What is strange about the way we use the word "Circumcised"?

Jonathan Wagstaff
Feb 28, 2018
3 min read

i am not talking about the way we avoid using the word circumcision, or the way that your stomach might turn whenever the word is said. I am talking about the actual grammar and language surounding our use of the word.

What does the way in which we use the word "circumcised" tell us about the way that we perceive circumcision? More than you probably realize.

For most medical procedures we describe them with some form of the verb "to have". For example; I might say that I have my tonsils removed, that they had an MRI, and that she has dental implants.

We could say that he has a circumcision. However, that sounds a bit awkward or even grammatically incorrect. It's not. Instead we typically say things like he is circumcised, and I am circumcised. We use a form of the verb "to be" and/or the past participle (circumcised).

On the other hand. We don't use that kind of construction to describe medical procedures. Nobody would ever say something like she is mastectomized, they will be appendectomized, and I am colonoscopized. These constructions are so rarely used that the spell check doesn't recognize these as real words. If we talked about procedures this way we would be implying that the procedures had changed the person to alter their identity.

Circumcision is a glaring exception to this pattern. If we truly felt that it were a medical procedure perhaps our language would reflect it. Maybe you were fooled by its Latin name. If circumcision were a wholly legitimate procedure that wasn't first a religious rite it would reflect the removed tissue. Instead, the word circumcision doesn't refer a removal but to the scar or the method. The proper medical term for circumcision is Posthectomy. (Learn more about the words we use to describe circumcision by clicking here)

You might be trying to think up some exceptions to this pattern. Perhaps you have found some. Many do exist. For example I could say that I was anesthetized or I was x-rayed. However these exceptions are rare and in most cases you could say them either way. (I had anesthesia, and I had an x-ray). Maybe you have thought of a grammatical exception such as "he gets circumcised". However this construction still uses the past participle circumcised and is closer to the construction he is circumcised than to, he had a circumcision.

There is a class of procedures that are an exception: They follow the grammatical construction we use to talk about circumcision. Those procedures are mutilations or other disfigurements. For example someone might say I was castrated, they were scalped, she is the victim of FGM, and he is an amputee. In a distopian film or novel maybe people would say that they were implanted rather than they had an implant.

The way we talk about circumcision puts it in the same camp with mutilations and disfigurements. Our language and cultural subconscious identifies it as such, so why don't we?

There is also another class of procedures that are an exception: Religious rites or actions. For example a Christian woman would say that she is baptized. She would never say that she had a baptism. This distinction seems to imply that baptism is something that is transformative and affects the person's identity. This pattern is true of many ordinances (sacraments).

Either way the way we use the word Circumcision places it in line with mutilations or religious rights but not medical operations.

The word Circumcision properly refers to a religious act not a medical one. Click here to learn about how a religious act became medicalized.