Authors: Andrew Klein, PhD, and Gabriel Klein, Research Assistant and Scholar

Date:29 December 2025

Introduction: The Mark Upon the Body and Soul

For millennia, across continents and cultures, human hands have taken knives to the most intimate flesh of the next generation. Under sacred canopies, in ritual huts, in sterile operating theatres, and on unsanitary mats, the genitals of infants, children, and adolescents have been cut, reshaped, and removed. This analysis delves into the profound enigma of this near-universal human phenomenon: why do communities, often mothers themselves, alter the “perfect creation” of their children’s bodies? By examining the intertwined histories of male circumcision and female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C), we move beyond simplistic condemnations to understand the powerful social, religious, and gender-based logics that sustain these practices. We reveal how the knife serves not as an instrument of hate, but as a tool for weaving individuals into the fabric of family, faith, and tribe—a tool that leaves lifelong physical and psychological scars, rationalised as divine favour.

Part I: The Dual Histories – Separate Practices, Shared Logics

The Ancient Covenant: Male Circumcision

Male circumcision is one of humanity’s oldest documented surgical procedures, with evidence from ancient Egyptian bas-reliefs dating to circa 2300 BCE. Its adoption by Abrahamic religions transformed it from a cultural rite into a divine commandment. In Judaism, the brit milah on the eighth day of life physically embodies the covenant with God. In Islam, it is widely considered part of the Fitrah, or innate human nature. This sacred foundation rendered the practice virtually unquestionable for centuries. The 20th century secularised the practice in regions like the United States, where it was mandated for soldiers in the World Wars for hygiene and later adopted as a routine neonatal medical procedure.

Modern medicine has since articulated a defence, with global health bodies citing benefits such as a significantly reduced risk of urinary tract infections in infants, a 50-60% lower risk of HIV acquisition for men, and reduced transmission of HPV and herpes. Proponents argue the medical benefits outweigh the low risk of complications (estimated at 0.34% in Israel, often minor bleeding or infection). This framing positions circumcision not as a violation, but as a prophylactic gift from parent to child.

The Gendered Cut: Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting

The history of FGM/C is distinct and rooted in the control of female sexuality and fertility. Its origins are traced to northeast Africa, possibly to the Meroë civilization (c. 800 BCE – c. 350 CE). Historical justifications centred on ensuring paternity confidence and increasing the value of female slaves through infibulation. Unlike male circumcision, no major religious scripture explicitly mandates FGM/C. Yet, it became entrenched in the social fabric of numerous cultures across Africa, the Middle East, and Asia, often mistakenly perceived as a religious requirement, particularly within the Shafi’i school of Sunni Islam.

Key Cultural Justifications for FGM/C:

· Societal & Marital Necessity: Seen as essential for cleanliness, purity, beauty, and, crucially, marriageability. An uncut girl may be considered unmarriageable, bringing shame to her family.

· Control of Female Sexuality: The primary driver is the belief that removal of the clitoris (the seat of female sexual pleasure) curbs desire, ensures pre-marital virginity, and promotes marital fidelity. As one elderly woman in Mali stated, the clitoris was believed to grow “as long as an elephant’s trunk” if not removed.

· Rite of Passage: In many societies, it is a key ritual marking a girl’s transition to womanhood, accompanied by teachings about her roles as wife and mother.

Part II: The Lifelong Burden of Harm – Beyond the Ritual Moment

The medical consensus on FGM/C is unequivocal: it has no health benefits and inflicts severe, lifelong harm. The physical consequences are categorised by the World Health Organization into four types, ranging from partial clitoral removal (Type I) to the sealing of the vaginal opening (infibulation, Type III).

Immediate and Long-Term Consequences of FGM/C

· Immediate Risks: Severe pain, haemorrhage, shock, and infection. An estimated 10% of girls die from immediate complications.

· Chronic Health Issues: Chronic pain, recurrent genital and urinary tract infections, keloid scarring, and the formation of painful cysts.

· Sexual & Reproductive Damage: Destruction of nerve endings leads to a loss of sexual sensation and pleasure, often resulting in painful intercourse (dyspareunia). The practice directly sabotages one of its stated goals—marital harmony—as it can impair sexual satisfaction for both partners, leading to divorce or male infidelity.

· Obstetric Catastrophe: Scar tissue cannot dilate. This leads to obstructed labour, prolonged and obstructed delivery, severe tearing, and dramatically increased risks of obstetric fistula, stillbirth, and maternal and infant mortality. The WHO estimates maternal mortality may double and infant mortality quadruple due to infibulation.

· Profound Psychological Trauma: The violence of the act—often performed without anaesthetic while the girl is restrained by relatives—coupled with lifelong physical suffering, leads to post-traumatic stress, anxiety, depression, and a profound betrayal of trust. As Waris Dirie recounted, “All I knew was that I had been butchered with my mother’s permission, and I couldn’t understand why”.

Consent Part III: The Anthropology of Belonging – Why Mothers Consent

Understanding why a mother would inflict this on her daughter is the core of this tragedy. The decision is not one of malice, but of perceived necessity within a powerful social system.

· The Imperative of Social Survival: In cultures where a woman’s security and status depend entirely on marriage, FGM/C is seen as critical insurance for a daughter’s future. As Dr. Comfort Momoh explains, it is a tragic cost-benefit analysis: “Whereas in the Western community we want to educate our children… in some of the villages… to secure a future for your daughter would be to FGM her”.

· The “Belief Trap”: When a practice is universal within a community, there is no basis for comparison. Health complications are seen as a normal part of womanhood, not a consequence of cutting. To question the practice is to risk ostracism for oneself and one’s child—a social and economic death sentence in resource-scarce environments.

· Intergenerational Cycle: Mothers who underwent the trauma themselves are often its primary enforcers, a tragic reconciliation of their own suffering with the perceived need to make their daughters “acceptable”.

· Ethnic and Group Identity: Studies show that ethnicity is often a stronger predictor of FGM/C practice than religion. The cut becomes a “sign on the body,” an irreversible mark of belonging to a specific ethnic or community group.

Conclusion: Reckoning and Re-evaluation

We are thus confronted with a profound contradiction: two classes of genital cutting, one (male) medically rationalised and religiously sanctified in many societies, the other (female) universally condemned by global medicine as a grievous human rights violation. Critical anthropology challenges this clean dichotomy, asking why we accept one non-consensual, permanent bodily modification and not another.

The path forward requires nuance. Effective abandonment campaigns, as seen in Guinea and Ghana, work from within the culture. They engage communities by appealing to shared values—honour, healthy children, marital happiness—and demonstrate how FGM/C actively undermines them. They empower “positive deviants,” those who have abandoned the practice, to lead change.

Ultimately, the question extends beyond specific cultures. It challenges all societies to examine where tradition, religion, or even medicalised norm overrides the fundamental bodily integrity and autonomy of a child who cannot consent. The knife that seeks to bind a child to God, tribe, or a perceived ideal of health or purity, forever alters the landscape of their body and mind. Recognising the deep social logic behind these acts is not an endorsement, but the first necessary step toward ending them—a step that begins not with condemnation, but with clear-eyed understanding and compassion for both the wounded child and the parent who, bound by an iron chain of custom, feels they have no other choice.

References

1. Wikipedia. “Religious views on female genital mutilation.” Wikimedia Foundation.

2. Kaplan, Adriana, et al. “Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting: The Secret World of Women as Seen by Men.” Obstetrics and Gynecology International, vol. 2013, 2013.

3. Tobian, Aaron A.R., and Ronald H. Gray. “Male Circumcision: Tradition & Medical Evidence.” The Israel Medical Association Journal, vol. 15, no. 1, 2013, pp. 37–38.

4. Jackson, Olivia. “Cutting Out the Devil: Female Genital Mutilation.” Christians for Social Action, 2023.

5. Al-Ghazo, Mohammad A., et al. “Non-therapeutic infant male circumcision: Evidence, ethics, and law.” Saudi Medical Journal, vol. 37, no. 9, 2016, pp. 941–947.

6. Pellegrino, Francesca. “Gendered genital modifications in critical anthropology: from discourses on FGM/C to new technologies in the sex/gender system.” International Journal of Impotence Research, vol. 35, 2023, pp. 6–15.

7. SafeCirc®. “The history of circumcision: From ancient rituals to modern practices.”

8. Doucet, Marie-Hélène, et al. “Beyond the Sociocultural Rhetoric: Female Genital Mutilation and the Search for Symbolic Capital and Honour in Guinea.” Sexuality & Culture, vol. 26, 2022, pp. 1858–1884.

9. Hayford, Sarah R., and Jenny Trinitapoli. “Religious Differences in Female Genital Cutting: A Case Study from Burkina Faso.” Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, vol. 50, no. 2, 2011, pp. 252–271.

10. Glaser, Linda B. “Anthropologist explores decline of female genital cutting.” Cornell Chronicle, 12 Dec. 2016.