Talk:Meatal stenosis

"Intact" vs. "Uncircumcised"
Incorrect use of Language? Yes, there certainly is! I don't feel that the choice of words is an issue of political correctitude, but rather a question of accuracy. Using the term "uncircumcised" to describe an intact, natural, normal penis perpetuates the typically American, myopic misconception that a penis with its foreskin surgically amputated is natural or normal, when the exact opposite is true. "Uncircumcised" clearly implies to the reader that the surgically altered penis is medically normal. Would one call a man with both arms a non-amputee? In countries where genital mutilation is uncommon, or even illegal, a circumcised or "cut" penis is unquestionably viewed as abnormal and unnatural. I think it all depends on how one wishes to see himself.MrEguy 10:29, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * "Intact" was not used as an adjective to describe the penis. It was used as an adjective to describe the male.  If I approached a random person on the street and described myself as an "intact male," they would have absolutely no clue that I was referring to my penis.  If I described myself as an "uncircumcised male," they would know exactly what I was referring to.  To use your analogy, you would certainly describe someone as a non-amputee if you were making medical comparisons based on possible complications from amputation. Sperril 15:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Just to add, the only way I would find "intact" acceptable is if the statement read "....in males with an intact foreskin." You can feel free to change it to this if you'd like to. Sperril 15:37, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Meatal stenois = urethral stricture?
There is another article on urethral stricture. This article indicates that meatal stenosis is synonymous for urethral stricture; indeed, the ICD-9 and DiseaseDB codes are similar or identical, though the MeSH code is not. I'm adding a template to suggest merging the two articles into the latter, since it is listed in the urologic disease template. --Joe Sewell (talk) 20:47, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I just confirmed that the ICD-9 code here is more specific than the one at urethral stricture. Furthermore, the two MeSH specifiers lead to the same page through different paths. --Joe Sewell (talk) 21:02, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I am not sure and I am not a medical expert either. Meatal stenosis is the narrowing of the meatus (urethral opening) whereas urethral stricture is narrowing of the urethra.  Meatal stenosis is often as a result of circumcision because the ammonia in the urine inflames the meatus (and presumably causes it to narrow). Tremello22 (talk) 22:49, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

I will remove the merger notice, per the findings on this talk page. --Pwnage8 (talk) 14:20, 21 February 2009 (UTC)

Females?
One of the sources quoted in this article says, "Meatal stenosis only occurs in males." The places this article references meatal stenosis in females are unsourced. What sources indicate that meatal stenosis occurs in females, as the article now states? Blackworm (talk) 22:37, 28 January 2009 (UTC)