Letter from Grace 'Grim' Matthews to the WHO

I have to stress that I think such messages are always better if expressed in the speaker's own words - I think we have more of an impact if each of us makes an individual... contribution to the cause. That way, the multitude of our voices can't be ignored.
That said, here follows the content of my email to the WHO:

To those at the World Health Organization,

As I'm sure you know, today is International Day of Zero Tolerance to Female Genital Mutilation.

I think this is a great promotional event, to raise awareness of the suffering endured by the millions of women and girls who are robbed of their right to decide what happens to their own bodies.

Genital Mutilation is a heinous act - it permanently alters the body of people who do not or cannot consent. It is my belief that every person, regardless of their ethnicity, culture, age or sex is entitled to genital integrity. That is, no-one should be legally permitted to interfere with another individual's healthy, normal genitals without either their explicit consent or an immediate, unambiguous medical need.

Tradition should be no obstacle to granting people these rights, and claims of religious conviction should not entitle people to be exempt from respecting the bodies of others.

I would hope that the WHO would take a stand for equality, and for the rights of all to their own bodies, by declaring itself opposed to the genital mutilation of males as well as females. Young boys, just like young girls, have the right to experience their whole, natural body, and not have tissue amputated for reasons of religion or tradition. That circumcision of males is not regarded as criminal is an example of hypocrisy in the international consensus.

If an adult man, against his will, had parts of his genitals surgically amputated, those responsible would be regarded as having breached his human rights. At what age then does he gain such rights? Because if the same act was perpetrated against him as a newborn, many, including the WHO according to its official position, would not consider this wrongful. Likewise, if a child is restrained and has part of their genitals cut away, our response differs based not on the severity of damage done, nor on the future impact, but on the sex of the victim and nothing else.

Not even a case for prophylaxis can be made, as male circumcision, despite its many claimed benefits, confers no advantage that can't be gained by other, less intrusive methods. This includes even the latest fad: STDs. No logical case can be made for condoning partial amputation of male genitals, whilst condemning comparative (and even less extensive) procedures in females. Thus the only case left to be made is almost invariably one of ethnocentricity, of considering the traditions of one culture as superior to the traditions of another; or of sexism, differing response based only on the sex of the victim.

The campaign to end female genital mutilation would be strengthened immeasurably by the condemnation of ALL genital mutilation.

I would hope that the WHO would make a commitment to the rights of all to their own bodies, ignoring differences of sex, age, ethnicity, etc. and so would condemn unnecessary genital surgery of any kind on non-consenting individuals. I look forward to a day when the right to bodily integrity is recognized internationally, and I hope that the World Health Organization shares this vision.

Yours faithfully,