In the U.K., male genital cutting is in principle legal and may even be ordered by a court, whereas female genital cutting is a criminal offence. The coherence of this approach was recently questioned by Munby P in Re B and G (children) (No. 2); the present article continues this inquiry and demonstrates that the justifications that the courts have provided for the differential treatment of male and female cutting – relating to the harm involved in the respective practices, possible medical benefits of male cutting, the absence of a religious motivation with regard to female cutting, and patriarchal power structures enabling female but not male cutting – are insufficient. It proposes a different foundation for the categorical rejection of female genital cutting and argues that such practices are wrong as a matter of principle. This provides a convincing basis for the rejection of all forms of female genital cutting, including comparatively mild ones such as ritual nicks, and furthermore leads to the conclusion that male cutting, too, must be regarded as categorically impermissible.

中文翻译：

---

男性和女性生殖器切割：在儿童的最大利益和切割生殖器之间

在英国，男性生殖器切割原则上是合法的，甚至可以由法院下令，而女性生殖器切割则是刑事犯罪。最近，Munby P 在 Re B 和 G（儿童）（第 2 号）中质疑了这种方法的连贯性；本文继续进行这项调查，并证明法院为男女切割提供了区别对待的理由——涉及各自做法中涉及的伤害、男性切割的可能医疗益处、缺乏宗教动机关于女性切割，以及允许女性而不是男性切割的父权权力结构是不够的。它为断然拒绝女性生殖器切割提出了一个不同的基础，并认为这种做法在原则上是错误的。