Harmful Practices on the Global Agenda: Comparing Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting and Gender-Biased Sex Selection. Accepted for publication

This paper compares two harmful practices on the UN's Global Agenda: female genital mutilation and gender-biased sex selection. Both are recognized as types of violence against women and have increasingly gained international attention. However, disparities exist in how they are addressed by the international community. This paper compares the underlying motives, methods, and magnitudes regarding both practices drawing from health surveys and demographic data. It then analyzes and interprets how genital mutilation and sex selection are considered on the global agenda drawing from international laws, policies and programs. We conclude that both practices are comparable in severity and scale, yet are treated differently on the global agenda, mainly due to regional focus (Africa vs. Asia) and the form of discrimination (postnatal vs. prenatal). This research aims to better understand the similarities and differences between two pervasive forms of gender discrimination and better allocate resources to eliminate harmful practices by 2030.