Home > Research > Publications & Outputs > Introduction: Gender Equity in Abrahamic Circum...

Electronic data

Links

Text available via DOI:

View graph of relations

Introduction: Gender Equity in Abrahamic Circumcision: Why or Why Not?

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineEditorial

Published

Standard

Introduction: Gender Equity in Abrahamic Circumcision: Why or Why Not? / Bergom Lunde, Ingvild; Johnson, Matthew.
In: Global Discourse, Vol. 12, No. 1, 28.02.2022, p. 3-7.

Research output: Contribution to Journal/MagazineEditorial

Harvard

APA

Vancouver

Bergom Lunde I, Johnson M. Introduction: Gender Equity in Abrahamic Circumcision: Why or Why Not? Global Discourse. 2022 Feb 28;12(1):3-7. doi: 10.1332/204378921X16369920470269

Author

Bergom Lunde, Ingvild ; Johnson, Matthew. / Introduction: Gender Equity in Abrahamic Circumcision : Why or Why Not?. In: Global Discourse. 2022 ; Vol. 12, No. 1. pp. 3-7.

Bibtex

@article{fffb1294868048e9a14d99cf46398508,
title = "Introduction: Gender Equity in Abrahamic Circumcision: Why or Why Not?",
abstract = "Taking Richard Shweder{\textquoteright}s (2021) article {\textquoteleft}The prosecution of Dawoodi Bohra women: some reasonable doubts{\textquoteright} as a target piece for discussion, the aim of this issue is to better understand these limitations. In the article, Shweder proposes that some forms of FGC be legalized, arguing that the form of FGC practiced among Dawoodi Bohra Muslims is less invasive than typical circumcision of boys and that, among the Bohra, FGC is a religiously meaningful ritual. This proposal implies that girls should have the same rights to cultural and/or religious identity as circumcised boys. It is a controversial proposal insofar as it directly challenges the central tenet of global campaigns to end FGC, such as target 5.3 in the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal: that girls can only be empowered by protecting them from being subjected to a fear-inducing and painful experience. This issue examines both directions within the equivalence argument: the plausibility of legalization of FGC, but also the possibility that boys require protection from forms of male genital cutting. This second possibility – of proposing an age limit or ban on boy circumcision – is also controversial, particularly at a time in which there is growing concern about anti-Semitism and Islamophobia. This may, in part, explain worldwide reluctance by otherwise interventionist policy makers to act upon the similarities of boy and girl circumcision.",
author = "{Bergom Lunde}, Ingvild and Matthew Johnson",
year = "2022",
month = feb,
day = "28",
doi = "10.1332/204378921X16369920470269",
language = "English",
volume = "12",
pages = "3--7",
journal = "Global Discourse",
issn = "2326-9995",
publisher = "Taylor and Francis Ltd.",
number = "1",

}

RIS

TY - JOUR

T1 - Introduction: Gender Equity in Abrahamic Circumcision

T2 - Why or Why Not?

AU - Bergom Lunde, Ingvild

AU - Johnson, Matthew

PY - 2022/2/28

Y1 - 2022/2/28

N2 - Taking Richard Shweder’s (2021) article ‘The prosecution of Dawoodi Bohra women: some reasonable doubts’ as a target piece for discussion, the aim of this issue is to better understand these limitations. In the article, Shweder proposes that some forms of FGC be legalized, arguing that the form of FGC practiced among Dawoodi Bohra Muslims is less invasive than typical circumcision of boys and that, among the Bohra, FGC is a religiously meaningful ritual. This proposal implies that girls should have the same rights to cultural and/or religious identity as circumcised boys. It is a controversial proposal insofar as it directly challenges the central tenet of global campaigns to end FGC, such as target 5.3 in the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal: that girls can only be empowered by protecting them from being subjected to a fear-inducing and painful experience. This issue examines both directions within the equivalence argument: the plausibility of legalization of FGC, but also the possibility that boys require protection from forms of male genital cutting. This second possibility – of proposing an age limit or ban on boy circumcision – is also controversial, particularly at a time in which there is growing concern about anti-Semitism and Islamophobia. This may, in part, explain worldwide reluctance by otherwise interventionist policy makers to act upon the similarities of boy and girl circumcision.

AB - Taking Richard Shweder’s (2021) article ‘The prosecution of Dawoodi Bohra women: some reasonable doubts’ as a target piece for discussion, the aim of this issue is to better understand these limitations. In the article, Shweder proposes that some forms of FGC be legalized, arguing that the form of FGC practiced among Dawoodi Bohra Muslims is less invasive than typical circumcision of boys and that, among the Bohra, FGC is a religiously meaningful ritual. This proposal implies that girls should have the same rights to cultural and/or religious identity as circumcised boys. It is a controversial proposal insofar as it directly challenges the central tenet of global campaigns to end FGC, such as target 5.3 in the United Nations Sustainable Development Goal: that girls can only be empowered by protecting them from being subjected to a fear-inducing and painful experience. This issue examines both directions within the equivalence argument: the plausibility of legalization of FGC, but also the possibility that boys require protection from forms of male genital cutting. This second possibility – of proposing an age limit or ban on boy circumcision – is also controversial, particularly at a time in which there is growing concern about anti-Semitism and Islamophobia. This may, in part, explain worldwide reluctance by otherwise interventionist policy makers to act upon the similarities of boy and girl circumcision.

U2 - 10.1332/204378921X16369920470269

DO - 10.1332/204378921X16369920470269

M3 - Editorial

VL - 12

SP - 3

EP - 7

JO - Global Discourse

JF - Global Discourse

SN - 2326-9995

IS - 1

ER -