Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 14Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting IssuesGenital Health and DiseaseMulticultural Socio-Legal Studies

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Shaping Genitals, Shaping Perceptions: A Frame Analysis of Male and Female Circumcision

van den Brink, Marjolein, Tigchelaar, Jet·2012·Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights

Abstract

Human rights claim universal validity, which implies that bias in their applicability as well as in their application should be avoided. From this perspective it is rather remarkable that female circumcision is a major cause for human rights concerns, whereas male circumcision is rarely addressed in the context of human rights. This raises the question whether practices of female circumcision are really that different from forms of male circumcision. There is at least some evidence that there are more similarities between male and female circumcision than commonly perceived. Taking this as a starting point, on the basis of facts, figures and rationales, we distinguish three types of circumcision: the ‘African’, the ‘American’ and the ‘Abrahamic’ type. Whereas male circumcision may fulfil the characteristics of any of these three types, female circumcision seems to fit only the African type. The typology allows for an analysis of the frames used in the debate to justify or delegitimise male and female circumcision. Frames that feature in the debates on male circumcision are a ‘medical/health frame’ and a ‘cultural/religious frame’, both with an ‘accessory human rights frame’. The debate on female circumcision (mostly referred to as female genital mutilation or FGM), on the other hand, is predominantly a ‘women's rights frame’. The differences in normative framing as well as the consequences thereof for the human rights protection of men and women do not seem entirely justified by the differences between the practices of male and female circumcision. We discuss three forms of bias – related to culture, religion and to gender – that may help explain the diverging normative framings. Irrespective of one's normative assessment of the compatibility of circumcision practices with human rights norms, the universality claim of human rights requires the application of the same standards to similar practices, regardless of sex.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/016934411203000404

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Citations

Cites

Still being checked.

Cited by

Metadata

Authors
van den Brink, M., & Tigchelaar, J.
Venue
Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights
Published
2012-12
Volume
30
Issue
4
Pages
417-445
ISSN
  • 0924-0519 (ISSN-L)
  • 2214-7357
OpenAlex
W2606450039
Cited by
14
References
0
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 1 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 2 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 1 · 2014: 2
FWCI
0.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting Issues
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Surgery › Genital Health and Disease
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Multicultural Socio-Legal Studies
Keywords
female genital mutilation, male circumcision, human rights, universality of human rights, normative framing, gender bias, cultural bias, religious bias, women's rights

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

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.