Our attachment to the idea of a “normal” body — a body that falls neatly within the gender binary — is driving surgeries on intersex infants and children (absent a true medical necessity). But plenty of biomedical evidence suggests that variability in human bodies, including in genitalia, is much more common than we think, and that “normalcy” is much less a biological reality than it is a social ideal.

In other words, what counts as “normal” is a product of one’s culture. Non-medically necessitated surgeries on intersex children may be perceived as “normalizing” by some in the United States; female genital mutilation may be seen as “normalizing” in Somalia, for instance, and in turn, in Somali communities in America. In each case, parents who want these procedures for their children are doing so because of cultural norms and fear of ostracism.

The parents involved in the two practices are also framed very differently. In the case of surgeries on intersex children, we have doctors and legislators incensed about taking away parental rights to make decisions. But when it comes to parents of children who may, as a result of similar cultural pressures, want their infant girls to undergo cutting, we think of them as “barbaric” and “backward.” So why do some parents have the right to make decisions but others don’t?

The answer lies in our country’s long history of racist and Western-centric views. In one case — the case of parents with intersex children — we believe that parents have their child’s best interest at heart; that they are rational, educated and invested in their children; that they are good people facing a tough decision. In the other case — the parents who practice female genital mutilation — we believe that they are prone to superstitions, nonrational and nonscientific; that they don’t know what is best for their child and thus must be made to see the folly of their ways.

The point is not to defend female genital mutilation. We should not accept harmful practices and rituals, or think that the practice isn’t fair game for criticism and legislation. Female genital mutilation should be opposed, especially when practiced on young children and minors.

But the comparison of female genital mutilation to intersex surgeries helps to shed light on what shapes our ideas about what is barbaric and unacceptable — and how those ideas subsequently shape our laws.

The immigrant communities of color that are being targeted by the bills regarding female genital mutilation need outreach and resources, not punitive measures like imprisonment and the removal of children from their families. Imposing mandatory reporting requirements on health care providers will leave these communities, and the girls in them, more vulnerable. If our goal is to protect children, there are better ways of doing so. If our goal is to penalize and demonize their parents — well, that’s a different story.

Afshan Jafar is an associate professor of sociology at Connecticut College.

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: letters@nytimes.com.

Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.