A recent seminar on Female Genital Mutilation (FGM) at King’s College revealed that the argument for cultural relativism might not yet be dead, as activists against the practice continue to face opposition on the basis of hypocrisy, double standards and cultural hegemony. Proponents of FGM argue that oppressive cultural practices in the West abound, and the recent increase in Female Genital Cosmetic Surgery across the Western world is only adding fuel to this fire.

The World Health Organisation (WHO) defines FGM as “all procedures that involve partial or total removal of the external female genitalia, or other injury to the female genital organs for non-medical reasons.” The label ‘FGM’ applies to a variety of procedures, which are more numerous and varied than most people might imagine. The practice is alarmingly common, with more than 130 million women around the world currently living with the painful legacy of the procedure.

In the UK, Female Genital Cosmetic Surgery (FGCS), known colloquially as “designer vagina” surgery, is becoming increasingly common; figures suggest that the number of labial reduction procedures rose fivefold in the UK from 2001 to 2010.  Designer vagina surgery, which usually involves the reduction in size of the labia minora, was carried out 2000 times in 2010 on the NHS. While some of these operations are carried out for medical reasons, the vast majority of women undergoing these operations do so with purely cosmetic objectives in mind. This trend is reflected across Western society, with more and more women willing to undergo surgery in the pursuit of a “neater”, more aesthetically pleasing vagina.

Returning to the WHO definition of FGM, which tells us that any procedure involving partial or total removal of the external female genitalia for non-medical reasons should be seen as mutilation, there seems to be some scary similarities between the two practices. Many people from communities that practice FGM have pointed out the glaring double standard in this picture. Of course the key difference here is consent. Being forced to undergo a procedure as a child is not the same as electing to have plastic surgery. But there are enough striking similarities as to make a conversation about FGCS in the context of FGM relevant and important.

At the King’s seminar, Professor Hazel Barrett discussed the similarities between the two practices, citing her own concerns that FGCS was damaging the fight against FGM. “I find it very difficult to see the difference between Female Genital Mutilation and Female Genital Cosmetic Surgery. Is there a difference?”, she asked. She went on to note that in 30 per cent of cases, patients undergoing Female Genital Cosmetic surgery will suffer painful complications, many of which are similar to those suffered by victims of FGM.

In order to get around the “non-medical” clause in the WHO definition of FGM, cosmetic surgeons justify FGCS on the basis that the young women seeking the surgery will suffer psychological distress due to a perception of abnormality. However, the majority of young women seeking this surgery have perfectly normal, healthy labias. Medical professionals blame this disturbing trend on the mainstreaming of pornography and the Brazilian wax. Women want their vaginas to be porn star neat, and seem not to realize that female genitalia come in all shapes, sizes and colours.

The seminar demonstrated that FGM is a devastating procedure that has profoundly negative impacts on young girls and women, the worst of which is death through blood loss. The other negative implications need not be listed here, but it is suffice to say that the pain and suffering the practice can induce can be debilitating. All of the panellists, who included award-winning human rights lawyer Dexter Dias, author Dr Tamsin Bradley and gender activist and founder of Girl Child Network Worldwide, Betty Makoni, made it clear that the fight against FGM is a human rights issue that touches on our shared humanity. Makoni implored the audience to condemn the practice and take action against it.

Unfortunately, the increase in Female Genital Cosmetic Surgery is giving practising communities a powerful tool with which to legitimise the process. The argument about hypocrisy and double standards is damaging the fight against FGM, with citizens from practising communities arguing that Western value systems are being privileged over their own. When the two procedures are compared, it is hard not to see the legitimacy of these claims. The work of activists, doctors, lawyers and professors such as those who attended the seminar is being undermined by a Western cultural practice, the root of which arguably lies in similar systems of patriarchal control and dominance as those used to explain FGM. Perhaps the West needs to critically examine the roots and meanings of some of our own cultural practices, if we will ever be able to achieve equality for girls and women everywhere.