The Faculty of Social Sciences and Law Gender Research Group warmly invites you to join us for this double bill (abstracts below): from the University of Melbourne, Australia, Dr Juliet Rogers will speak about the legal context and contradictions on genital surgery, followed by Dr Hannelore Van Bavel from Vrije Universiteit Brussel (Free University of Brussels) who will present initial findings from an art-based study with girls and women on genital self-image. The event is free but please register here.

After the presentations there will be a wine reception to launch the Bristol Research on Female Genital Modifications (BRFGM).

Places are free, but booking is essential. Please follow this link to book your place. 

 

Dr Juliet Rogers is an Associate Professor (Reader) at the University of Melbourne in the Criminology department. She is a former community worker, therapist and has undertaken training in psychoanalysis. She holds a PhD in Law. Her work focuses on trauma and law with a particular emphasis on anti-fgm/c laws and their impacts on communities who are associated with the practices. She employs critical race theory, queer theory, psychoanalysis and trauma studies to interrogate the western investments in these laws and the fantasies of the practices, using Australia as a case study and examining the legal events and anti-fgm climate in this context. She is interested in perceptions of bodies and she frames many of the western reactions to practices of female genital cutting, including the turn to law, as often a response to the difficulty with difference and ontological incommensurability.

Dr Hannelore Van Bavel is a Marie Sklodowska-Curie Action Postdoctoral Fellow at the Rhea Research Centre for Gender, Diversity and Intersectionality at VUB and an Honorary Research Fellow at the Department of Anthropology and Archaeology at the University of Bristol. She holds a PhD in Anthropology & Sociology from SOAS University of London. Her research lies at the nexus of social anthropology and intersectional and postcolonial feminist theory. She is fascinated by how the intersections of gender, race, location, and culture shape societal and medical discourses on women's health and bodies and how these discourses affect women. She has primarily explored this topic through the study of female genital modifications. She has conducted extensive ethnographic research on the transnational campaign against "female genital mutilation/cutting" (FGM/C), exploring its colonial legacies and the material effects it has had on (women from) FGM/C-practising communities, particularly in East Africa. Her current project examines female genital self-image and female genital cosmetic surgeries in Belgium and the Netherlands.

BRFGM

Initialised in 2018 when a group of researchers (Professor Saffron Karlsen and Dr Magda Mogilnicka from SPAIS; and Professor Christina Pantazis and Dr Natasha Carver from SPS) responded to a direct request to the University of Bristol from a group of concerned Somali parents, the BRFGM works alongside affected groups to:

• Mainstream marginalised voices and provide platforms for affected communities;
• Improve understanding of the nature and extent of FGMo in the UK;
• Challenge stigmatizing and harmful policies and professional practices;
• Identify and change pejorative global discourses;
• Provide empirical evidence to inform and improve law and policy;
• Improve and expand healthcare responses for families with lived experience.

We use the term modifications to draw attention to the current inequity in the law and policy which criminalises and stigmatizes those with migrant-heritage for practicing Female Circumcision or Cutting / ‘Female Genital Mutilation’ (FGM) whilst facilitating analogous practices such as Female Cosmetic Genital Surgeries for the majority.

 

The contradictions in Female Genital Cutting laws - understanding how gender affirmation surgeries, male circumcision and female genital surgeries have been ignored in legal cases of genital cutting.

Presented by A/Prof Juliet B Rogers

In 2015 three members of the Dawoodi Bohra Muslim community in Australia were convicted of the crime of Female Genital Mutilation. The Dawoodi Bohra perform a ‘nick’ to the clitoris which in this case left no visible evidence. In 2019 this case went to the High Court, the highest court in the land, to establish if a ‘nick’ was a ‘mutilation’. In the hearing one of the judges noted that a ‘nick’ was like a shaving cut, gesturing to his face. Absent were other analogies to male circumcision, gender affirmation or cosmetic surgeries. Since the early 1990s legislations have been passed in most English speaking and many European countries that criminalise the practises described in the laws as female genital mutilation. This franchise of legislations has a particular body in mind, with a particular legibility, read through culture and through law. This is a body whose appearance or function can be altered only to achieve a form of health or, not unrelatedly, aesthetics. But health is of course not simply a biological matter – as a nick to the face or a nick to the clitoris is not a simple biological matter. Health is culturally mediated as are notions of what a body should look like and how it should function. That is bodies are produced through ideas, customs and rituals that shape their forms and curate their purpose. Despite this obvious point, legislation such as the Female Genital Mutilation Act 2003 (UK), section 5 states: ‘For the purpose of determining whether an operation is necessary for the mental health of a girl it is immaterial whether she or any other person believes that the operation is required as a matter of custom or ritual’.

In this presentation I will discuss the case of the ‘nick’ in Australia and try to understand how it came to be thought of as a mutilation. I will then examine the clause of ‘medical necessity’ in anti FGM legislations in English speaking and European contexts which enable surgeries for gender affirmation and for cosmetic purposes (which are arguably overlapping), we then discuss understandings of the body in relation to gender dysphoria, with an interrogation of how this differs and overlaps with cultural dysphoria. In this paper I consider discussions of gender affirmation in law as well as in practices of genital cutting through the work of Fuambai Ahmadu and members of the Dawoodi Bohra community. Specifically, I ask why, in western contexts, gender dysphoria has come to be separated from cultural dysphoria as if such dysphoria is only biologically mediated.

 

FGCS in Context

Presented by Dr Hannelore Van Bavel

Worldwide, the prevalence of female genital cosmetic surgeries (FGCS) is increasing. FGCS encompasses surgical procedures aimed at enhancing the aesthetic appearance and/or functionality of the female genitalia. The surge in FGCS, including among minors, has raised concerns among feminists and gynaecologists. These apprehensions centre around: (1) the health risks associated with FGCS and the lack of quality outcome data; (2) mental health issues, particularly body image concerns, that underpin the demand for FGCS; and (3) the influence of socio-medical beauty standards. Consequently, various Associations of Gynaecologists and Obstetricians across countries such as the UK, USA, Canada, Australia, Switzerland, and the Netherlands have issued ethical opinion papers. Although these documents generally express a sceptical view towards FGCS, they emphasise the importance of respecting patient autonomy. Therefore, rather than advocating for stricter regulations or prohibitions, they focus on ensuring that decisions about FGCS are made autonomously.

In the first part of my presentation, I draw from feminist and decolonial bioethics to critically examine the limitations of the prevailing notion of autonomy, which is often prioritised at the expense of other bioethical principles like "do no harm" and "justice". I argue that there is an urgent need for revising the ethical standpoints on FGCS based on the real-life experiences of women – both those seeking FGCS and those who do not. I argue that it is important to include women who do not pursue FGCS because the socio-cultural and medical pressures driving the demand for FGCS impact a broader spectrum of women beyond just those who opt for surgery. Exploring the perspectives of women who refrain from seeking FGCS can shed light on how these pressures influence women and the different ways in which women handle these pressures, including potential non-surgical alternatives.

The overarching aim of my project is thus to adopt an empirical bioethics approach, bringing together the lived experiences of women, medical professionals experienced in responding to genital concerns and requests for FGCS, and ethical theory to re-evaluate existing policies and guidelines concerning FGCS. In the second part of my presentation, I will share preliminary findings from the empirical data I have gathered towards this end. These data stem from focus group discussions across various age demographics of women and individuals with a vulva. These discussions focused on genital self-image, factors influencing genital self-image, and the impact of genital self-image on the lives and wellbeing of girls, women, and people with a vulva.