In the case of Re Kasinga (1996) Fauziya Kasinga claimed the need for asylum to avoid the practice of female genital mutilation and was granted refugee status by the U.S. Board of Immigration Appeals. This article discusses the implications of this case for other gender-related asylum claims based on harmful traditional practices and/or violations of the right to bodily and sexual integrity. New definitions and future directions for political asylum and international human rights law are proposed.