Sheldon Sally, Wilkinson Stephen
Bioethics. 1998 Oct;12(4):263-85. doi: 10.1111/1467-8519.00117.
In the UK, female genital mutilation is unlawful, not only when performed on minors, but also when performed on adult women. The aim of our paper is to examine several arguments which have been advanced in support of this ban and to assess whether they are sufficient to justify banning female genital mutilation for competent, consenting women. We proceed by comparing female genital mutilation, which is banned, with cosmetic surgery, towards which the law has taken a very permissive stance. We then examine the main arguments for the prohibition of the former, assessing in each case both (a) whether the argument succeeds in justifying the ban and, if so, (b) whether a parallel argument would not also support a ban on the latter. We focus on the following arguments. Female genital mutilation should be unlawful because: (1) no woman could validly consent to it; (2) it is an oppressive and sexist practice; (3) it involves the intentional infliction of injury; (4) it causes offence. Our view is that arguments (3) and (4) are unsound and that, although arguments (1) and (2) may be sound, they support not only a ban on female genital mutilation, but also one on (some types of) cosmetic surgery. Hence, we conclude that the present legal situation in the UK is ethically unsustainable in one of the following ways. Either the ban on female genital mutilation is unjustified because arguments (1) and (2) are not in fact successful; or the law's permissive attitude towards cosmetic surgery is unjustified because arguments (1) and (2) are in fact successful and apply equally to female genital mutilation and (certain forms of) cosmetic surgery. The people of the countries where female genital mutilation is practised resent references to 'barbaric practices imposed on women by male-dominated primitive societies', especially when they look at the Western world and see women undergoing their own feminization rites intended to increase sexual desirability: medically dangerous forms of cosmetic plastic surgery, for instance....
在英国，女性生殖器切割是非法的，不仅对未成年人实施这种行为是非法的，对成年女性实施同样违法。本文的目的是审视为支持这一禁令而提出的几个论点，并评估它们是否足以证明禁止有行为能力且自愿同意的女性进行女性生殖器切割是合理的。我们通过将被禁止的女性生殖器切割与法律采取非常宽松态度的整容手术进行比较来展开论述。然后，我们审视禁止前者的主要论点，在每种情况下都评估：(a) 该论点是否成功地证明了禁令的合理性，如果是，(b) 类似的论点是否也不会支持禁止后者。我们关注以下论点。女性生殖器切割应该是非法的，因为：(1) 没有女性能够有效同意这种行为；(2) 这是一种压迫性的、性别歧视的做法；(3) 它涉及故意造成伤害；(4) 它会引起冒犯。我们的观点是，论点(3)和(4)是不合理的，并且尽管论点(1)和(2)可能合理，但它们不仅支持禁止女性生殖器切割，也支持禁止（某些类型的）整容手术。因此，我们得出结论，英国目前的法律状况在以下方面之一在伦理上是不可持续的。要么禁止女性生殖器切割是不合理的，因为论点(1)和(2)实际上并不成功；要么法律对整容手术的宽松态度是不合理的，因为论点(1)和(2)实际上是成功的，并且同样适用于女性生殖器切割和（某些形式的）整容手术。实施女性生殖器切割的国家的人们反感将其称为“男性主导的原始社会强加给女性的野蛮行为”，尤其是当他们审视西方世界并看到女性接受旨在增加性吸引力的自身女性化仪式时：例如，具有医学危险性的整容手术形式……
