or Connect
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Pregnancy and Birth › Understanding Circumcision › Different terminology discussion
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Different terminology discussion

post #1 of 7
Thread Starter 

Today on one of the morning shows they talked about how to make a "biscuit cake" in celebration of tomorrow's royal wedding. Someone I knew saw that and was confused at what they were talking about; turns out what the Brits call a "biscuit" is a "cookie" to Americans. He commented "That's like how when you first used the term 'intact' I was confused until I learned that it's what intactivists like you use instead of 'uncircumcised.'" No, there's a difference: "Intact" vs. "uncircumcised" has a semantic difference and changes the perspective of the norm, while "biscuit" vs. "cookie" is simply the result of the language evolving differently in various areas.

post #2 of 7

I think it's an important distinction between the words "intact" and "uncircumcised," since they both suggest what's normal.  Saying "intact" indicates that not cutting the foreskin is the norm, while saying "uncircumcised" suggests that routine circumcision is the norm. 

post #3 of 7

I wholheartedly agree with you , Kelly.  The thing that drives me nuts is the fact that most American doctors, and virtualy all journalists/authors refer to an intact male as being "uncircumcised".  Like you say, it's suggestive of something not normal, and maybe not quite complete.  I wish they would get it straight and get it right!

post #4 of 7

I like the point that no one would refer to someone that still had a head as 'undecapitated'.  It's just not accurate to use 'uncircumcised'.  We don't call dogs that haven't been altered 'unspayed' or 'unneutered', we call them intact, because their genital anatomy is intact.  Same thought with intact boys, IMO.
 

Quote:
Originally Posted by hakunangovi View Post

I wholheartedly agree with you , Kelly.  The thing that drives me nuts is the fact that most American doctors, and virtualy all journalists/authors refer to an intact male as being "uncircumcised".  Like you say, it's suggestive of something not normal, and maybe not quite complete.  I wish they would get it straight and get it right!



 

post #5 of 7
I always use the word intact. If I'm on another board and trying to ruffle feathers.. I use the word "whole". That really upsets folks.

I mean, we don't go around saying unlobotomized do we?
post #6 of 7

 

To further refine the point, about 10 years ago I began consciously avoiding "leave intact" in favor of "keep intact". The latter seemed more proactive, and didn't carry the whiff of negligence ("Oh, you failed to circumcise your son, you just left him intact?"). Not unlike "left the baby alone in a hot car". irked.gif

 

Language is important. It's no happenstance that the former director of the NYC health department, now the director of the CDC, routinely refers to intact males as "men who lack circumcision". He's turned normal on its head.

 

 

post #7 of 7
Quote:
Originally Posted by brant31 View Post


To further refine the point, about 10 years ago I began consciously avoiding "leave intact" in favor of "keep intact".

Oh, that's good. I'll have to use that.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Understanding Circumcision
Mothering › Mothering Forums › Pregnancy and Birth › Understanding Circumcision › Different terminology discussion