Female Genital Cosmetic Surgery (FGCS) is an umbrella term referring to different procedures including labiaplasty (reducing the length of the labia minora), clitoral hood reduction (reducing excess folds of the clitoral hood), hymenoplasty (building the hymen), labia majora augmentation (increasing the labia majora), vaginoplasty (tightening the vagina), and G-spot amplification (increasing the size and sensitivity of the G-spot). This paper is concerned with “all-or-nothing” approaches to FGCS procedures in women’s healthcare, i.e., those that overemphasize either women’s autonomy so (...) as to defend total accessibility to the procedures, or the oppressive social context affecting women as to defend the total banning of the procedures. What is missing in the literature, however, is an articulation of how both approaches ignore that the practice of autonomy can coexist and coincide with facing up to oppression. This paper first provides an articulation of how these attitudes – seemingly in disagreement – have underlying normative assumptions in common. This articulation further helps frame the so-called tension between oppression and autonomy in a way that highlights unique aspects of FGCS procedures. By contrast, I argue in favor of an “in-between” approach, which takes both phenomena into consideration. I argue that merely emphasizing psychophysical harm is not sufficient to justify the total banning of an FGCS procedure. Instead, identifying patterns of false consciousness, as a form of epistemic injustice and weighing those against other forms of potential harm done to a patient provides a moral basis for a doctor to possibly deny a patient’s consent at face value. This also requires a substantial shift in the doctor patient relationship such that it centers around moral deliberations between the two parties. This deliberative model of the doctor patient relationship is intended as a first step toward a feminist model for women’s healthcare; by grounding an “in-between” approach to FGCS where the denial or acceptance of the patient’s consent to an FGCS procedure relies on their epistemic situatedness, and whether the doctor considers that situatedness to justify their motivation to undergo the surgery. (shrink)

Feminist studies of female genital cutting (FGC) provide ample evidence that many women exercise effective agency with respect to this practice, both as accommodators and as resisters. The influence of culture on autonomy is ambiguous: women who resist cultural mandates for FGC do not necessarily enjoy greater autonomy than do those women who accommodate the practice, yet it is clear that some social contexts are more conducive to autonomy than others. In this paper, I explore the implications for autonomy theory (...) of these understandings of the relation between culture, FGC, and women’s agency. I review the range of worldwide FGC practices – including “corrective” surgery for “ambiguous genitalia” in Western cultures as well as the various initiation rites observed in some African and Asian cultures – and the diverse cultural rationales for different forms of FGC. I argue that neither latitudinarian, value‐neutral accounts of autonomy nor restrictive, value‐saturated accounts adequately explain women’s agentic position with respect to FGC. I then analyze a number of educational programs that have enhanced women's autonomy, especially by strengthening their introspection, empathy, and imagination. Such programs, which engage women's autonomy skills without exposing them to autonomy‐disabling cultural alienation, promote autonomy‐within‐culture. This understanding of autonomy as socially situated, however, entails neither endorsement of FGC nor resignation to its persistence. (shrink)

Can we ever justly critique the norms and practices of another culture? When activists or policy-makers decide that one culture’s traditional practice is harmful and needs to be eradicated, does it matter whether they are members of that culture? Given the history of imperialism, many argue that any critique of another culture’s practices must be internal. Others argue that we can appeal to a universal standard of human wellbeing to determine whether or not a particular practice is legitimate or whether (...) it should be eradicated. In this paper, I use the FGC eradication campaigns of the 1980s to show that the internal/external divide is complicated by the interconnectedness of these debates on the international level. As the line blurs between internal and external criticism and interventions, new questions emerge about the representativeness of global institutions. (shrink)