CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 100Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting IssuesMulticultural Socio-Legal StudiesFeminism, Gender, and Sexuality Studies

Legislating Change? Responses to Criminalizing Female Genital Cutting in Senegal

Open access
Shell-Duncan, Bettina, Wander, Katherine, Hernlund, Ylva, Moreau, Amadou·2013·Law & Society Review
DOI 10.1111/lasr.12044PMC PMC3997264
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Although the international community has recently promoted legislation as an important reform strategy for ending female genital cutting (FGC), there exist divergent views on its potential effects. Supporters argue that legal prohibition of FGC has a general deterrent effect, while others argue legislation can be perceived as coercive, and derail local efforts to end the practice. This study examines the range of responses observed in rural Senegal, where a 1999 anti-FGC law was imposed on communities in which the practice was being actively contested and targeted for elimination. Drawing on data from a mixed-methods study, we analyze responses in relation to two leading theories on social regulation, the law and economics and law and society paradigms, which make divergent predictions on the interplay between social norms and legal norms. Among supporters of FGC, legal norms ran counter to social norms, and did little to deter the practice, and in some instances incited reactance or drove the practice underground. Conversely, where FGC was being contested, legislation served to strengthen the stance of those contemplating or favoring abandonment. We conclude that legislation can complement other reform strategies by creating an “enabling environment” that supports those who have or wish to abandon FGC.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/lasr.12044

Cites

37 of 37 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Over 40 countries have banned FGM/C by law or constitutional decree.

    “Over 40 countries have banned FGM/C by law or constitutional decree.”

    From Medicalized Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting: Contentious Practices and Persistent Debates (2018) · cites this paper as [43]

    The Legislative Approaches section says that 24 African nations where FGM/C is practiced had prohibited it by law or constitutional decree, and it mentions restrictions in some Western countries. It does not give a worldwide total or establish the claimed figure of over 40 countries. The indexed passages provide no page number. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • In at least six countries (Burkina Faso, Cote d'Ivoire, Egypt, Eritrea, Mauritania, and Senegal), the criminal code specifies an elevated penalty for medical personnel who perform FGM/C, in addition to possible license suspension.

    “In at least six of these countries (Burkina Faso, Cote d’Ivoire, Egypt, Eritrea, Mauritania, and Senegal), the criminal code specifies an elevated penalty (prison and/or fine) specifically for medical personnel who perform FGM/C, in addition to the possibility of suspending their licenses [ 43 ].”

    From Medicalized Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting: Contentious Practices and Persistent Debates (2018) · cites this paper as [43]

    The Legislative Approaches section lists increased penalties for medical professionals in Burkina Faso, Côte d’Ivoire, Eritrea, and Mauritania; the comparative table also specifies the maximum prison penalty for medical personnel in Senegal. The table describes possible license suspension in Burkina Faso, Côte d’Ivoire, and Eritrea. It does not specify an elevated penalty for medical personnel in Egypt or license suspension in Egypt, Mauritania, or Senegal (page numbers unavailable). (LLM, conf=0.90)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Where statutes pose restrictions based on harm rather than zero tolerance, the legal status of nicking, pricking, piercing, and scraping (type IV) is less clear.

    “However, where statutes pose restrictions based on harm, rather than zero tolerance, the legal status of nicking, pricking, piercing, and scraping (type IV) are less clear [ 43 ].”

    From Medicalized Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting: Contentious Practices and Persistent Debates (2018) · cites this paper as [43]

    The paper’s comparative-law table (under “Effect of Fear of Prosecution on Stage of Change,” page unavailable) describes statutes framed around harmful practices or injury, and its “Enforceability” section notes a lack of clarity about legal restrictions. It does not address whether nicking, pricking, piercing, or scraping (type IV) are legally covered under harm-based statutes, or make the claimed comparison with zero-tolerance laws. (LLM, conf=0.78)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The female rites serve counter-patriarchal functions when the women-led ceremonies act as sources of female empowerment, solidarity, and network-building, operating as sites of resistance to male dominance in the public sphere.

    “This appears to be the case, for example, when the women-led ceremonies act as sources of female empowerment, solidarity, and network-building, operating as sites of resistance to male dominance in the public sphere [52, 54, 64, 104–106].”

    From Reconsidering the role of patriarchy in upholding female genital modifications: analysis of contemporary and pre-industrial societies (2023) · cites this paper as [106]

    The “FGM/C in Senegal” section says older women organize the practice and that participation gives young women access to elder women’s social connections and support. It does not describe the ceremonies as sites of resistance to male dominance or establish a counter-patriarchal function; instead, it describes a hierarchy of power among women. Page numbers were not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • When prohibition is linked to the concept of harm, as stipulated in certain criminal codes, questions arise as to whether restrictions also apply to type IV procedures that do not produce anatomical changes.

    “However, when prohibition is linked to the concept of harm, as is stipulated in certain criminal codes [ 43 ], questions arise as to whether restrictions also apply to type IV procedures (nicking, pricking, or scraping of the clitoris or clitoral hood) that do not produce anatomical changes [ 69 ].”

    From Medicalized Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting: Contentious Practices and Persistent Debates (2018) · cites this paper as [43]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. [8]8. Elster, Jon. Explaining Social Behaviour: More Nuts and Bolts for the Social Sciences. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge Univ. Press; 2007.
  2. [37]37. WHO. Female Genital Mutilation: Programmes to Date: What Works and What Doesn't. A Review. Geneva: World Health Organization; 1999.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Shell-Duncan, B., Wander, K., Hernlund, Y., & Moreau, A.
Affiliations
University of Washington (US)
ORCID
Wander, Katherine
Venue
Law & Society Review
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Published
2013-12
Volume
47
Issue
4
Pages
803-835
ISSN
  • 0023-9216 (ISSN-L)
  • 1540-5893
DOI
10.1111/lasr.12044
PMC
PMC3997264
OpenAlex
W2141814122
Semantic Scholar
09151aeb13aa8525c3f86eae3bf2873c5d49edd8
Cited by
100
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 20 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 1
FWCI
4.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Law & Society Review (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (0313503)
  • UNDP/UNFPA/WHO/World Bank Special Programme on Research, Development, and Research Training in Human Reproduction
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting Issues
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Multicultural Socio-Legal Studies
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Feminism, Gender, and Sexuality Studies
Keywords
female genital mutilation, criminalization, social norms, legal norms, reactance, law and economics, law and society, rural Senegal, gender-based violence, social regulation

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review