Who gets to cut?
A Reproductive Justice Critique on the Law of Genital Cutting
Hannah Porter
This essay examines whether the Reproductive Justice (RJ) framework requires the law to
address gender disparities, structural racism and colonial legacies in the regulation of genital
cutting practices (GCP). It situates contemporary legal responses within the differing
treatment of genital cutting in Western and non-Western contexts, highlighting the
criminalisation of Female Genital Mutilation alongside the continued legality of male
circumcision, cosmetic genital surgery, and certain intersex procedures.
Drawing on the RJ framework, which understands bodily autonomy through the lens of
structural inequality rather than individual choice alone, the essay evaluates whether existing
legal distinctions can be justified. It first considers gendered inconsistences in the protection
of bodily integrity before examining how racialised narratives and colonial histories shape
legal responses to non-Western practices. The essay then explores tensions within RJ
concerning harm, medicalisation, and autonomy, arguing that although RJ exposes important
shortcomings in existing law, it cannot fully displace legitimate state intervention where
serious harm is involved. It concludes that RJ supports neither blanket criminalisation nor
complete legality. Instead, it points towards a more coherent and context-sensitive framework
that applies principles of bodily integrity consistently, while remaining attractive to structural
inequality, cultural context, and the lasting influence of colonial governance.
Comments