Talk:Meatal stenosis
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] "Intact" vs. "Uncircumcised"
Incorrect use of Language? Yes, there certainly is! I don't feel that the choice of words is an issue of political correctitude, but rather a question of accuracy. Using the term "uncircumcised" to describe an intact, natural, normal penis perpetuates the typically American, myopic misconception that a penis with its foreskin surgically amputated is natural or normal, when the exact opposite is true. "Uncircumcised" clearly implies to the reader that the surgically altered penis is medically normal. Would one call a man with both arms a non-amputee? In countries where genital mutilation is uncommon, or even illegal, a circumcised or "cut" penis is unquestionably viewed as abnormal and unnatural. I think it all depends on how one wishes to see himself.----MrEguy 10:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- "Intact" was not used as an adjective to describe the penis. It was used as an adjective to describe the male. If I approached a random person on the street and described myself as an "intact male," they would have absolutely no clue that I was referring to my penis. If I described myself as an "uncircumcised male," they would know exactly what I was referring to. To use your analogy, you would certainly describe someone as a non-amputee if you were making medical comparisons based on possible complications from amputation. Sperril 15:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
-
- Just to add, the only way I would find "intact" acceptable is if the statement read "....in males with an intact foreskin." You can feel free to change it to this if you'd like to. Sperril 15:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
