Intactivism and Language

[MilkTrance]

I am thinking that sometimes, the language used in some intactivist conversation is too dramatic to appeal to mainstream audiences.

For instance: somebody asks whether they should circumcise their baby, and an intactivist says something like, "why would you remove a necessary body part? why would you mutilate your child?"

Does this really appeal to someone who is new to questioning our cultural norms? I don't know, but I do wonder.

If I were timidly venturing into a vegetarian discussion and I asked what the benefits of vegetarianism were, and a vegetarian said "for one thing, you don't murder innocent creatures!" I would be turned off.

I am thinking that asking questions is the first step, because it opens the door to educating without lecturing.

For example, if we take the first question: "should I circumcise my baby?", and turn it around with another question: "why WOULD YOU cirumcise?" it will open up a variety of responses and points. These points can then be discussed and the person can be educated on the truth about the procedure (for instance, the "it's cleaner" argument is easily refuted with not only scientific fact but also thinking outside the box -- how often do you clean a girl's clitoral hood? never)

I'm NOT saying that this is what happens on this board necessarily. What I AM saying is that a lot of mainstream people think that we are lunatics. And some of this comes from the language used (of course the majority of that train of thought has to do with cultural brainwashing, but we should be thoughtful about what part of it we are responsible for).

Does this make sense? What do you think about that?

[perspective]

I completely agree with you. We have to be very careful how we bring up the subject. I think many of us get trapped in this little bubble of ours to the point where we get so flustered as to why anyone would do anything like this in the first place, that one someone actually asks us, our first urge to just vent out to them.

I look at it like going back a hundred years and having a conversation with someone who was trying to figure out why women should have the right to vote? They might actually be wondering about it, but any modern person would just yell back "Of course they should!"

[glongley]

I avoid use of the words mutilation or abuse, as it is just going to turn a lot of people off, instead of helping them keep their minds open to whatever else they might have to say.

I might refer to it as "genital cutting" or "genital alteration" because it parallels how we talk about FGC, and gives a little cultural perspective, while at the same time it is objectively correct about what is actually done, but still had a little bit of a graphic edge about the reality.

Although many of us have a visceral reaction to it or feel extremely traumatized or angry when confronted with it, one thing I think will help in reaching others is to some degree being able to separate our emotional reactions from our communications so people don't react to the messenger instead of the message. The objective facts of the matter are powerful enough as they are.

I know others take other approaches to speaking to people, with good results, but this is how I approach it.

Gillian

[Breeder]

I've always used, "I think little boys are born completely perfect. Why would you change a thing?"

It's true, it opens up the discussion, it isn't in your face. I wish someone had said it to me and saved my first boy.

[asunlitrose]

I always ask clients WHY they are considering circumcision. It is usually because they think it is medically recommended, and that makes it much easier to refute than telling them that it's mutilation and THEN asking them why. They're automatically put on the defense.

The only times I use the term "mutilation" is when I'm talking with other fellow intactivists. Otherwise I think it comes across as too extreme to many mainstreamers.

However, I STRONGLY suggest always using "intact" language. That sometimes gets conversation going all on its own. Using "uncircumcised" implies that circumcision is normal, and even if it IS more common, it is far from normal.

[Fellow Traveler]

This is very important and I agree with Gillian. The words we choose to use are very important and each has specific weight. Whether we like it or not the simple fact is people just don't really get it and we are in a sense selling this idea. I don't like to say it that way but it is true. It means trying to use words that don't put people off and trying to couch our message as gently as possible. The thing is that if we turn people off they will stop listening and then you'll lose. Rather than mutilate one should say circumcised but you can certainly use the word intact which has a positive tone to it as opposed to the pejorative uncircumcised. It's hard to do, I know, but is what we need to do.

[Fellow Traveler]

Originally Posted by asunlitrose

That sometimes gets conversation going all on its own. Using "uncircumcised" implies that circumcision is normal, and even if it IS more common, it is far from normal.

This is so true. Uncircumcised has a pejorative tone to it intact is the word to use. And I agree circumcision may be common but it's not normal.

[loveyourohana]

Originally Posted by Breeder

I've always used, "I think little boys are born completely perfect. Why would you change a thing?"

It's true, it opens up the discussion, it isn't in your face. I wish someone had said it to me and saved my first boy.

Beautiful, and I couldn't agree more!

[homeschoolingmama]

I am coming across this while creating the blog. I am really trying not to throw too much emotion into it. For ex. the picture I chose. I didn't want it to be a screaming baby with a doctor standing over them. Someone that is considering whether to circ or not may look at that one picture and think...oh this is just a crazy freak They are going to want to find more unbiased material. (My material is biased but not SO obvious ) Instead I chose a picture that shows a baby strapped into a circumstraint from the waist down. It portrays exactly what I was hoping to portray. Look how awful this is without shoving it down their throat. In the articles I chose there are some mutilation references but I think the article was too relevant to cut out.
To sum this book up...I agree with you!

[Greg B]

"The important thing about any word is how you understand it."

- Publilius Syrus (43 B. C.)

and I would add, how your listener understands it. I agree that it is critically important to tailor your message, and the words you use, to your listener. That is why you will see people responding to "what can I say to so and so" with this idea. Tailor it to what you know will be effective, don't just hit them with a bunch of canned stuff.

Cheers!

[baybee]

I use the term "male genital mutilation' when speaking to individuals and groups. We DO speak about female genital mutilation and people instantly know what is being discussed. I find the word "circumcision" is too sanitary and sane-sounding to accurately describe the horror of male genital mutilation. Do I turn people off and make them think I'm crazy? Probably. The truth is, I am crazy. No problem there.

I think there's a place for all the voices in the movement. We can't really know what people do with the info but if I shock them, you soothe them, someone else irritates them, and another one profoundly touches their heart, that's fine. I do agree that listening and finding out from an authentically interested place is the first step in having any meaningful communication.

I acknowledge the courage to communicate about a subject that can be very touchy.

[njeb]

I agree with previous posters that you need to tailor your language to your audience. For example, I have no problem with calling circumcision male genital mutilation when posting on this forum. If I'm talking with someone from small-town Iowa, however, I'll call it circumcision and say something like, "Hey, did anyone ever tell you that it's not necessary to circumcise your baby boy?"

Chances are, nobody ever did tell them.

If I came at them with both barrels blasting and called it child abuse and mutilation (which it is), they would close their ears and minds before I could get another word in edgewise. They would dismiss me as another one of *those* extremists. I'm a lone voice in the wilderness out here. I have to tread very lightly.