Myth Busting Female Genital Cutting (FGC): Part 2- What is FGC?

Myth Busting Female Genital Cutting (FGC): Part 2- What is FGC?

April 15, 2025 | by | No Comments

Trigger warnings: Descriptions of Female Genital Cutting; child abuse; sexual abuse; gender-based violence; sexism

What is FGC?

FGC (1) is the injury, partial or complete removal of the female reproductive organs (vulva and/ or clitoris), without medical need (2).

FGC is typically performed on children and is a social practice based on harmful myths regarding female beauty, virginity, sexuality, fertility, health, and socio-political status. Its practice is often justified as being a way to ‘protect’ girls, even though it is excruciatingly painful, highly damaging to mental and physical health, does nothing to prevent sexual violence, and can even result in death. FGC is internationally recognised as a violation of human rights, and in many countries is now classified as a crime (sexual and/ or child abuse) (2).

Contrary to popular opinion, FGC is a global issue, not restricted to only a few countries or cultures. Until relatively recently, it was performed in the UK (3) and the US (4) to ‘treat’ women for normal behaviours such as homosexuality, challenging sexist social norms, expressing emotional distress, and masturbation.

Despite the obvious physical harm caused, in communities where FGC is seen as important for the status of the individual and their family, there is tremendous social pressure for girls to undergo this procedure, since they may be socially excluded and risk extreme poverty and hardship without it (5).

Who performs FGC?

Image: Cottobro @ Pexels

FGC is typically carried out by older women on young girls. The ‘cutter’ may be a family member or a specific person who performs FGC on all local girls. FGC is typically performed using unsterile razor blades and without any pain killers (anaesthesia) or protection from bacteria (antiseptics), which frequently leads to dangerous blood loss and infections, which can sometimes sadly result in the death of the child (2). After the procedure, the deep wounds are treated with herbs and ash, or creams, and the girls’ legs may be tied together for several weeks (6). This can increase the risk of infection and be extremely traumatising, resulting in feelings of isolation, abandonment, and shame (6).

Some medically trained doctors also offer supposedly ‘safe’ forms of FGC, despite the inherent dangers of any unnecessary surgery and the potential long-term health implications of FGC. Performing such surgery is highly unethical for any health practitioner, even if it may seem relatively ‘better’ than alternative practices. However, it goes against the medical imperative to ‘do no harm’ and reinforces problematic sexist beliefs by implying that FGC is ‘healthy’ and supported by medical science. See blog four of this series for an in-depth discussion of medically unnecessary surgeries endorsed by many doctors around the world.

The four ‘types’ of FGC…

The World Health Organisation (WHO) classifies FGC into four different types (2)- but all forms are medically unnecessary and potentially harmful.

Type 1: Clitoridectomy

Type 1 FGC is the cutting or partial/ complete removal of the external clitoris – the bump located at the front of the vulva – (external female genitalia) with or without the removal of the clitoral folds (the hood of skin surrounding the clitoris).

The clitoris is an extremely sensitive organ and its removal is akin to the removal of the whole top part (approx. 20%) of the penis- see the following blog in this series for a detailed comparison of FGC and male circumcision.

Source: WHO (2)

The extremely painful removal of a child’s clitoris is believed to reduce their (healthy) desire to masturbate or feel sexual attraction towards another person. However, human sexuality is much more than a physical sensation in our genitals – our desire and attraction to others is mainly psychological and socially-determined, rather than an automatic biological behaviour. In fact, the removal of the clitoris does not directly reduce libido at all, but it can definitely reduce the ability to enjoy sex.

Amongst some FGC practicing communities, it is thought that the removal of the clitoris increases fertility. This is physiologically impossible, and numerous studies show how FGC actually increases infertility, complications in childbirth, and gynaecological infections (7).

Type 2: Excision

Type 2 FGC is the cutting, or partial or complete removal of the external clitoris, with or without the removal of the clitoral folds, plus the inner (and sometimes the outer) labia (2). The labia are the sensitive soft skin folds on either side of the vulva. They are akin to the scrotum in male genitals (see the following blog for more details). The labia help to prevent infection and discomfort caused by friction (not only during sex- also for just sitting down comfortably- a life necessity).

Source: WHO (2)

Type 2 FGC is also supposed to control sexual urges and reinforces (untrue and sexist) beauty myths about what labia are supposed to look like: “tucked in & tidy” (8). However, in reality, the labia and vulva naturally vary greatly in terms of shape, size, and colour, all of which are completely healthy and normal. Check out the library of labia (9), to see what healthy labia really look like…

Those who practice FGC sometimes justify it by expressing concerns about cleanliness, protection against chafing, or the (unfounded) fear that the labia will otherwise grow “too large” (5). These beliefs are not scientifically valid. In fact, infections and chafing are more likely if the labia are removed (7). They literally exist to help keep the vagina clean and protected from injury. We also know that the labia minora and majora do not continue to grow after puberty (10). Of course, cis men have external genitalia and yet nobody is calling for their removal to help prevent ‘chafing’? (11)

Type 3: Infibulation

Type 3 FGC is the removal of the inner and outer labia and the resulting wound is then sewn together, leaving only a small hole for menstrual blood and urine to pass through (2). This can occur with or without the partial or complete removal of the clitoris and clitoral folds (2).

Source: WHO (2)

In addition to the reasons described above, infibulation FGC is performed due to pervasive virginity myths based on inaccurate beliefs about ‘sexual purity’ and the function of the hymen. The hymen is wrongly seen as a physical indicator of female virginity (which it is not) (12) – this myth is associated with the harmful belief that if a cis girl or woman has ever had consensual penetrative heterosexual sex, or has survived sexual abuse or rape, she is somehow of lesser worth or ‘impure’ (13).

Infibulation is, thus, performed so that at the point of marriage, it can be “proven” that the girl or woman could not have engaged in penetrative sex, and is therefore “clean & pure” and worth more to a potential husband/ family in law (literally when a dowry payment is involved) (13). In stark contrast, such dehumanising ‘devaluation’ does not apply to cis men, regardless of their sexual history. It’s perhaps the oldest and most obvious form of myth-based patriarchal control we still struggle to expose and overcome- across all countries and cultural contexts (13).

Another common ‘justification’ for infibulation is that it supposedly reduces the likelihood of a girl being assaulted, raped, or otherwise sexually abused by cis men (5). In fact, research shows that survivors of FGC are far more likely to experience domestic violence (14). Sadly, FGC of all kinds can make subsequent experiences of even consensual penetrative sex within a loving relationship, extremely painful and traumatising (15).

Type 4: Other

Type 4 FGC refers to any other harmful procedures used on the female genital organs, such as piercing, pricking or burning (2). This means that other medically unnecessary genital surgeries, such as labiaplasty and intersex surgeries while in infancy, may also technically count as type 4 FGC (discussed in a later blog in this series).

Source: WHO (2)

The most common types of FGC are types 1 and 2, which account for approx. 80-85% of all female genital mutilation.

Can FGC be reversed?

Whilst the tissue removed from the procedure cannot be replaced, people can undergo de-infibulation surgery. De-infibulation involves the reversal of type 3 stitching, which reopens the vaginal canal. This procedure can be performed for anyone who wishes to have it and is also required before childbirth.

Next blog in the FGC series: Why FGC is not akin to circumcision…

Resources:

FGC Organisations

  • Daughters of Eve: support for women who have undergone FGC.
  • FORWARD UK: tackles discriminatory practices, focusing on FGC and child marriage. They can also offer guidance and support for emergency support for parents and girls facing FGC.
  • The Dahlia Project: provide free support groups and individual counselling for women who have undergone FGC.
  • Leila Hussein’s discussion of her experience of FGC.

Please cite as:

Dajani, J. and King, S. (2025) ‘Myth Busting Female Genital Cutting (FGC): Part 2- What is FGC? ‘ Menstrual Matters [Accessed on date] https://www.menstrual-matters.com/fgc-part-2-what-is-fgc

References

  1. FGC is the same thing as FGM (Female Genital Mutilation). FGC is the generally preferred terminology because the word “mutilation” can be alienating and stigmatising for survivors and their communities- so that’s the term we’ve used in this blog series.
  2. World Health Organization, (2024). Female genital mutilation. Available at: https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/female-genital-mutilation
  3. Brown, B., (1866). On the curability of certain forms of insanity, epilepsy, catalepsy, and hysteria in females. Robert Hardwicke: London https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/65927
  4. Rodriguez, S., (2014) Female Circumcision and Clitoridectomy in the United States: A History of a Medical Treatment. Rochester, New York, University of Rochester Press
  5. Kakal, T., Hidayana, I., Kassegne, A.B., Gitau, T., Kok, M. and van der Kwaak, A., (2023). What makes a woman? Understanding the reasons for and circumstances of female genital mutilation/cutting in Indonesia, Ethiopia and Kenya. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 25(7), pp.897-913.
  6. Dorkenoo, E., (1994). Cutting the rose: Female genital mutilation-the practice and its prevention. Minority Rights Group: London https://archive.org/details/cuttingrosefemal0000dork
  7. Almroth, Lars et al. (2005) Primary infertility after genital mutilation in girlhood in Sudan: a case-control study The Lancet, Volume 366, Issue 9483, 385 – 391 https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(05)67023-7/abstract

Iavazzo, C., Sardi, T.A. & Gkegkes, I.D. Female genital mutilation and infections: a systematic review of the clinical evidence. Arch Gynecol Obstet 287, 1137–1149 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-012-2708-5

Berg, R. C., & Underland, V. (2013). Obstetric consequences of female genital mutilation/cutting (FGM/C).https://fhi.brage.unit.no/fhi-xmlui/bitstream/handle/11250/2477368/K_Rapport_2013_06_Obstetric_consequences.pdf?sequence=2

  1. Howarth, C., Hayes, J., Simonis, M., & Temple-Smith, M. (2016). “Everything’s neatly tucked away”: young women’s views on desirable vulval anatomy. Culture, Health & Sexuality, 18(7/12), 1363–1378. http://www.jstor.org/stable/26156818
  2. Victoria Women’s Health – Gallery of Vulva- https://www.labialibrary.org.au/labia_gallery/
  3. Farage, M., Maibach, H. Lifetime changes in the vulva and vagina. Arch Gynecol Obstet273, 195–202 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00404-005-0079-x
  4. Oeming, M. (2018, January). IN VULVA VANITAS–The Rise of Labiaplasty in the West. In Gender Forum(Vol. 67, pp. 70-91). https://shorturl.at/CkUHd
  5. Mishori R, Ferdowsian H, Naimer K, Volpellier M, McHale T. (2019) The little tissue that couldn’t – dispelling myths about the Hymen’s role in determining sexual history and assault. Reprod Health. Jun 3;16(1):74. doi: 10.1186/s12978-019-0731-8
  6. Mernissi, F. (1982, January). Virginity and patriarchy. In Women’s Studies International Forum(Vol. 5, No. 2, pp. 183-191). Pergamon.
  7. Salihu H, August E, Salemi J, Weldeselasse H, Sarro Y, Alio A. (2012) The association between female genital mutilation and intimate partner violence. BJOG 119:1597–1605.

Also, recent research has found that awareness raising efforts around FGC do not necessarily improve community awarness of other related forms of gender-based violence (GBV), such as domestic abuse. In short, the concept that FGC is a form of GBV that may increase future health risks and other forms of GBV is not always sufficiently explained/ communicated- even in FGC training or engagement interventions. See:

Ofor, O.C., Freitas, A.A., Wome, P.A., & Ani, K.C. (2024). High Prevalence of Female Genital Mutilation and Gender-Based Violence Among Women in Ebonyi State. KIU Journal of Health Sciences, 4(2), 106–115. https://doi.org/10.59568/KJHS-2024-4-2-08

  1. Jordal M, Påfs J, Wahlberg A and Johansen REB (2022) “Damaged genitals”—Cut women’s perceptions of the effect of female genital cutting on sexual function. A qualitative study from Sweden. Front. Sociol. 7:943949. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/sociology/articles/10.3389/fsoc.2022.943949/full
Categories: Anatomy, Gender myths, History/ hystery and Menstrual education.