By Naimah Hassan

There is a particular violence that occurs when harm is turned into theory.

A recent article in the BMJ Journal of Medical Ethics—presented as a reflection on the unintended consequences of anti-FGM policies—has reignited debate about how the global campaign to end female genital mutilation or cutting (FGM/C) should be pursued. Framed through concerns about racial profiling, punitive safeguarding, and trust in healthcare systems, it asks whether protection itself can become harmful.

These concerns are real. Survivors and activists have raised them for decades. And a growing chorus of survivor-led organisations across Africa and the global movement has been deeply troubled by how these debates continue to unfold—often without us.

Because something essential is missing.

When violence against girls is abstracted into an ethical puzzle, those who endure it are pushed to the margins. When harm becomes a thought experiment, urgency collapses. Accountability dissolves.

FGM/C is not a cultural ‘practice’.

It is not a medical ‘procedure’.

It is not an ‘ethical dilemma’.

It is violence against women and children.

That is not rhetoric. It is legal, moral, and human rights fact. Any ethical discussion that fails to begin there is already on unstable ground.

Yet when FGM/C enters elite bioethical and academic spaces, this........

© LBC