[Reading this in-depth study presupposes knowledge of the content presented in the cultural test relating to this practice]

As highlighted in this fact sheet, according to a joint statement by WHO, Unicef and UNFPA, there are four types of categories, all of which can be classified as FGM:

• Type I: Excision of the foreskin, with or without partial or total removal of the clitoris.
• Type II: Excision of the clitoris with partial or total removal of the labia minora.
• Type III: Narrowing of the vaginal orifice with creation of a covering seal by cutting and affixing the labia minora and/or labia majora, with or without excision of the clitoris (infibulation).
• Type IV: Unclassified. Includes perforation, penetration or incision of the clitoris and/or labia, stretching of the clitoris or surrounding tissue, scraping of the tissue surrounding the vaginal orifice or incision of the vagina.

The different types of operations performed on women's genitals constitute an extremely complex phenomenon, which is linked to cultural motivations.
This is a set of practices for which it is very difficult to establish a close correlation between age and intervention, even within the same geographical context and/or ethnic groups. In some cases it is indeed possible to refer to socially predetermined ages, while in others there is a relationship between events considered relevant, such as the physical development of girls, or to particular key moments of psychological and social life (e.g. marriage). 

FGC Types.jpg: The original uploader was Kaylima at English Wikipedia. / derivative work: Mouagip, Public domain, via Wikimedia Commons

Female Genital Mutilation: the name issue

The joint declaration of WHO, Unicef and UNFPA (2008), which is useful for a classification into the four categories identified above, identifies the category 'Female Genital Mutilation', composed of the four micro-categories listed in the Guidebook, and is the premise for any consideration of FGM used by all national and international organisations, as well as by health professionals.
However, how to name this practice has been, and continues to be, a controversial issue, and the various terms commonly used are associated with different ways of interpreting the practice and different ways of relating to the people involved (Johnsdotter, 2020).
In early descriptions of these practices, dating back to Ancient Egypt, they were called 'circumcision', in analogy with male procedures. Nowadays, local terms for the cutting off of male and female genitalia, however, often have a more symbolic meaning, and rather refer to the process or purpose of the procedure. For instance, in Somalia, the term halalays is used, which, like the Arabic term khitan, means 'cleanliness', commonly used in a religious rather than a hygienic sense. The Malian term bolokoli literally means 'washing hands'. Other terms may refer to the bigger picture, e.g. 'going to the bush', or to the context in which the FGM procedure is essential for initiation (Johnsdotter 2020).
The label 'mutilation' was coined and promoted by the American journalist and activist Fran Hosken, with her report 'Genital and Sexual Mutilation of Females' in 1979, presented at the Copenhagen Women's Conference in 1980. Since then, particularly within international organisations and those targeting this practice, the term FGM has been used more and more frequently. However, the use of the term 'mutilation' has been strongly criticised, as it immediately expresses a negative meaning and often carries ethnocentric prejudices. This expression is mainly criticised by women personally involved, as it implicitly condemns them and relegates them to the role of passive victims. The expression 'female genital mutilation' also gives a rather partial and limited view of the operations that fall into this macrocategory of body modifications or alterations, which does not take into account the different possible implications on the psychophysical health of women (as far as damage and physical consequences are concerned, it is in fact not possible to compare all the operations that fall into the FGM category on the same level) (Fusaschi, 2003; Johnsdotter, Mestre, 2017). One proposal is to replace the term 'mutilation' with 'modification', with the intention therefore to create a discussion ground free of a priori prejudices, and open to dialogue.

Contexts
Different forms of FGM are performed not only in the home context of the women in question, but also in the migratory context. In fact, the different operations change both geographically, based on the type of intervention performed, and with respect to the actors involved.
"The context changes, as does the entire ritual, but what is preserved is the symbolic value attributed to the operations themselves, a value that is not merely reified but certainly recontextualised" (Fusaschi 2003, p. 86). According to some studies (Fusaschi 2003), in urban and diaspora contexts, ritual operations often focus exclusively on the individual, presenting themselves as 'intimate' ceremonies almost always performed in the 'private' domestic context.
People performing female circumcision use specific instruments, which may be artfully constructed ritual knives or rudimentary tools used for the occasion.
In general, the person carrying out the operation is almost always an initiated woman, often elderly, whose knowledge is usually handed down from mother to daughter (Fusaschi, 2003). For example, in Somalia, this is the Gedda, or grandmother, but understood as the village elder. In some contexts, mothers and grandmothers are precisely the ones who 'prepare' their daughters and granddaughters for the event, passing on what kind of conduct they will have to keep as adults and how they will have to behave when they become mothers and wives in turn. In other contexts, ritual workers are called from other places, outside their own community (as is often the case in migratory contexts).

Male and female circumcision: two different approaches
(see entry Male circumcision in this Guidebook)
Reviewing the literature, it is evident that, especially until the 1970s, FGM and male circumcision were understood as symmetrical poles of a process of genderisation of bodies, as compulsory stages of access to the (sexually defined) adult role (Johnsdotter, 2020). Male circumcision has been essentially distinguished from female genital practices, according to global health organisations such as the WHO and feminist and women's rights activists, who likewise expressed similar views on the incomparability of the practices. Within these discourses, female genital practices have often been framed as harmful cultural practices that promote gender inequality, discrimination and aggression against women, as well as having a detrimental effect on the health of women and girls. Male genital practices, on the other hand, have been perceived as healthy and not harmful in any way (Johnsdotter, 2018).
However, it is interesting to note that the attempt to redirect the practice of FGM into purely symbolic forms (i.e. a small puncture on the foreskin of the clitoris to encourage the exit of a drop of blood, thus fulfilling the symbolic function of gendering or purification) has sometimes provoked negative reactions, based on the position that any form of FGM, even if 'symbolic', must be treated firmly (Kruseman, 2010), even though this type of intervention is decidedly less invasive than male circumcision, in which healthy tissue is completely removed. 
​

​

Criticism
​
In recent decades, FGM practices have begun to be strongly contested within several groups and disciplines, on ethical, medical or personal grounds, especially in Western countries but also in the countries where they are practised (especially when it comes to the most invasive forms, i.e. type I and type II, infibulation and excision). The medical and health complications that infibulation and excision entail, leading in some cases even to the death of the woman, as well as the alteration of sexual pleasure and thus effects on sexual life, are rationales now shared in jurisprudence, legislation and by activists in the groups where they are practised to support their condemnation. This condemnation is generally extended to all types of FGM, even the least invasive, as they are seen as an interference in the sphere of sexual life, as well as an instrument of patriarchal control over female sexuality. The arguments used to support a position against FGM tout court are therefore: the focus on harm, medical risks and long-term medical consequences, and the claim that such modifications violate children's rights and women's rights.
As pointed out in the fact sheet on male circumcision (in this Guidebook), until recently research on male circumcision assumed and focused mainly on the health benefits of circumcision, in stark contrast to FGM, for which, on the other hand, studies have focused exclusively on the possible harms and risks. However, despite the difference in approach in public discourse, both male and female circumcision are procedures that intentionally alter the genitals, for non-medical reasons, of children who often do not give their consent. In both cases, tissue is removed (in the female case, other, more invasive types of modification are also included) from the healthy vulva or penis and, when performed on infants or children, raise ethical challenges regarding consent, autonomy, and notions of bodily integrity.
Beyond the more serious cases of infibulation and excision, in which the dimension of serious damage is evident, it is interesting to question why some practices are perceived as problematic (e.g. Islamic veiling that does not produce any damage to the person's physical integrity; mild female mutilations in which the tissues soon heal without leaving any marks) while others (e.g. male circumcision) are commonly accepted even though they produce a permanent alteration of the body and reduce sexual pleasure (the removal of the foreskin, a particularly sensitive part, typically produces this effect).
Cultural elements of the majority may explain the different legislative and judicial treatment of the above-mentioned practices: for example, a society such as the Italian and European one in general, in which a patriarchal and paternalistic matrix is present, may be inclined to a discourse of victimisation of women, especially when racialised, which produces a greater focus on the protection of girls and women, who are not considered as having agency, unlike men and children, who are instead perceived as less vulnerable.
A further element regarding the different treatment could be the habituation to a certain practice such as male circumcision, due to the fact that it has been practised for decades by minorities living in their own territory. The debate on FGM has also brought with it many activists against male circumcision.