In the talk, I will critique contrasting global policies toward female and male genital alteration. These policies focus on eliminating female genital mutilation, or FGM, while tolerating or even encouraging male circumcision.
I will explain that, on the surface, this seems unproblematic: Within global health and human rights circles, FGM is almost universally regarded as a barbaric manifestation of the patriarchal drive to control female sexuality, whereas male circumcision is seen as benign.
Yet, I will point to the mounting empirical evidence and ethical critique that calls into question these contrasting perceptions and policies.
I will argue that maintaining policies premised on sex-based distinctions seems unsustainable and incompatible with gender equality. Instead, I will suggest that meaningful age-based distinctions between those unable (children) and able (adults) to give informed consent could constitute better policy.
I will evaluate the merits of permissive and restrictive approaches to female and male genital alteration, assessing the advantages of specific policies. In so doing, I will argue for gender equality in genital alteration policies.
my brilliant bioethicist friend and colleague, Brian Earp. We spent last summer conducting research at the Brocher Foundation in Geneva on a project entitled 'The Science, Politics, and Ethics of Male Circumcision: An Interdisciplinary Take on an Emerging Global Controversy.'
Date: Wednesday 23rd November