Kampala — I read with interest Kadokech's article in The New Vision of March 22 titled, "Female circumcision is a cultural right." The points he puts across to support this practice are not convincing.

He says that those UN people who condemn female genital mutilation (FGM) have no cultures of substance and by implication have no moral authority to criticise cultural practices like FGM which take place in communities where people have cultures of substance.

Here he is introducing the old fashioned concept in the FGM debate of the 'arrogant perceiver.' This concept holds that aliens in communities that practice some practices measure those communities' standards by their (aliens') standards and arrogantly perceive those communities' standards as barbaric and outrageous.

This concept has been widely criticised because it ignores the idea that there are minimum standards below which any community cannot justifiably treat its people. You cannot say that because in our community it's a cultural practice to kill baby girls those people who criticised our practice do so because they perceive our cultural right arrogantly.

Kadokech has misunderstood or deliberately ignored the meaning and extent of human rights in Uganda. It's true that all Ugandans have a right to practice their cultural practices.

But the Constitution states that such practices should not be at the expense of the dignity of women. FGM is only intended to ensure that women are rendered sexually insensitive (cannot sexually arouse).

This is based on the assumption that should women be left to be sexually sensitive, they will become more promiscuous. This is degrading of women. It's assumed that they cannot make decisions relating to sex on their own and because of that some interventions have to be made. This cannot be called a right.

It is wrong to equate FGM with male circumcision. These are two different things, carried out differently with different consequences. Men who undergo circumcision do not cease to be sexually sensitive.

On the issue of consent, the majority of the people who are subjected to FGM are young girls who are compelled by their parents or guardians, on whom they depend for financial support and many other things. They never consent and where they allegedly consent they never offer informed consent. We have read about cases in Kenya, Ethiopia, Senegal, Egypt and many other parts of the world where FGM is practiced that girls as young as eight years fall victim.

Kapchorwa is not an exception. If FGM is based on consent, why don't those communities who practice it avail all the relevant information to the potential victims in time and let them make decisions whether to undergo the practice or not when they reach the age of 18. The only information availed to the young girls is that when if they don't undergo FGM they will not get married, or they will be a disgrace to their families.

In China there was a big problem of feet-binding. Many girls used to have their feet bound by their parents at an early age so that when they grew up they had small feet and therefore higher chances of getting married.

It was very dehumanising and painful to the young girls. Some members of the community formed a group of people who were opposed to this practice and launched a campaign to assure others that there were men who were ready to marry their daughters even if their feet were not bound.

Subsequently, feet-biding slowly disappeared from China. Ugandans should tell the parents in Kapchorwa the future of their girls does not depend on FGM but on education.

The writer is a Ugandan doctoral intern and researcher in South Africa