Introduction
The United Nations (UN) is committed to ending ‘FGM’
1 The authors are using inverted commas to indicate the problematic coloniality of power in the term ‘female genital mutilation’ (Carver et al. 2024). The term FGM will be used, without inverted commas, when referring to proper names such as FGM Protection Orders or FGM safeguarding. by 2030, as part of its global efforts to achieve gender equality. This has led to significant legislative developments enacted across the world (Kandala and Komba 2018), reflecting international concerns about the extent and scale of FGM/C, the globalisation of human rights discourse, and the mainstreaming of a gender violence framework (Van Bavel
et al. 2024). In line with this powerful international prohibitionist agenda and galvanised by problematic assumptions about the prevalence of the practice in the UK, successive UK governments have enacted a body of legislative provisions to ‘send the message’ that ‘FGM’ is not tolerated in the UK (Carver
et al. 2024). Despite this, prosecutions for ‘FGM’-related offences can be counted on one hand, a lack which has been repeatedly interpreted as evidence that this is an epidemic of ‘hidden crime’, which requires tighter legislation and harsher penalties (ibid.). Hence since 2015, a conviction for ‘FGM’-related offences can result in up to fourteen years’ imprisonment, while the introduction of FGM Protection Orders (FGMPOs)
2 Protection Orders are issued by UK family courts to protect children from domestic abuse. means that significant court action can occur simply based on a suspicion that ‘FGM’ might take place in the future.
In the UK, political and media discourse on ‘FGM’ has typically been couched in nationalistic and nativist terms, often emphasising the need to save British girls from the barbaric practices of their racialised and othered migrant parents (Carver et al. 2022, 2024). Such discourse (re)produces a racist logic that constructs African diaspora cultures as fixed and determinative, and ‘FGM’ itself as an atavistic and inherently patriarchal practice incompatible with the claimed liberal values of the West (Gruenbaum et al. 2023; Njambi 2004).
In this chapter, we draw on three of our research studies which address the development, implementation, and impacts of UK ‘FGM’ law and policy on African diaspora and other affected populations. Two qualitative studies, conducted in Bristol (south-west England) in partnership with local communities and grassroots organisations, explored the experiences of those from affected groups both in relation to FGM safeguarding and in seeking support for FGM/C-related health issues. We also undertook a review of FGM/C prevalence data collected via freedom of information requests, which have been used by successive UK governments to inform the development of law and policy. Our findings suggest that policy has been developed on the basis of unreliable data, which exaggerate the current risks to girls and women living in the UK. Moreover, despite intentions to reduce harm through eliminating ‘FGM’, current policy approaches have simultaneously inadvertently led to the unfair criminalisation and stigmatisation of African diasporas living in the UK and encouraged the neglect of the healthcare needs of those already living with the consequences of FGM/C (Pantazis et al. 2025).
The chapter proceeds in five substantive sections. First, we set out the UK legislative and policy framework, followed by a discussion of prevalence data and the difficulties of estimating the prevalence of FGM/C. We then present details of our Bristol case study, before discussing findings from our two qualitative studies which provide evidence of stigmatisation and criminalisation on the one hand, and a neglect of health needs on the other.