For those who pay attention to politically correct (PC) language… A normal man is “Intact”… A cut man is “Circumcised” … a restored man (you can never get the feel back – the nerves have been butchered – only the hooded look can be restored) is “Uncircumcised” … Full explanation below … It is definitely not PC to call Intact men “Uncircumcised” – this gives credence to genital mutilation… Do we call intact women “unmasectomised”?
“…There would then be three useful, respectful and scientifically sound terms to refer to the possible penis types that exist: intact (those in the natural state), circumcised (those with the prepuce removed) anduncircumcised (those with a restored prepuce or pseudo-prepuce)(as in Fig. 1). For the medical community to not change the vernacular describing penis types, given all of the above, would be UNCONSCIONABLE! And isn’t conscionable the preferred state?…” [Wallace, W. G. (2015), An undeniable need for change: The case for redefining human penis types: Intact, circumcised, and uncircumcised (all three forms exist and all are different). Clin. Anat., 28: 563–564;http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ca.22541/abstract] The publishing of this “Letter to the Editor” was my way to stand on the street corner holding a sign of protest, shining a spot light on something so obvious! This biased and pejorative term had to be stricken from the scientific literature! Interestingly, while preparing Wallace 2015a I had heard that some journals would not even publish research findings if the authors used the term intact, thereby forcing them to use uncircumcised. If this is indeed true, this suggests a DEEP BIAS in the scientific and medical communities!