Peer-reviewed article
Commentary on "From the War on Terror to the Moral Crusade Against Female Genital Mutilation: Anti-Muslim Racism and Femonationalism in the United States".
Bootwala Y ·
Summary
Written by AI, not yet AICS's view · claude-haiku-4-5-20251001This is a medical commentary on legislation banning female genital cutting in the United States. The author, a urologist, discusses the motivations behind FGC bans, including political positioning and prevention of destination cutting. The commentary raises concerns about potential racial profiling and Islamophobia resulting from such legislation, and notes that increased attention to genital alteration of all children may be a secondary benefit.
Key points
Limitations
This is a commentary on policy and legislation rather than an evaluation of child well-being outcomes or interventions affecting children. It does not present empirical data on the effects of FGC legislation on child health or protection.
Abstract
I am a practicing urologist with expertise in female genital cutting. In this commentary, I respond to Dr Dina Bader's article "From the War on Terror to the Moral Crusade Against Female Genital Mutilation." I outline the current climate around genital cutting, the various actors shaping female genital cutting (FGC) legislation, and public perceptions surrounding the issue. I conclude that legislative changes sweeping across the United States to ban FGC have a variety of motivations. Some are to lift politicians' profiles; some are to prevent destination FGC cutting domestically. The possibility of increased racial profiling or increased Islamophobia is perhaps underrecognized by liberals, and perhaps a discreet and intentional agenda for conservative lawmakers. The effect of this legislation also increases attention on the genital alteration of all children, male, female, and intersex, which could be the greatest benefit of all.