14.6 C
Tuesday, May 21, 2024
HomeCommunityDispelling the Myth: Debunking the Equivalence Between Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) and...

Dispelling the Myth: Debunking the Equivalence Between Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) and Male Circumcision


Related stories

How youth skills training in Kenya can reduce inequality

By Moses Ngware Sub-Saharan Africa’s burgeoning population of young people...

Millions of Kenyans go hungry every day. Why, and what can be done

By Eunice Njogu The recently released 2019 Global Hunger Index shows that...

Young Kenyans have their say about politics, corruption and their sense of belonging

By Elisabeth King,Dana Burde,Daphna Harel,Jennifer Hill Reflecting on the divisions...

Girls and pornography in South Africa: going beyond just the negative effects

By Deevia Bhana Academic research tends to focus on the...

Why Kenya’s pro-poor health financing reforms miss their mark

By Edwine Barasa, Evelyn Kabia Kenya has made several reforms...
Reading Time: 2 minutes


In discussions surrounding genital alteration, a pervasive myth often emerges, suggesting that female genital mutilation (FGM) is equivalent to male circumcision. However, such an assertion not only oversimplifies complex cultural and medical practices but also dangerously trivializes the severe harm inflicted by FGM. It’s crucial to debunk this myth and highlight the vast differences between these two procedures to prevent the perpetuation of misinformation and protect the rights and well-being of individuals.

Firstly, it’s essential to recognize the stark contrast in the nature and purpose of FGM compared to male circumcision. FGM encompasses a range of procedures involving the partial or total removal of the external female genitalia, often without medical necessity and performed on girls without their consent. In contrast, male circumcision involves the surgical removal of the foreskin of the penis, primarily for religious, cultural, or health reasons, and is generally conducted in sterile medical environments with appropriate anaesthesia.

Furthermore, the implications of FGM extend far beyond the physical alteration of genitalia. FGM is recognized globally as a severe violation of human rights and is associated with a myriad of immediate and long-term health consequences, including chronic pain, infections, complications during childbirth, and psychological trauma. In contrast, male circumcision, when performed under medical supervision, carries minimal risks and has even been associated with potential health benefits, such as reduced risk of urinary tract infections and sexually transmitted infections.

Moreover, equating FGM with male circumcision ignores the deeply rooted gender inequalities and patriarchal structures that underpin the practice of FGM. FGM is often used as a means of controlling women’s bodies and sexuality, perpetuating harmful gender norms and reinforcing power imbalances within communities. Male circumcision, on the other hand, is not typically linked to such oppressive motives and is not aimed at subjugating or controlling men.

Lastly, perpetuating the myth that FGM is equivalent to male circumcision undermines efforts to eradicate FGM and protect the rights of girls and women. By trivializing the severity of FGM and framing it as a cultural or religious practice akin to male circumcision, the true extent of the harm inflicted by FGM is downplayed, hindering advocacy efforts and perpetuating harmful cultural practices. It is imperative to challenge this myth, promote accurate information, and work towards ending FGM as a fundamental step towards gender equality and the protection of human rights.

About The Author


- Never miss a story with notifications

- Gain full access to our premium content

- Browse free from up to 5 devices at once

Latest stories



Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here