Advertisement

Journal of Immigrant and Minority Health

, Volume 19, Issue 3, pp 769–773 | Cite as

Exploring Female Genital Cutting Among Survivors of Torture

  • Adeyinka M. Akinsulure-SmithEmail author
  • Tracy Chu
Brief Communication

Abstract

Though the practice of female genital cutting (FGC) has been framed as a form of gender-based torture, few studies have examined the prevalence and impact of the practice among documented survivors of torture. This article presents a secondary analysis of data from 514 African-born women at an interdisciplinary clinic for survivors of torture. Results indicate few demographic differences between those who experienced FGC and those who had not, though a larger proportion of the FGC group were West African and identified as Muslim. Many with FGC were in the process of applying for asylum, reported sexual and psychological torture, and cited gender as a basis for their persecution. The FGC group evidenced unique correlates related to immigration status and psychological and sexual torture experiences that the non-FGC group did not. Findings indicate that female survivors of torture with FGC represent a distinct group with specific mental health needs.

Keywords

Female circumcision Female genital cutting Female genital mutilation Forced migrants Human rights Torture 

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Dr. Akinsulure-Smith and Dr. Chu declares that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the NYU School of Medicine and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

References

  1. 1.
    United Nations Children’s Fund. Female genital mutilation/cutting: a statistical overview and exploration of the dynamics of change. New York: UNICEF; 2013.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cook R, Dickens B, Fathalla M. Female genital cutting (Mutilation/Circumcision): ethical and legal dimensions. Int J Gynecol Obstet. 2002;79:281–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Monahan K. Cultural beliefs, human rights violations, and female genital cutting: complication at the crossroad of progress. J Immigr Refug Stud. 2007;5(3):21–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Equality Now. Female genital mutilation (FGM) in the United States. 2015. www.equalitynow.org/sites/default/files/EN_FAQ_FGM_in_US.pdf.
  5. 5.
    Sanctuary for Families. Female genital mutilation in the United States. New York: Sanctuary for Families; 2013.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kea PJ, Roberts-Holmes G. Producing victim identities: female genital mutilation and the politics of asylum claims in the United Kingdom. Identities: Global Stud Cult Power. 2013;20:96–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Akinsulure-Smith AM. Using group work to rebuild family and community ties among displaced African men. J Spec Group Work. 2012;37(2):95–112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mollica RF, Caspi-Yavin Y, Bollini P, Truong T, Tor S, Lavelle J. The Harvard Trauma Questionnaire: validating a cross-cultural instrument for measuring torture, trauma, and posttraumatic stress disorder in Indochinese refugees. J Nerv Ment Dis. 1992;180:111–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    IBM Corp. IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows, Version 20.0. Armonk: IBM Corp; 2011.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    United States Department of State. Guinea: report on female genital mutilation (fgm) or female genital cutting (FGC). 2001. http://www.refworld.org/docid/46d5787832.html.

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Bellevue/NYU Program for Survivors of TortureNew YorkUSA
  2. 2.Department of Psychology, The City College of New YorkCity University of New YorkNew YorkUSA
  3. 3.The Graduate CenterCity University of New YorkNew YorkUSA
  4. 4.Brooklyn CollegeCity University of New YorkBrooklynUSA

Personalised recommendations