In February 2007, the fourth annual conference of “Zero Tolerance Against Female Genital Mutilation/Cutting” took place. Their meeting brought together academics and laypeople, all whose primary concern was the issue of female genital cutting. However, this conference was different from 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. a fellow countryman and first-generation American from Sierra Leone, spoke, everyone listened. Ahmadu grew up in America and, as an adult, returned to Sierra Leone to participate in the ritual of female genital cutting. She chose to participate in this “initiation” and what she considers to be an important part of her social identity. As she defended her choice and stance on FGC, many were outraged. They did not understand how an African woman could defend this mutilation. Ahmadu replied: “I may be different from you and I am circumcised, 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 hotly debated for decades. Those who oppose the practice cite its potential long-term consequences. They report many physical, emotional and sexual side effects. Possibilities range from infection to sepsis, infertility and death. Author Benita Shell-Duncan explains in an article on female genital cutting that in 1959 the United Nations adopted the Declaration of the Rights of the Child which states that "every child should have the opportunity to develop his or her health." paper...... out of 100 circumcised men in the world, there are 21 circumcised women. Routine circumcision is unethical to say the least, whether it is a girl, an older boy or a baby. So, before we become horrified by what is happening abroad, perhaps we should look at what we are doing right here in our own country (Squires, para. 16). It is easy to condemn a practice that we do not understand. Upon further analytical examination, it is found 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 consider female circumcision inhumane, when male circumcision is commonplace. It is not because we are a developed country, a first world country, able to perform this procedure in state-of-the-art hospitals that it is less traumatic. A rose by any other name is a rose (Hammond).