25
DiscussionWhat if the parent, child, and doctor all consent to female genital mutilation?
The recent post of leaked TRA talking-points suggests that activists emphasize the argument that parents and doctors should make the call on medical care for children, period.
That’s a reasonable stance in almost all cases, but no one thinks it is reasonable in literally all cases. If a parent, doctor, and child all agree to treat an adolescent with a lobotomy, we agree that it is still wrong. If a parent, a child, and a doctor agree that amputating the pinky finger makes children graceful, confident, and attractive, we still recognize that as madness.
To emphasize the difference between “gender affirming” amputations and other forms of medical care, I would raise the argument that childhood castration and double-mastectomies in the West fill a similar niche to female genital mutilation procedures in other parts of the world: in both cases, there may be full agreement between the parent, the doctor, and even the child about the procedure:
more than half of girls and women in four out of 14 countries where data are available believe female genital mutilation is a religious requirement.
TRA logic that claims any alteration to the body of minors is acceptable as long as parents and doctors agree should likewise justify FGM as beyond criticism and no one’s business. So ask whether the same standard applies.
Then, ask why it is that poor people in the third world are so easily recognized as engaging in a brutal and misguided practice when they amputate a clitoris in response to sincerely-held beliefs, but affluent Westerners are heralded as enlightened beyond all need for debate when amputating breasts and balls off their own willing children.