PulseExploreJournal ClubDebatesTrendingResearchersJournals
Instagram
HomeExploreJournal ClubTrending
Synapse
⌘+K
Synapse
June 4, 2026Journal of Medical Ethics0 citations

Double standards in the debate on protecting all children from genital cutting: a response to Ahmadu et al

View Full Paper
GHGuido HegazyKinderkrebs-Zentrum HamburgESEphraim SeidenbergZurich University of Teacher EducationMSManasseh SeidenbergZurich University of Teacher Education

Key Points

  • The aim is to advocate for the protection of all children from non-therapeutic genital cutting and highlight double standards in the ongoing debate.
  • Represent two organizations advocating in German-speaking Europe for genital protection.
  • Critique terminology and perspectives in the publication by Ahmadu et al.
  • Elaborate on observed double standards in Germany and Switzerland.
  • Identify multiple double standards in public discourse regarding genital cutting.
  • Highlight the lack of protection for boys compared to girls in genital cutting discussions.

Abstract

We represent two organisations in German-speaking Europe that advocate for the protection of all children’s genitals from non-therapeutic, non-consensual genital cutting. Our organisation’s focus is on boys, as they constitute a large group that receives little or no protection from genital cutting. Ahmadu et al recently critiqued ‘anti-FGM campaigns’ in J Med Ethics , highlighting double standards in the public discussion. Although we differ on the issue itself, we share the authors’ assessment that several double standards exist and are often ignored in public debate. In our response, we further elaborate on the double standards that we observe in Germany and Switzerland. Furthermore, we critique terms used in the article by Ahmadu et al . and contribute our perspective on gender disparities in the discussion on genital cutting that are often ignored in media, public discourse and academia.

Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Cite This Study

Hegazy et al. (2026) studied this question.

synapsesocial.com/papers/6a2117fdd499ed480b170d2ehttps://doi.org/10.1136/jme-2026-111732
Ask AI
Helpful
Bookmark
Share
View Full Paper

Also Consider

Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context:

  1. 1The Double Standards in Genital Mutilation2025
  2. 2Harms of the current global anti-FGM campaign2025
  3. 3FGM and genital cutting across borders: cultural biases in the contestation of global human rights2024 · 2 citations
  4. 4The Ethical Dilemma of Childhood Male Circumcision—The Arguments Against Supporting Public Funding in Australia Remain Substantial. Comment on Ananthapadmanabhan et al. Privatisation of Request Infant Male Circumcision in Australia—An Equity-Focused Assessment of Impacts on Religious Communities in Greater Sydney. Soc. Int. Urol. J. 2026, 7, 512026
  5. 5Protection of minors and perspectives of balancing fundamental rights2024