ABSTRACT Controversial efforts to censor the term pudendum and related pudendal anatomical terminology from Terminologia Anatomica (TA) have been met with mounting criticisms. The proponents of censorship have deemed pudere‐ related terminology nondescriptive and “unscientific.” However, its etymology refers to the hair which covers the underlying genitalia and renders the underlying anatomy less conspicuous. Accordingly, the terminology speaks to location (the region covered by the hair), structure/function (the hair covering which obscures the view of underlying structures), and human development (pubarche). Moreover, pudere ‐related terminology is increasingly used in modern‐day science and, therefore, “scientific” by virtue of its utility. Aside from human anatomy, pudere ‐related scientific terminology is used to describe nearly 1000 species from varied kingdoms, genera, and so on, and the nature of being or becoming inconspicuous. Proponents of censorship have argued the false pretense that biologists would regard as ‘shameful’ the essential functions undertaken by structures in the perineum based upon ancient etymology. They have also argued that pudere ‐related terms, including pudendal nerve , are somehow sexist, despite being used indiscriminately of sex for millennia. As a result of misleading information, the International Federation of Associations of Anatomists and its Federative International Committee for Equality and Diversity in Anatomy have recommended replacing pudendal terminology with perineal terminology, which would confound longstanding anatomical language. Because censorship of well‐established anatomical terminology may impair communication, it is important to highlight erroneous reasons for censorship when they occur. Therefore, this report highlights several flaws in the logic regarding the censorship of pudere ‐related terms.
Matthew J. Zdilla (Thu,) studied this question.