From Erica: genital restructuring survery for survivors of female genital cutting?

This morning, I woke up to an email from my partner with this link included. The article, published by Newsweek, talks about a doctor- a doctor who happens to have undergone genital restructuring surgery herself as part of a male-to-female transition- who has started working to adapt the procedures used to "create" the labia, clitoris, and vaginal openings for use on women who have (often forcibly) undergone female genital cutting.

Of course, there are some problems with the article- for example, the prevailing assumption (both from the writer and from the article's main interview subjects) that a person needs the full complement of normative female genitalia in order to be a "real" woman- but it also did a wonderful job of highlighting the myriad of roles that genitalia and sexuality play in broader human experiences. Whether it's in attaining a genital look and feel that have been taboo in one's culture, or whether it's changing the body to match one's expectations of gender and sex identity, the possibilities for effective genital restructuring surgery are broadening.

So too, as the article mentions, are the ways in which cultures can respond negatively to those feelings of empowerment that (may) come with newly restructured genitals. The article discusses the possibility of rejection that their interview subject might experience as a result of stepping away from the cultural tradition of female genital cutting; of course, negative judgement isn't limited to "Other" cultures, and while people in the United States are likely to respond positively to this particular person's surgery, trans folks in America get the short end of the stick when they pursue similar procedures.

As always, it's an interesting world out there.

From Erica: FGC is out in Uganda!

So my partner sent me a link this morning to this article about Uganda's recent decision to outlaw female genital cutting (FGC) in its borders. I'm simultaneously overjoyed and concerned. Primarily, I'm overjoyed. Having formal recognition from the political leader in a country with citizens that still practice FGC that the practice is dangerous, damaging, and pointless is a huge leap forward.

My concern has to do with the connection between law and practice. The legality or illegality of a practice doesn't change whether or not the practice is performed; it just changes the circumstances of that performance. I'm concerned that making FGC illegal will mean that families will continue to practice it, but in increasingly unsanitary and unsafe conditions. I wonder if a viable option would be an exemption for medical doctors, who could (in theory) perform FGC in conditions that minimize the risk of trauma, infection, and mistakes. Of course, that possibility also raises questions about the consent of the girls who get the procedure done, and the affordability and geographic accessibility of the procedure.

When I mentioned this to Emily, she responded that it reminds her of the abortion debates in the United States, to the extent that the law can make an unsafe procedure safer when it legalizes it under certain circumstances. Without legal codification of abortion rights, she pointed out, women seeking illegal abortions would be putting themselves at high risk for all kinds of infections, complications, and of course, death.

Obviously, the two issues are quite different in a lot of ways; the abortion example is a way of illustrating the ways in which law can protect women during procedures that are likely to continue to occur regardless of their legality. It'll be interesting to see how Uganda's law impacts the procedure over the next few years, and to see how the grassroots organizations that respond to FGC as it is (and here I'm thinking of the organizations that promote alternative rituals to FGC, since FGC has a history of being a significant ritual in the attainment of maturity of girls and young women) adapt their work (or expand it!) under the new policy.

--Erica