Should "circumcision" and "foreskin" be stricken from our vocabulary altogether?
Find a Conversation
|Sun, 05-01-2011 - 3:05am|
Personally, I only see the harm that these words do. I think the word "foreskin" implies something extraneous or frivolous about it, and that it should be changed to "prepuce." I mean, do we call the clitoral prepuce foreskin? Do we call the labia majora/minora foreskin? No, we don't.
And while intactivists do push for the use of terms like "intact" instead of uncircumcised, and "genital mutilation" or "genital cutting" instead of "circumcision," I don't think it's done enough. There are still people who are against male genital cutting who call it circumcision while female genital cutting genital mutilation. Even though they may be well intentioned in trying to show the severity of female genital cutting, they're also denegrating the severity of male genital cutting in doing so. While I don't want to equate the more severe forms of FGM to MGM, I think when you create that separation of terms like that, you allow for some people to carry on with the irrational sexist double standards between male and female mutilation.
I think we need to be far more diligent in how we use our vocabulary, because people have very tame impressions when they hear the words "foreskin" and "circumcision." I even had a person tell me that the foreskin wasn't apart of the male genitalia, so circumcision doesn't mutilate the "genitals." We need to stop this madness, and I think completely getting rid of these words will help do that.