The fourth annual conference on “Zero Tolerance against Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting” was held in February 2007. Their meeting brought together scholars and laypeople, all of whose primary concern was the issue of female genital mutilation (FGC). However, this conference was different from the others in that the focus of the discussion was not how to eliminate this practice, but rather whether it should be eliminated at all (Goldberg 121). When Fuambai Ahmadu, a Ph.D. fellow first generation American from Sierra Leone, spoke up, everyone listened. Ahmadu grew up in America and as an adult returned to Sierra Leone to take part in the ritual cutting of female genitals. He has chosen to participate in this “initiation” and what he feels is an important part of his social identity. As he defended his choice and stance on the FGC, many were outraged. They couldn't understand how an African woman could defend this mutilation. Ahmadu replied: “I may be different from you and I have been excised, but I am not mutilated. Just as I won't let anyone call me the 'N' word to define my racial identity, I won't let anyone call me the 'M' word to define my social identity, my gender identity” (Goldberg 123) . The topic of female genital circumcision has been the subject of heated debate for decades. Those who oppose the practice cite its potential long-term consequences. They indicate numerous physical, emotional and sexual side effects. Possibilities range from infection to sepsis, infertility and death. Author Benita Shell-Duncan explains in an article on FGC that, in 1959, the United Nations adopted the Declaration of the Rights of the Child which states that “every child shall be given the opportunity to develop his or her body ”. paper ......out of 100 circumcised males in the world there are 21 circumcised females. Routine circumcision is unethical to say the least, whether it's a girl, an older boy, or a baby. So before we all gasp at the horror of what is happening abroad, perhaps we should look at what we are doing right here in our own country (Squires, para. 16). It's easy to condemn a practice we don't understand. Upon closer analytical examination, it can be seen that there is no difference between the practice of female genital cutting and the practice of male circumcision. It is completely unfair and ethnocentric for the West to deem FGC inhumane, while male circumcision is rampant. Just because we are a developed, first world nation, with the ability to perform the procedure in state-of-the-art hospitals, doesn't make it any less traumatizing. A rose by any other name is still a rose (Hammond).