Why is excision frowned upon but not circumcision?
Executive summary
Excision, commonly called female genital cutting or female circumcision, is widely condemned because it is performed mainly for cultural reasons, usually on minors, and carries no medical benefit while causing serious immediate and long-term harms [1] [2]. Male circumcision, by contrast, is defended in many societies on religious, cultural and sometimes public‑health grounds and has been attributed limited medical benefits in some studies, a constellation that helps explain why it remains socially accepted in many places [3] [4].
1. Historical and cultural lineage: similar rituals, different trajectories
Both female and male genital cutting have ancient, widespread roots and have been practiced as rites of passage, identity markers or religious obligations across regions and eras [5] [6], but modern social trajectories diverged: male circumcision became normalized in many Western and religious communities and was medicalized over time, while female excision persisted largely as a traditional, community-enforced practice with limited institutional medical endorsement [5] [1].
2. The medical evidence and its asymmetric framing
Medical literature finds no health benefit to female genital cutting and links it to severe harms — including death, chronic pain, obstetric complications and sexual dysfunction — and public health campaigns therefore frame it as harmful [1] [6]. Male circumcision, in contrast, has been associated in some studies with reduced risks for certain infections and penile cancer, and public‑health bodies have sometimes promoted it as an HIV‑prevention tool in specific contexts, creating a medical narrative that differs markedly from the one applied to excision [3] [4].
3. Procedures, medicalization and safety narratives
Excision is typically performed on girls aged between infancy and adolescence by traditional practitioners under non‑sterile conditions in many settings, although medicalization is increasing in some places [1]. Male circumcision, especially where prevalent in hospitals, is frequently carried out as a clinical procedure using anesthesia and standardized techniques, which reduces immediate complication rates and shapes perceptions of acceptability [3] [7] [1].
4. Consent, age and rights: the child-rights axis
A core ethical distinction in public debate is consent: both practices are often performed on minors who cannot give fully informed consent, but international advocacy has framed female genital cutting as a violation of girls’ bodily integrity and human rights because of its severity and lack of medical justification, while many legal regimes and communities treat male neonatal circumcision as a parental prerogative backed by religious freedom or presumed minor health benefits [1] [8] [2].
5. Politics, religion and cultural defense: how power shapes acceptability
Religious prescription and powerful identity politics have preserved male circumcision in Judaism, Islam and other societies and insulated it from the universal condemnation that FGC faces; conversely, campaigns against excision have mobilized international human‑rights institutions and women’s health advocates who emphasize gendered harms and inequality [3] [6] [1]. Critics argue this produces a double standard: some scholars and activists explicitly compare the two and call inconsistent moral judgments into question [9] [8].
6. Counterarguments and critiques within the debate
There is a robust minority position that both male and female non‑therapeutic genital cutting are ethically equivalent violations of child rights and bodily integrity, and proponents of that view argue medical or cultural rationalizations for male circumcision are insufficient to justify routine non‑consensual operations [8] [9]. Equally, defenders of circumcision invoke religious liberty, historical continuity and claimed health benefits to resist bans or strict regulation [3] [4].
7. Why social condemnation is stronger for excision today
Condemnation of excision rests on a convergence of medical findings of no benefit and demonstrable harm, the gendered nature of its social functions (controlling female sexuality and marriageability), and effective international human‑rights campaigns; by contrast, circumcision benefits from medicalization, perceived — though contested — health arguments, and entrenched religious protections that keep it within legal and social norms in many countries [1] [4] [7].
Conclusion
The different treatments of excision and circumcision are not simply about “better” or “worse” rituals but about a network of evidence, clinical practice, consent frameworks, gender politics and legal protections: excision is widely framed as a harmful, non‑therapeutic violation concentrated on girls and thus targeted by rights campaigns, while circumcision survives through medical narratives, religious freedom, and cultural normalization — even as critics insist both should be re‑examined under consistent child‑rights and medical‑ethical standards [1] [3] [8]. Sources used include medical overviews and ethical analyses summarized above; claims beyond those sources are not asserted here.