当前全球反女性生殖器切割运动的危害。

IF 3.4 2区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS
Fuambai Sia Nyoko Ahmadu, Dina Bader, Janice Boddy, Mamasa Camara, Natasha Carver, Rosie Duivenbode, Brian D Earp, Birgitta Essén, Ellen Gruenbaum, Saida Hodžić, Sara Johnsdotter, Saffron Karlsen, Sophia Koukoui, Cynthia Kraus, MariaCaterina La Barbera, Lori Leonard, Carlos D Londoño Sulkin, Ruth M Mestre I Mestre, Sarah O'Neill, Christina Pantazis, Maree Pardy, Juliet Rogers, Nan Seuffert, Arianne Shahvisi, Richard A Shweder, Lotta Wendel
{"title":"当前全球反女性生殖器切割运动的危害。","authors":"Fuambai Sia Nyoko Ahmadu, Dina Bader, Janice Boddy, Mamasa Camara, Natasha Carver, Rosie Duivenbode, Brian D Earp, Birgitta Essén, Ellen Gruenbaum, Saida Hodžić, Sara Johnsdotter, Saffron Karlsen, Sophia Koukoui, Cynthia Kraus, MariaCaterina La Barbera, Lori Leonard, Carlos D Londoño Sulkin, Ruth M Mestre I Mestre, Sarah O'Neill, Christina Pantazis, Maree Pardy, Juliet Rogers, Nan Seuffert, Arianne Shahvisi, Richard A Shweder, Lotta Wendel","doi":"10.1136/jme-2025-110961","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Traditional female genital practices, though long-standing in many cultures, have become the focus of an expansive global campaign against 'female genital mutilation' (FGM). In this article, we critically examine the harms produced by the anti-FGM discourse and policies, despite their grounding in human rights and health advocacy. We argue that a ubiquitous 'standard tale' obscures the diversity of practices, meanings and experiences among those affected. This discourse, driven by a heavily racialised and ethnocentric framework, has led to unintended but serious consequences: the erosion of trust in healthcare settings, the silencing of dissenting or nuanced community voices, racial profiling and disproportionate legal surveillance of migrant families. Moreover, we highlight a troubling double standard that legitimises comparable genital surgeries in Western contexts while condemning similar procedures in others. We call for more balanced and evidence-based journalism, policy and public discourse-ones that account for cultural complexity and avoid the reductive and stigmatising force of the term 'mutilation'. A re-evaluation of advocacy strategies is needed to ensure that they do not reproduce the very injustices they aim to challenge.</p>","PeriodicalId":16317,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Medical Ethics","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2025-09-25","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Harms of the current global anti-FGM campaign.\",\"authors\":\"Fuambai Sia Nyoko Ahmadu, Dina Bader, Janice Boddy, Mamasa Camara, Natasha Carver, Rosie Duivenbode, Brian D Earp, Birgitta Essén, Ellen Gruenbaum, Saida Hodžić, Sara Johnsdotter, Saffron Karlsen, Sophia Koukoui, Cynthia Kraus, MariaCaterina La Barbera, Lori Leonard, Carlos D Londoño Sulkin, Ruth M Mestre I Mestre, Sarah O'Neill, Christina Pantazis, Maree Pardy, Juliet Rogers, Nan Seuffert, Arianne Shahvisi, Richard A Shweder, Lotta Wendel\",\"doi\":\"10.1136/jme-2025-110961\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>Traditional female genital practices, though long-standing in many cultures, have become the focus of an expansive global campaign against 'female genital mutilation' (FGM). In this article, we critically examine the harms produced by the anti-FGM discourse and policies, despite their grounding in human rights and health advocacy. We argue that a ubiquitous 'standard tale' obscures the diversity of practices, meanings and experiences among those affected. This discourse, driven by a heavily racialised and ethnocentric framework, has led to unintended but serious consequences: the erosion of trust in healthcare settings, the silencing of dissenting or nuanced community voices, racial profiling and disproportionate legal surveillance of migrant families. Moreover, we highlight a troubling double standard that legitimises comparable genital surgeries in Western contexts while condemning similar procedures in others. We call for more balanced and evidence-based journalism, policy and public discourse-ones that account for cultural complexity and avoid the reductive and stigmatising force of the term 'mutilation'. A re-evaluation of advocacy strategies is needed to ensure that they do not reproduce the very injustices they aim to challenge.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":16317,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Medical Ethics\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2025-09-25\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Medical Ethics\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"98\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1136/jme-2025-110961\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Medical Ethics","FirstCategoryId":"98","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1136/jme-2025-110961","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

传统的女性生殖器习俗虽然在许多文化中由来已久,但已成为广泛的全球反对“切割女性生殖器”运动的焦点。在本文中,我们批判性地审视了反女性生殖器切割的话语和政策所产生的危害,尽管它们基于人权和健康倡导。我们认为,无处不在的“标准故事”掩盖了受影响者的实践、意义和经验的多样性。在严重种族化和种族中心主义框架的推动下,这种话语导致了意想不到但严重的后果:对医疗机构的信任受到侵蚀,不同意见或细微差别的社区声音被压制,种族貌相以及对移民家庭的不成比例的法律监督。此外,我们强调了一种令人不安的双重标准,即在西方背景下合法化类似的生殖器手术,同时谴责其他国家的类似手术。我们呼吁建立更加平衡和基于证据的新闻、政策和公共话语,这些新闻、政策和公共话语应考虑到文化的复杂性,并避免“残害”一词的贬低和污名化力量。需要重新评价宣传战略,以确保它们不会重现它们旨在挑战的不公正现象。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Harms of the current global anti-FGM campaign.

Traditional female genital practices, though long-standing in many cultures, have become the focus of an expansive global campaign against 'female genital mutilation' (FGM). In this article, we critically examine the harms produced by the anti-FGM discourse and policies, despite their grounding in human rights and health advocacy. We argue that a ubiquitous 'standard tale' obscures the diversity of practices, meanings and experiences among those affected. This discourse, driven by a heavily racialised and ethnocentric framework, has led to unintended but serious consequences: the erosion of trust in healthcare settings, the silencing of dissenting or nuanced community voices, racial profiling and disproportionate legal surveillance of migrant families. Moreover, we highlight a troubling double standard that legitimises comparable genital surgeries in Western contexts while condemning similar procedures in others. We call for more balanced and evidence-based journalism, policy and public discourse-ones that account for cultural complexity and avoid the reductive and stigmatising force of the term 'mutilation'. A re-evaluation of advocacy strategies is needed to ensure that they do not reproduce the very injustices they aim to challenge.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Medical Ethics
Journal of Medical Ethics 医学-医学:伦理
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
9.80%
发文量
164
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊介绍: Journal of Medical Ethics is a leading international journal that reflects the whole field of medical ethics. The journal seeks to promote ethical reflection and conduct in scientific research and medical practice. It features articles on various ethical aspects of health care relevant to health care professionals, members of clinical ethics committees, medical ethics professionals, researchers and bioscientists, policy makers and patients. Subscribers to the Journal of Medical Ethics also receive Medical Humanities journal at no extra cost. JME is the official journal of the Institute of Medical Ethics.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信