The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Shaping Genitals, Shaping Perceptions: A Frame Analysis of Male and Female Circumcision
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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“and unequal treatment of persons of different sexes, genders, ethnic backgrounds, or religions [72–77].”
From Reconsidering the role of patriarchy in upholding female genital modifications: analysis of contemporary and pre-industrial societies (2023) · cites this paper as [75]
Citations
Cites
Still being checked.
Cited by
Female genital mutilation and male circumcision: toward an autonomy-based ethical framework
Earp, B. (2015) · Medicolegal and Bioethics · doi:10.2147/mb.s63709 · Cited by 51
Gruenbaum, E., Earp, B. D., & Shweder, R. A. (2023) · International Journal of Impotence Research · doi:10.1038/s41443-022-00581-5 · Cited by 31
Wahlberg, A., Essén, B., & Johnsdotter, S. (2019) · Culture, Health & Sexuality · doi:10.1080/13691058.2018.1502472 · Cited by 24
Attitudes towards comparison of male and female genital cutting in a Swedish Somali population
Hanberger, A., Essén, B., & Wahlberg, A. (2021) · Acta Obstetricia et Gynecologica Scandinavica · doi:10.1111/aogs.14114 · Cited by 3
Metadata
- Authors
- van den Brink, M., & Tigchelaar, J.
- Venue
- Netherlands Quarterly of Human Rights
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- 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.