The Double Standards in Genital Mutilation

This article extends a decade of phenomenological research on female genital mutilation (FGM) in Iran (Ahmady et al., 2015) to critically examine the parallel practice of male genital mutilation (MGM). The initial study, which documented the perpetuation of FGM outside its commonly assumed geographical borders, revealed the need for a comparative analysis of MGM, a practice often defended by similar cultural and religious arguments. This paper confronts the profound double standard in which FGM is internationally condemned as a human rights violation, while MGM persists with broad societal and even medical endorsement. Presenting a comparative ethical and human rights analysis, this paper deconstructs the complex matrix of justifications rooted in tradition, patriarchal authority, and religious mandates that sustain non-therapeutic male circumcision. The analysis revealed that MGM and FGM share striking parallels, functioning as mechanisms of social control and gender identity construction. It is argued that MGM constitutes a significant violation of a child’s right to bodily integrity and is as much an attack on masculinity as FGM is on femininity. By challenging the segregated ethical discourses surrounding genital cutting, this article calls for a consistent, gender-neutral application of human rights principles, concluding that the protection of all children requires unequivocal rejection of medically unnecessary genital alterations.