Thoughtful comparisons: how do genital cutting traditions change in Sudan? A reply to ‘The prosecution of Dawoodi Bohra women’ by Richard Shweder

Abstract

Male and female genital cutting are often similar social and moral undertakings in those societies where both are practised. Yet, they both vary widely in meanings and ritual practices in their many social contexts, and there are many societies where only males are circumcised or where neither gender is. Modifications to genitalia range widely in their risks of harm, which has recently begun to be seriously examined for males but that has been well known for females. In this article, we compare female and male genital cutting practices in Sudan, including questions about culture and religion, gender equality, health, rights and laws, and strategies for change to end female genital cutting. In contrast to Shweder’s view that both male and female genital circumcisions might be tolerated by the logic of cultural relativism and logical consistency, which serves to defend the practices of the Islamic sect known as the Dawoodi Bohra in their home country (India) and in the diaspora, we argue that it is important, and useful, to separate the issues of male and female genital cutting in the situation of predominantly Muslim Sudan. Since male genital cutting is well defended in Sudanese Islamic opinion, and since efforts to end the very serious female cutting – predominantly Type 3 – are advancing, we find Shweder’s ‘goose and gander’ moral equivalency argument unhelpful.