I have a history of writing stories about very sensitive topics, such as mental illness and postpartum depression. I feel like the best way to tell the story and show our readers what is happening — and, honestly, also to reduce stigma — is to bring out the stories of real people who are going through those experiences.

I have a lot of respect for the fact that they are allowing me to hear their story. I think that maybe that comes through, that sense that I am not making any judgments. I’m just listening and asking questions and letting them know that they can feel comfortable sharing what they would like to share. I think it’s just about investing time and attention and respect and allowing them to ask me questions if they want: What is this story going to look like? They have agency and really valuable stories to tell.

What do you want readers to take away?

I think maybe first and foremost, a better understanding of a very large part of the world where this has been a cultural practice, and an understanding of what women from these cultures have experienced.

Is there anything else that you’d hope readers think about?

One thing that several people have mentioned to me is that they found the story very notable for its clarity and open way of talking about female anatomy. This has not historically been a strength of The Times or lots of other places. There is an issue with being able to describe women’s bodies without euphemisms and without masking things. If we’re able to do that, it contributes both to equality and to not giving a message that women should be ashamed or feel uncomfortable about their anatomy.

My editor, Celia Dugger, and I both felt that because these women are speaking openly, and they feel comfortable enough to talk about these very detailed things, we should write it the way they say it because that is the reality for the women. These are their bodies and there is nothing to be ashamed of.