justice ’, Legal Studies, Vol. 32, No. 2, 2012, pp. 255–281, at pp. 267–271.
4 is is explicitly state d in the title of the following a rticle: Dekkers, W., ‘Routine (Non-relig ious)
Neonatal Circu mcision and Bodily I ntegrity: A Transat lantic Dialog ue’, Kennedy Institute of Ethic s
Journal, Vol. 19, No. 2, 2009, pp. 125–146. Sza sz emphasises that the religiou s dimension of male
circumcision is frequently overlooked: Szasz, T., ‘Routine Neonatal Circumc ision: Symbol of the
Birth of the erapeutic State’, e Journal of Medic ine and Philosophy, Vol. 21, 1996, pp. 137–14 8.
Androus, however, expla ins the exclu sion of religious ci rcumcision by poi nting at the soc ial tradit ion
of circumcision of Americans: Androus, Z., ‘Fitting In and Getting O : Adult Ma le Circumcision
in the United States a nd Britain,’ in: Denn iston, G., Hodges, F. and Mi los, M.F., (eds.), Circumcision
and Human Rights, Spr inger Science and Business Me dia, Berlin/Heidelb erg/Dordrecht/New York
City, 2009, pp. 141–147, at p.143.
To continue reading
Request your trial