Discussion and conclusion

This chapter discussed recent UK government responses to ‘FGM’ and their impacts on the experiences of African diaspora communities living in the UK. We argue that, based on a methodological approach which exaggerates the risk of FGM/C to British-born girls while actively ignoring the risks and uptake of female genital cosmetic surgeries, the UK government’s priority has worked to prevent future occurrences of FGM/C through criminalisation, with a number of significant negative consequences for all those with heritage in FGM/C-affected groups. Official estimates of 60,000 girls at risk of ‘FGM’ are based on inaccurate evidence that extrapolates statistics from high-prevalence countries and applies them to the UK without considering socio-cultural changes and shifts in attitudes. An assumption about ‘hidden crime’ has led to legislation and policies that prioritise pre-emptive responses that have stigmatised African diasporas, leaving them feeling excluded and targeted. As demonstrated in this chapter, stigmatisation reported by studies’ participants has been experienced by the wider diaspora as a result of over-zealous approaches to FGM safeguarding. Drawing on evidence from our research conducted in partnership with affected groups, we considered the consequences of the poverty of accurate and reliable data in the UK context and the ways in which this encourages the development and use of discriminatory law and FGM-safeguarding policy. The hypervigilance of FGM safeguarding, in contrast to a less vigilant approach in tackling other cases defined as child abuse, constructs the diaspora as a ‘suspect community’ (Pantazis and Pemberton 2009) based on ethnic and religious characteristics. This reflects wider political racialisation of Black and Muslim identities as culturally incompatible with British values. Hence, in this area, the legislation and policy should be conceptualised as institutionalising racism (Pantazis et al. 2025) by requiring public service professionals to operate from a starting point that assumes African communities to be backward and deviant. The policies and practices (re)traumatised the community, questioned people’s feeling of belonging to the UK, and created a strong sense of mistrust of health, education, and social services.