Reflections on a recent Antitheses Project conversation
In a recent ANTITHESES Project podcast, Dominic Wilkinson (Uehiro Oxford Institute), Brian D. Earp (National University of Singapore), and Zainab Nur (Hidden Voices UK) discuss an extended essay published in the Journal of Medical Ethics (2025) examining the unintended harms of the dominant global campaign against female genital cutting (FGC), often referred to as “female genital mutilation” (FGM). The conversation situates the article within broader debates in bioethics, public health ethics, and political philosophy concerning bodily autonomy, cultural pluralism, and the ethics of harm reduction.
The JME article critically interrogates what the authors describe as the prevailing “standard tale” about FGM: a widely institutionalised narrative embedded in international law, global health policy, and human rights advocacy. While acknowledging that many forms of non-consensual genital cutting raise serious ethical concerns — particularly regarding children’s rights and bodily integrity — the authors argue that the standard framing can obscure important distinctions between different practices, meanings, and contexts. Moreover, they suggest that certain modes of advocacy may generate collateral harms, including stigma, racialised stereotyping, epistemic marginalisation of affected communities, and barriers to open clinical dialogue.
The podcast explores several interrelated ethical questions. First, how should we evaluate culturally embedded bodily practices that are contested both within and across communities? Second, what are the moral risks of adopting rhetorically absolutist language in public health campaigns? Third, can there be a coherent and non-arbitrary ethical framework for evaluating female genital cutting alongside other forms of medically unnecessary genital modification, including those widely accepted in Western contexts?
A central theme of the discussion concerns the ethics of language. The term “mutilation,” while intended to signal moral gravity, may function not merely descriptively but also normatively — shaping public perception, policy responses, and the self-understanding of those labelled. The speakers examine whether such language forecloses meaningful engagement, and whether alternative frameworks might better promote health, autonomy, and harm reduction without reinforcing stigma.
Importantly, the conversation does not deny the existence of harm or the legitimacy of efforts to protect children from coercive or injurious practices. Rather, it calls for greater conceptual clarity, empirical sensitivity, and ethical consistency. This includes attention to proportionality, respect for cultural agency, and the avoidance of double standards in evaluating comparable bodily interventions.
The discussion exemplifies the aims of the Wellcome-funded ANTITHESES Project: to foster rigorous, good-faith engagement across deep moral disagreement, especially in areas where public discourse is polarised and ethically complex. By bringing together philosophical analysis, empirical scholarship, and lived perspectives, the conversation invites scholars, clinicians, and policymakers to reflect not only on what justice requires, but also on how ethical commitments are articulated and enacted in practice.
Watch on YouTube:
Thoughtful piece. The point about language shaping policy and perception is crucial. “Mutilation” carries normative weight that can both help and hinder meaningful dialogue. I appreciate the call for ethical consistency across comparable bodily interventions, and the emphasis on listening to affected communities rather than speaking over them. Nuance like this is essential for harm reduction that actually works.
Such traditions weigh ‘.. like an incubus upon the brain of the living.’ FGM should, along withchild marriage, prostitution, human trafficking, bride kidnapping, misogyny, virginity tests, being taught that menstruation is unclean, circumcision for non-medical reasons, caste/class, homophobia, as well as blasphemy as a crime, non-evidence based medicine & cock and dog fighting, be thrown in the dustbin of history!
The discussion in this article is truly impressive. The reflection on “standard narratives” in this article – particularly regarding issues such as language violence, double standards, and the suppression of the voices of marginalized groups – demonstrates rare academic honesty and moral sensitivity. The article calls for the establishment of “ethical consistency” among different cultural practices, and this direction is highly insightful.
We can attempt to establish an “ethical consistency” by applying the Three Principles of Eudaimonia.
The first principle (the pursuit of one’s eudaimonia) establishes the subjective experience of the individual as the criterion for judgment. This means that whether it constitutes harm should ultimately be defined by the person with the capacity for action (an adult) based on their own feelings, rather than being arbitrarily determined by external culture.
The second principle (not infringing upon others’ eudaimonia) sets a cross-cultural baseline: Any irreversible cutting procedure that causes a substantial deprivation of a person’s bodily functions or future choices without their informed consent, constitutes an “infringement” – regardless of whether it occurs in Africa, the Middle East or the West, and regardless of whether it targets men or women.
The third principle (building an eudaimonia environment) requires us to return decision-making power to the affected individuals: through education for empowerment, health education and open dialogue, let the next generation make their own choices on whether and how to practice traditions with full knowledge, rather than having external legislation close off all possibilities for them.
This definition does not rely on the debate over the labels of “circumcision” or “partial excision”, but rather returns to the three comparable ethical dimensions of informed consent, bodily autonomy, and open choice. It can both seriously address harm and avoid cultural arrogance; it can both protect children and respect the autonomous choices of adults.
If this framework can be incorporated into the discussion, it might provide a more precise coordinate for “ethical consistency” than “abolishing” or “allowing” do.