||The World Health Organization (WHO) defines female genital mutilation as any alteration to the female external genitalia or genital organs for nonmedical reasons. This definition is both over- and under-inclusive. Western cosmetic surgeries, such as vaginal rejuvenation, are technically included in the definition, but are ignored by the anti-FGM movement and are discounted in prevalence statistics. Further, the anti-FGM movement, using the above definition, condemns all third-world genital alteration practices, often overstating the prevalence of the most extreme practices, attributing all third-world practices to patriarchy and ignoring other significant factors. This paper will argue that the anti-FGM movement should shift focus to banning all questionable genital alteration practices, those in which benefits are norm dependent, rather than all third-world genital alteration practices. I will make my case by first showing that the anti-FGM movement fails to exhaust all relevant cases of genital alterations and does not address the actual prevalence of female genital mutilation, as defined by WHO. Second, I will explain how the movement misrepresents third-world practices by overestimating the prevalence of the most severe forms of genital alterations and pointing to causes that are unrepresentative of many communities. I will also address some of the Western practices the anti-FGM movement largely ignores. Finally, I will suggest what a new definition ought to look like and discuss an approach for the anti-FGM movement that focuses on increasing autonomy and reducing coercion and social norms.