Sex-Based Violence Against Women And Girls – New Frontiers And Emerging Issues

The United Nations Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls, Ms Reem Alsalem, recently invited interested parties to submit evidence and observations on new frontiers and emerging issues in sex-based violence against women and girls.
I have been considering such matters in regard to female genital mutilation (FGM) for a while, and have just submitted some thoughts (below) to meet the deadline of 30 January 2025.

My response here to the enquiries of the Special Rapporteur re new frontiers and emerging issues in VAWG refers, largely in sequential order, to some of the questions she poses in her invitation to consider the matter as above.  I hope the issues and questions I have raised are helpful.

You can read this website in the language of your choice via Google Translate.

Below is my particular response to the call for evidence by Ms Alsalem.  Her entire report on Special Rapporteur on violence against women and girls, with all submissions including mine (as immediately below), was published on 4 July 2025.

My submission

Manifestations of sex-based violence against women and girls
[1] This submission explores primarily the specific violence of female genital mutilation (FGM), which is an extreme form of patriarchy incarnate – ultimately the imposition of (some) men’s will on the bodies and minds of women and girls . Various chasms, conjunctions and potential conjunctions between women and men on this matter will be considered, specifically around behaviours, perceptions and possible resolutions of these matters.

Similar considerations may also apply to other (traditional) gendered / sexual violence such as child and early / forced marriage, breast binding, beading etc., but the focus here will be on FGM.

FGM is inflicted on biologically female humans regardless of the ‘gender’ – a non-biological characteristic ascribed at birth or determined later – of the individual concerned; indeed, in traditional communities (e.g. agriculture) gender as a significant identifier distinct from biological sex may not always be recognised in required social roles , and any who stray from these sex-role requirements (e.g. same sex relationships) may be punished severely

FGM has been experienced by some 230 million women and girls across the globe who are alive today – an increase of 15% from the number in 2016 (because of growing numbers of young people in the relevant populations) .

[2] The direct health consequences of FGM are well established. It can lead to life-long pain, illness or disability, even death, and sometimes has consequences also for children born to a woman with FGM. The economic costs of addressing medical issues associated with FGM are now recognised but the significant additional costs of delayed intervention (e.g. because of Covid) and of wider impacts on societies as a whole have been less often considered.

Fundamental freedoms and sex-based violence against women and girls
[6] Some survivors of FGM become overt advocates for its eradication. The contexts in which this occurs are variable and complex, but a common complaint, at least in the UK, is that those advocates embedded in still-practising communities are both more personally vulnerable and less supported than the NGO officials and state agents (police, social workers etc) who have formal responsibilities in such roles. In part this inequity is structural – it is risky for officials, whether in the UK or elsewhere, to agree funding for small, unregulated groups or simply individuals who have no record of financial accountability; much ‘safer’ to fund larger organisations, even if they have not been engaged in ending FGM previously, because they have formal accounts reporting etc .

[8] One possible way for officialdom to address this issue might be via very modest ‘non-profit’ micro-funding, with increasing support when proper use of monies has been demonstrated.

Another matter, personal safety, also obviously applies wherever EndFGM advocates are active. This issue has recently been illustrated by the serious peril in which a (male) Gambian parliamentarian, Hon Gibbi Mballow, has been placed by his unyielding determination to uphold The Gambia’s legislation against FGM. Whilst perhaps the most concerning threats to Mr Mballow’s (and other activists’) safety have come from extreme religious minorities, there has also been significant and worrying push-backs from his own constituents. Mr Mballow points to the precarious living of many of his constituents, women subsistence farmers in a semi-literate community, and is seeking practical ways to ameliorate that situation. (Easier access to fresh water is another weighty concern.) As we are all acutely aware, FGM will not end simply because we say it must. Adherence to this harmful traditional practice needs to be replaced for communities by meaningful hope of a ‘better’ life, moving forward.

[7] There are tensions in working to end FGM between various of the actors involved. Necessarily, prime amongst these are activists in the field (who as we have noted may feel unsupported). Their courage in speaking out may however be to a degree constrained by their particular experience of this harmful practice: FGM has hugely different and shifting rationales and modes of delivery in different locations, and what applies in one place may not be so elsewhere. The shared, fundamental basis of all objections – that FGM is an egregious breach of human rights – is not always easy to deliver in traditional communities.

Professionals such as clinicians may also be conflicted. In some parts of the world ‘cutting’ supplements their otherwise meagre (or unpaid) formal roles despite medicalisation being illegal in many countries, and severely discouraged everywhere by the WHO and UNFPA.

There are sometimes also tensions particularly between clinicians and legal professionals; it can seem that ultimately no-one has individual, personal responsibility for EndFGM programmes, and this sometimes results in uncertainty about by whom ultimate directional / policy decisions are made. Confusions may be further complicated by the necessity for others such as social workers, teachers and NGO officials also to be involved. The multi-agency approach, widely advocated and with an essential focus on safeguarding as such, does not always effectively encapsulate the several and varying approaches via which ending FGM is addressed; and this may be especially so in respect of who funds what.

In some global locations such as Tanzania efforts have been made by activist-survivors – Rhobi Samwelly, a teacher, is one – to provide safe houses and schools where girls can go to be protected from FGM . Finding these safe houses can be facilitated by mobile phone technologies such as volunteer-resourced OpenStreetMap. Funding for all such facilities is however at best insecure.

National, regional and international legal and policy frameworks to prevent and respond to sex-based violence against women and girls
[9 / 11] We have considered some practical issues around policy etc re FGM above, but there are also wider aspects of this cruel practice. One such is the even greater risk of undergoing FGM for some women and girls migrating in humanitarian ‘emergency situations’ such as fleeing conflict, persecution or famine. Proof of ‘purity’ for lessening opportunities for (often underage) marriage, avoidance of rape and violence by combatants and other drivers render girls and women even more vulnerable to FGM in such situations. Very little resourcing (perhaps 0.12% for gender-based violence of all humanitarian funding) is however made available to protect these effectively defenceless people. These are matters which only States and large / international bodies can meaningfully address – including via appropriate care and safeguarding in settlement camps and, if ever possible, by identification and punishment of perpetrators.

[10] It need hardly be said that accurate data on the actual incidence of FGM is almost impossible to collate. It often occurs in secret, many victims of the crime never contact anyone in authority, and precise record keeping even in medical and legal contexts may be difficult in some community contexts.

[12] There are other, much more broadly-based issues which also require attention. One is the often conflicting meanings and practice of FGM and the parallel practice of what is usually termed (perhaps failing to recognise the suffering in fact of males) ‘circumcision’ or occasionally Male Genital Mutilation (MGM). The contestations around these practices are often complex.

A number of commentators, including Hazel Barrett, Tobe Levin and Hannah Wettig, contend that neither female nor male ‘genital cutting’ will end until they both do. Given the serious harm which MGM can also inflict – even death in particular instances – and the criticality for both males and females of this matter, these issues require careful consideration.

Another broadly-based aspect of FGM as gendered violence is the role of men in combatting it. FGM is for many men a very ‘delicate’ issue. They often know little about it and probably wish to remain in that state, not least because ‘culture’ and ‘tradition’ define such matters as ‘women’s issues’ – FGM may be the signifier not only of ‘purity’ and ‘honour’, but of adult status; and in some African communities it is even the door to secret societies (such as the Sande) which only women may enter. It is a tragedy that because discussion between men and women of anything to do with sex may be taboo, men may not realise that sometimes women inflict FGM on their daughters because they believe the men require it, and men sometimes believe the converse.

Recommendations
[13] We have already considered some ways forward but alongside these it is critical that men be involved together with women in preventing FGM, and even a decade ago growing numbers of men were doing so directly. Whilst some women, like some men, may feel that there is no place for males in issues around FGM, men can legitimately exert their authority and influence in this matter if they choose to. The challenge is how the numbers of such men can be significantly increased in ways which are comfortable for both women and men in ‘ordinary’ society.

One such way is to move from direct consideration of FGM to the socio-economic and environmental contexts in which it has usually occurred. But whilst the (usual, but not inevitable ) connection between increased education of girls and reduced risk of FGM has been understood for some while, more needs to be done to address some other likely contextual factors. It may be, for instance, that easy access to clean, fresh water is an important aspect of increasing the independence and autonomy of women; at present, globally, (mostly) women spend 200 million hours daily collecting water, whether clean and fresh or not.

We know that women with bodily autonomy are more likely to be empowered in other aspects of their lives – probably, once they learn of the connection with ill-health, including FGM. Yet research on factors around water and FGM is rare, though likely important. This is work for hydrologists seeking aquifers, such as those working in Ghana, and for economists; they do not need to be women and they do not need to delve into the more intimate details of FGM. But they do need to start asking questions.

Similarly for many other contextual matters. If autonomy and independence are accepted as a critical – albeit certainly not only – aspect of the lives of women (and girls) who can reject FGM and similar harms, there are numerous and vital ways in which men can bolster the move to enhance women’s well-being and thereby work also to eradicate FGM.

Ways forward might include formal property and inheritance rights, rights to land, genuine legal protections, support for women who remain in their communities (and may not wish to pursue much formal education) – e.g. training and equipment for informed agricultural practices – and full independent access to banking and other financial arrangements.

It is not ‘only’ those who have experienced FGM who are placed at disadvantage. Perhaps greater attention to the wider economic deficits arising from the 230 million women and girls with FGM might also bring some focus to these issues. Is it important, for everyone, men as much as women, to develop an Economic Deficit Index for FGM re human capital, sustainable development and land?

When are all these matters going to be joined up and shared to enable healthier lives for women who have the least? Where is the will, amongst those with power – essentially often the patriarchs of our societies – to address these issues which have impact on every single individual in a community?

[14] Finally, there is one other issue which is barely discussed but it might be vital to consider, affecting both male and female infants and children (and ultimately adults) equally. Can FGM perhaps result in inter-generational child stunting? Do we know? And, if so, has the cost, to affected individuals and communities, and to economies, ever been considered? Would an understanding of potential / demonstrated impacts have any leverage in terms of determination to end FGM?

.

This brief paper has touched on some aspects of the inter-relationships of women and men in regard to a critically important example of gendered violence which harms girls and women, and their entire communities, in many parts of the world. There is much else could be reported about work already done to address this harm, and many questions still to be asked and answered.

.

Hilary Burrage has been researching female genital mutilation (FGM) for many years. She is a sociologist and has written two books and various academic chapters and papers (see below) on this subject.
This paper reflects Hilary’s personal perspectives and understandings around FGM and VAWG.
Hilary lives in London, but is an Adjunct Professor at the Buehler Center for Health Policy and Economics, Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University, Chicago. She is also Advisor to the Global Media Campaign to End FGM, and a Trustee of the Institute for Health Promotion and Education.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Your Comments on this topic are welcome.  
Please post them in the Reply box which follows these announcements…..

~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Books by Hilary Burrage on female genital mutilation

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6684-2740

Eradicating Female Genital Mutilation: A UK Perspective
Ashgate / Routledge (2015)  Reviews

A free internet version of the book Female Mutilation is available here.  It is hoped that putting these many global narrations onto the internet will enable people to read them in whatever language they choose.

Hilary has published widely and has contributed two chapters to Routledge International Handbooks:

Female Genital Mutilation and Genital Surgeries: Chapter 33,
in Routledge International Handbook of Women’s Sexual and Reproductive Health (2019),
eds Jane M. Ussher, Joan C. Chrisler, Janette Perz
and
FGM Studies: Economics, Public Health, and Societal Well-Being: Chapter 12,
in The Routledge International Handbook on Harmful Cultural Practices (2023),
eds Maria Jaschok, U. H. Ruhina Jesmin, Tobe Levin von Gleichen, Comfort Momoh

~ ~ ~

PLEASE NOTE:

The Inter-African Committee on Traditional Practices Affecting the Health of Women and Children, which has a primary focus on FGM, is clear that in formal discourse any term other than ‘mutilation’ concedes damagingly to the cultural relativists. ‘FGM’ is therefore the term I use here  – though the terms employed may of necessity vary in informal discussion with those who by tradition use alternative vocabulary. See the Feminist Statement on the Naming and Abolition of Female Genital Mutilation,  The Bamako Declaration: Female Genital Mutilation Terminology and the debate about Anthr/Apologists on this website.

~ ~ ~

This article concerns approaches to the eradication specifically of FGM.  I am also categorically opposed to MGM, but that is not the focus of this particular piece, except if in any specifics as discussed above.

Anyone wishing to offer additional comment on more general considerations around male infant and juvenile genital mutilation is asked please to do so via these relevant dedicated threads.

Discussion of the general issues re M/FGM will not be published unless they are posted on these dedicated pages. Thanks.