A research article in a medical journal is featuring largely in the news today. The authors, Arora and Jacobs, have argued that "we must adopt a more nuanced position that acknowledges a wide spectrum
of procedures that alter female genitalia. (...)
Acceptance of
de minimis procedures [of female genital alteration] that generally do
not carry long-term medical risks is culturally sensitive, does not
discriminate on
the basis of gender, and does not
violate human rights" (here). The authors argue that accepting the 'minor' less invasive procedures is a compromise for those cultures (statically defined) who continue and want to continue these practices.
This discussion is often featured in Anthropology 101 courses as we talk about genital modification and its juxtaposition with cultural relativism (arguing that there is no universal standard and that one should not criticize from outside a culture) and universal human rights.
This is not a new debate however, the fact that the discussion of cultural relativism is occurring in the medical community is a new turn of this long-standing anthropological discussion. In class, I would also ask, what difference does a label make? Mutilation to alteration...