{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.015702479338842976, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.653846153846154, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Sex Logics: Biological Essentialism and Gender-Based Asylum Cases

Female circumcision and domestic violence asylum cases have been treated differently in the asylum system. The main explanation for differential adjudication has rested on racialized and ethnocentric constructions of harm. In this article, I examine differences between these cases by analyzing how gendered claims are constructed in female circumcision compared with domestic violence asylum claims. I identify three key themes (immutability, particularity, and universality) and show how they are linked to underlying gender ideologies in these cases. Findings suggest that gender ideology that relies on the biologically sexed body influences interpretations of gender-based asylum cases. Both female circumcision and domestic violence cases make explicit the underlying sex-based logics that operate in the construction of gender group claims, creating an advantage for women claiming asylum based on female circumcision and invoking the sexed body. Although the strategy of invoking the sexed body may benefit some applicants in the short term, these sex-based politics may hinder the development of gender asylum practice more generally.