Talk:Gender-affirming surgery/Archive 2

Title Change
The medical community refers to these procedures as Gender Confirmation Surgery (GCS) - see the American Society of Plastic Surgeon's (ASPS) website. The ASPS "comprises 94% of all board-certified plastic surgeons in the United States."

I tried changing the wikipedia page for SRS sex reassignment surgery (dated term) to Gender Confirmation Surgery (GCS) but user - "Funcrunch" said I should "gain consensus on the talk page before making a large-scale change like this". (see "revision history") UigeqHfejn1dn (talk) 01:57, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for posting here for discussion. I'd like to see additional citations beyond what this one web site has to say about the subject. Naming these surgeries can be a somewhat delicate and controversial subject. Funcrunch (talk) 03:08, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I want to point out that the one web site is from the ASPS, a professional medical group that has the vast majority of plastic surgeons in the United States as its members. These are the physicians that are performing the surgery, which they refer to as GCS.
 * Here are some other sources:
 * A paper from The Journal of Sexual Medicine about GCS guidlines.
 * A medical pamphlet form Oregon Health and Science University that references GCS.
 * Boston University School of Medicine page that references GCS.
 * University of Michigan Health Center GCS page.
 * Hahnemann University Hospital in Pennsylvania GCS page.
 * UigeqHfejn1dn (talk) 04:37, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The article's first sentence lists six different names for the same surgical procedure. This confusing flux in nomenclature will probably not be resolved anytime soon. For now, it may be instructive to consider not only the various preferences of medical practitioners and professional associations, but how ordinary users of Wikipedia will locate the article. An Internet Google search for "Sex reassignment surgery" finds 546,000 results. For "Gender Confirmation Surgery" it finds 43,200 results. This strongly suggests that until a preponderance of journalists adopt "Gender Confirmation Surgery" we might best serve our readers by sticking with "Sex reassignment surgery" as our title. KalHolmann (talk) 04:43, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The ASPS represents 94% of U.S. plastic surgeons, so I think its reasonable to say that the physicians who are performing this surgery are consistent in their nomenclature (vs various preferences). I performed the same google search (first clearing my cookies and history in the browser to make sure the results are unbiased based on past searches for these terms) and got 549,000 results for "Sex Reassignment Surgery" and 684,000 for "Gender Confirmation Surgery".  Both searches returned the same wikipedia page (current SRS page) as the top result, indicating that our readers would find it.UigeqHfejn1dn (talk) 04:57, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I beg to differ with your search results. I repeated my searches in three different browsers, having cleared my browsing data (including cookies) prior to conducting each search. My results were the same as reported above. Perhaps you are not including quotation marks around "Gender Confirmation Surgery" as your search term. In any case, we can let other editors conduct their own searches as they see fit to test my hypothesis. KalHolmann (talk) 05:11, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, I have never searched with quotations, nor seen anyone search with quotations. It is reasonable to assume readers would not use quotations (they would likely just type what they were looking for).  Try doing the search without quotations and you should get the same results.
 * I would also like to point out that the change in the name of the procedure is more than physicians' preference. It reflects the nature of the procedure and the nature of the cause of being transgender as it is reflected in the research.  Rather than listing all research here, see - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_transsexuality
 * This is why the physicians' who perform this surgery have updated the name to GCS. And this is why it is important for our readers to know what physicians call the surgery.
 * Search results numbers aside, the current SRS page on wikipedia is the top result for both searches. This indicates that our readers would find the correct page with either search term.
 * UigeqHfejn1dn (talk) 05:31, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I've alerted WikiProject LGBT Studies to this discussion. Funcrunch (talk) 06:28, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Though search engine results are only one part of the decision, I've done my own Google search using encryption through DuckDuckGo so that the results are not connected to my location or login. I got 391,000 results for sex reassignment surgery and 476,000 for gender confirmation surgery. This Wikipedia page was the top result for both searches (the latter currently redirects to the former), so I doubt readers have any trouble finding the page when searching on either term. Another data point to consider: The GLAAD Media Reference Guide: Transgender lists Sex Reassignment Surgery in the glossary of terms, with the first sentence reading "Also called Gender Confirmation Surgery (GCS)." Funcrunch (talk) 06:37, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * The proposed change is for the title and the primary term on the page (while keeping a reference to the old term, "also known as Sex Reassignment Surgery", for google search purposes and for people who for example, visit the GLAAD site and may know both terms). Changing the wikipedia page title would help accelerate the non-medical community becoming aware of the updated nomenclature within the medical community (an important step towards understanding the surgery and being transgender) and would accurately describe the procedure (according to the physicians who perform GCS). UigeqHfejn1dn (talk) 06:54, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Whatever other factors are relevant here (and I may weigh in on that later) one factor that is not relevant, is "how ordinary users of Wikipedia will locate the article." This will be handled by redirects (as it already is) so should not be considered at all, in determining the outcome. Mathglot (talk) 12:21, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I have to oppose per WP:Common name. For more, see Talk:Sex reassignment surgery/Archive 1. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:09, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I encourage you to go read through the arguments in the archive you linked. The proposal in that archive linked a single doctor writing an article on a non-medical website (HuffPost)  .  While the article is important, it does not reflect the change in the entire medical community as does the references listed below (also see my comments describing the ASPS above).  The arguments in opposition in the archive were:
 * "Huffpost is not a reliable (WP:MEDRS-compliant) source, and one surgeon's views do not trump what is prevalent in the medical literature" --- (see above where I address these concerns)
 * "over-capitalization" --- (which could be discussed and fixed)
 * "not the common name" --- (I think it is fair to say that this is not true given the search results for the 2 terms - see my comments above as well as user=Funcrunch's comment above). This is also reflected in the medical community (see references below).
 * "old search result data" --- (repeat the searches an you'll see they don't hold up (possible due to the fact that the archive was from 1.5 years ago, further adding to the idea that the common nomenclature and medical nomenclature has changed). And as user=Mathglot pointed out above the redirects will handle this in the meantime anyways.)
 * "this is all about PC (politcally correct) and Huffpost is a bad source to base a medical RM (I think RM means rename?)." --- (see all the medical references and my comments on ASPS above)
 * I think it is reasonable to say that the references below and the search results demonstrate a clear change in nomenclature in the common, non-medical professional, and medical professional communities that is sufficient to allow for a rename of the title and primary term on the page (in addition to the change being a more accurate description of the procedure according to the physicians--see my comments above). UigeqHfejn1dn (talk) 15:33, 6 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The vast majority of your sources are not WP:MEDRS-compliant sources and they do not come close to outweighing the literature. I am familiar with the literature on this topic, and I stand by my statement that "sex reassignment surgery" is the WP:Common name for this topic. Also keep in mind that WP:Common name is a Wikipedia policy. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:29, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * These sources below are all from official medical organizations and are compliant with the WP:MEDRS policy (which I encourage you to read through). They are used as sources in peer-reviewed medical literature and on wikipedia.  They include:
 * the professional medical organization for plastic surgeons with 94% of all U.S. medical plastic surgeons (the physicians who perform the surgery) (see my comments on ASPS above)
 * Reputable peer reviewed medical journals
 * Reputable Universities' Medical Schools and Hospitals
 * Reputable Medical Clinics that perform the surgery
 * see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine) (as these exact types of sources are listed on the policy page)
 * I encourage you to read through the sources below. The literature has continued to evolve since you last discussed this 1.5 years ago (in the archive linked above), as such I think it would be helpful to read through the sources below.
 * I understand that WP:Common is wikipedia policy. This is why I addressed this in my last comment.  As I noted, the references below and the search results indicate a change in nomenclature in the common, non-medical professional, and medical professional communities.
 * I encourage you to perform the searches yourself as users above have done (our results discussed above) as this should help demonstrate that the title/primary term change is appropriate given the WP:Common policy.
 * see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Article_titles#Common_names --- here are some of the organizations from which we are supposed to observe the usage of the common name (according to the WP:Common policy):
 * major international organizations, media outlets, scientific bodies, scientific journals, etc
 * See my references below for all of these organizations using the term Gender Confirmation Surgery
 * UigeqHfejn1dn (talk) 16:08, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Regarding the WP:Common policy further:
 * It also mentions "A search engine may help to collect this data" and goes on to mention using Google. This is done by the users above and further demonstrates the appropriateness of the name change.
 * I thought it would be helpful to list some more "major English-language media outlets" (from WP:Common policy page) as they would likely be helpful in demonstrating the common community's usage of the term Gender Confirmation surgery.
 * These "major English-language media outlets" include: CBS, KTLA, ABC, Daily News, NBC, USA Today, Mashable, The Texas Observer, Women's Health, Fox 19 Now, Daily Collegian-Penn State University Newspaper, Cosmopolitan, Teen Vogue, US Magazine, Yahoo News, MSN, The Advocate, Out Traveler, Chicago Tribune, The Huffington Post, The Washington Post, Forbes, Inquisitr, and Time
 * Also here is an official medical policy from BlueCross BlueShield (one of the largest medical insurers in the U.S.) last reveiwed in May 2017. A citation from the U.S. Department of State using the term GCS. And the GCS page on the Weiss Memorial Hospital website. A citation for MedlinePlus, an online information service from the US National Library of Medicine (NLM), "the world's largest biomedical library"-see their about page.
 * UigeqHfejn1dn (talk) 16:40, 6 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose move at this time. I'd have no problem supporting it at a later time, if a preponderance of relevant sources were clearly shown to favor the usage, but this seems premature at the very least. The OP's arguments appear flawed. This is the English [language] Wikipedia, not the U.S. Wikipedia, and our article's title shouldn't be based on the nomenclature preferred by an American professional body when the topic is surgical procedures performed in various countries. The sources provided in aid of the proposed move are not all MEDRS, and in an article about surgery MEDRS usage absolutely should carry significant weight when considering a page move. Since Google's early days, search results for a phrase have meant less than nothing unless the search terms are placed within quotation marks (or unless the advanced search page is used to specify phrase); this is pretty much Internet 101. WP:Common is an essay, no a policy; perhaps WP:COMMONNAME was intended. In any event, the current name has way more hits in a Google search, so that argument doesn't work either. Rivertorch   FIRE WATER   16:45, 6 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose per Rivertorch, Hate to essentially copy & paste but it's correct - This is the English Encycloepdia ... Not the American Encyclopedia and so therefore we go with what the majority of English people call it ... If sources from around the globe state this then fine but one country and 3 docs from one country isn't enough. – Davey 2010 Talk 16:49, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I have explained in detail what it states on the WP:MEDRS policy and how all my sources comply. At this point it would be helpful if someone could point to which of the references you believe does not comply with MEDRS and the reasoning.
 * I listed above in my last comment that the WP:COMMONNAME policy page specifically lists search engines (specifically Google searches) as helpful in determining common usage (please read the WP:COMMONNAME policy page), as it does "major English-language media outlets". Rivertorch please see the Google search results from the previous users (including myself) listed above (and a description of how the searches are done).  They show that the google search results for Gender Confirmation Surgery produce more results.  And as explained above by other users, the results for the old term (SRS) and the new term GCS both list the current wikpedia page as the top result (not to mention that the redirects would take care of this anyways as users have pointed out already).  I listed the reasons why these google searches are important above in my previous comments; it demonstrates easy accessibilty--our readers will find it ---I was addresssing the concerns of another user; and it demonstrates common usage of the term Gender Confirmation Surgery given the greater number of search results on Google (adding evidence to this change complying with  WP:COMMONNAME policy).
 * For future commenters, please be sure to read the whole discussion before commenting as many concerns have already been addressed by other users.
 * Please see my last comments. Davey2010 please see my updated references for more than "3 docs" from international news organizations (albeit based in the U.S.).
 * Please take the time to read through the sources posted so far in order to keep up to date on the literature (there are a lot now but it is important). I listed one that shows the growing number of these procedures in the US. This is why it is so important to note that the ASPS (representing 94% of US Plastic Surgeons) has specifically denoted the surgery as GCS.  ASPS is an international organization with over a thousand international plastic surgeons in its ranks.  There are still many countries that do not perform GCS and some that have laws outlawing any LGBT related activity.  So it is important when an international organization (albeit based in the US) reports on GCS.  However I agree with your point about this being the English Encyclopedia.
 * Thanks for your points on how Wikipedia is the English Encyclopedia, not the U.S. Encyclopedia (I agree that this is important). Here are some international sources (based outside the US):
 * These are news organizations in Canada, Britain, India, Azerbaijan, Australia, Germany, Ireland, New Zealand, Republic of the Philippines, South Africa, China, and Israel. Here are the News Organizations ("major English-language media outlets"):
 * Canada: Macleans, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, CityNews; Britain: BBC, PinkNews, The Guardian, Daily Mail, The Daily Telegraph ; India: India.com (an International News organization based in India - see their about page), The Times of India, AKTK News, NewsR, Daily News and Analysis; Azerbaijan:Eurasia Diary; Australia: news.com.au (An australian news organization); Germany: DW-Deutsche Welle; Ireland: Irish Independent, The Irish Times; New Zealand:The New Zealand Herald, Stuff-New Zealand News Website; Republic of the Philippines:The Philippine Star ;South Africa: City Press and Channel 24 News; China: Xinhua News Agency; Israel: Haaretz News, Jerusalem Post
 * UigeqHfejn1dn (talk) 18:22, 6 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Note: I alerted WP:Med to this discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:24, 6 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose move per WP:COMMONNAME. In fact, I'm a little surprised this article isn't located at Gender reassignment surgery as that's the term I've seen the most in both media and scholarly discourse. Gender confirmation surgery is nice in the sense that it's a more accurate description of the mentality of patients and doctors (patients don't really alter their bodies to change their gender so much as they alter their bodies to confirm the gender they know to be theirs, but which nature denied them), but it's a bit of an uncommon term in my experience. For the record, "gender reassignment surgery" returns slightly more google results than "sex reassignment surgery". ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  00:56, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I've addressed both the WP:COMMONNAME concern and the google search concern multiple times now as have other users.
 * For future commenters, please be sure to read the whole discussion before commenting as many concerns have already been addressed by other users. Please read the many references listed below as well.
 * I wrote above that I've never used nor seen anyone use quotations in google search. The reason I say this is so that the google search will reflect the common usage of the term (i.e. when our average reader searches for these terms, how many results do they get).  The term gender confirmation surgery returns the most results.  The point is to determine common usage, i.e. not wikipedia editor usage.  When the average person (common usage) searches without quotes, the number of results reflects the amount of usage of the term.  This is why a google search for gender confirmation surgery returning the most results is indicative of the change in common usage.
 * More importantly, I've listed 52 citations so far to demonstrate common usage ( WP:COMMONNAME ), medical professional usage, and non-medical professional usage (please take the time to read these as they clearly demonstrate the change in nomenclature).
 * As I told user=Flyer22 in reference to the old archive about this title change from 1.5 years ago, the usage in common language and in medical language has changed so I encourage you to read the many sources that I cited to update yourself on the most recent research, articles, newspapers, magazines, hospital pages, etc.
 * UigeqHfejn1dn (talk) 02:54, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:COMMONNAME page states that wikipedia uses the name that is most frequently used in English-language reliable sources.
 * I've listed multiple sources above (please read through my previous comments for details about these sources) from the US and many other countries. Please read through these to get a sense of the nomenclature that is being used.
 * UigeqHfejn1dn (talk) 03:16, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You have not addressed the WP:commonname concerns except to dishonestly insist that there are more google hits for your preferred term; a claim which has been falsified by literally every other editor in this thread who has attempted to verify it, including myself. Don't condescend to tell me to read the discussion when you cannot even be bothered to maintain the barest sliver of honesty in your own argument. I have attempted the search from 3 different accounts with 3 very different usage cases on google, and without being signed in from 4 different IP addresses. In every single case, your preferred term was the least often found by a factor of 5 or more. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  04:04, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from personal attacks (I will be reporting your abuse as it is inappropriate and your claims about me are incorrect). I again refer you to read the comments above as you would have seen that  responded and confirmed that the google search results, when done properly, show that gender confirmation surgery shows more results. I quote from above --- "I got 391,000 results for sex reassignment surgery and 476,000 for gender confirmation surgery." ---
 * Clearly this indicates that you did not in fact read it as you stated and I quote "a claim which has been falsified by literally every other editor in this thread". This would have been found to be incorrect by reading the discussion in full.  Please take the time to read the discussion and the many sources. Thanks.
 * I also addressed the WP:COMMONNAME concerns in a multitude of other ways. Including listing many other sources from the US and from around the world per other users requests.  You would have also seen this had you took the time to read the discussion.  These sources help support the idea that this is the updated common nomenclature given the high number/type/variety of origins of the sources.
 * also had this result and then I explained about the quotes and searching on google. I explained this multiple times throughout the discussion, which you would have seen if you read it.  I explained that the quotes throw off the results and I explained why it matters to search in a way that is representative of the average person.  So I again encourage you to please read the entire discussion so I don't have to repeat the details of those explanations.  Thanks.
 * UigeqHfejn1dn (talk) 04:29, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * WP:ANI is thataway. Have at it, hoss. You're right about one thing: I missed that one person (out of three now to check) confirmed your numbers. But that's still two who have explicitly falsified them. I also notice that there's no support !votes, but 24 comments by you arguing with, well, everyone else. There are more issues as well: The common name in use by experts, a problem which has been outlined by Flyer22. Yet almost every post contains some variation of "I already addressed that" in lieu of any actual addressing. I stand by what I said; you've had your numbers and rationale contested multiple times and you've done nothing but insist that you're right in the face of multiple people showing you to be wrong. "Gender confirmation surgery" - 76,800 results, "sex reassignment surgery" - 415,000 results and "Gender reassignment surgery" - 423,000 results. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  04:35, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks for noticing that you missed that (hopefully you will read through the discussion to see what else you missed). As indicated by your comments you missed the times where I've explained about the quotes and google (which you just missed again).  Try searching without quotes (I also mentioned searching after clearing browser history and cookies - reasoning why is above - or you could use Funcrunch's DuckDuckGo encryption with Google -- see above)  (I've written about this in the discussion 5 times now).  Please actually read above for my comments as to why this is important as I've said it multiple times.   did not say "experts", please read her comments.  I addressed her actual concern related to WP:COMMONNAME by listing 29 citations from a variety of sources.  I later addressed similar concerns from  and  about commons (but this time relating to international sources).  I addressed their concerns with 29 sources from countries around the world (they wanted English-speaking international sources --- which you would have seen if you had actually read the comments, which you purported to have done).
 * Without quotes (see above for why) - Gender confirmation surgery - 578,000 results, Sex reassignment surgery - 551,000 results and Gender reassignment surgery - 457,000 results.
 * If you would like usage from experts I've also noted that above. See the sources refering to ASPS, various medical hospitals, medical organizations, medical universities, medical clinics, medical journals, etc.  All listed in the references section. Thanks.
 * Lastly, it is perflectly okay with me that people disagree and have a variety of concerns. Part of this is process of updating wikipedia as an editor is polite discussion and research.  The hope is that as I show people the variety of domestic and international sources it convinces people of the need for a title change. This is how the scientific process works and how the wikipedia editing should work (albeit in a more polite and appropriate manner than you've conducted yourself). Hopefully you will read some of the 68 sources from 13 countries when you are done reading this discussion.
 * UigeqHfejn1dn (talk) 05:01, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * No matter how strong you believe your arguments and sources to be, posting on the talk pages of multiple editors when barely a day has passed in the discussion, asking if they've read your sources, and suggesting that editors who disagree with you haven't actually read your comments and/or sources, isn't going to help your cause. Also, Flyer22 is a she/her. Funcrunch (talk) 04:58, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Funcrunch. Thanks for alerting me to Flyer22 being a she/her.  I was just typing quickly in response to MjolnirPants.  I apologize if I pinged too much, as you can see my username link is red (I'm new to wikipedia and just discovered what pinging was).  I'll be sure to ping less.  I am passionate about the subject matter and was worried people responded quickly had forgotten about the post and not seen my responses addressing their concerns (the sources that they were asking for).  I'm fine with disagreement, I was only referring to the fact that MjolnirPants has consistently posted incorrect things about posts I made that would have been addressed by reading it.  I was also noting how many times I had written about the google search results concerns and MjolnrPants ignoring that on multiple posts.  I appreciate all the contributions from all editors and hope to continue to discuss this.  Thank you UigeqHfejn1dn (talk) 05:11, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It wasn't pinging I was complaining about; I edited my comment soon after making it to clarify that I was taking issue with you posting directly on the talk pages of editors who had participated in the discussion, asking if they'd read your sources, when only a day had passed since the discussion had opened. As I replied to you on my own talk page, consensus takes time. Please be patient, and don't assume other editors who disagree with you haven't read your comments or sources. WP:Assume good faith. This subject is very important to me as well (especially as I am openly transgender), which is why I'm taking time to consider the issue. Funcrunch (talk) 05:16, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

UTC)
 * I thought the talk pages were like an instant messenger. But if that is not how talk pages are viewed on Wikipedia (and you're not suppposed to use those for this purpose I'll refrain and allow more time for users to return to the talk page to see the responses).  I agree with the policy WP:Assume good faith and will make sure to apply it.  I was just alluding to MjolnirPants not reading your previous comments and not reading mine explaining the google search results and the quotes which I've posted multiple times (and following that with abuse towards me).  I am happy to see you are continuing to follow the discussion and I appreciate your feedback as a more experienced editor than myself. Thanks UigeqHfejn1dn (talk) 05:26, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

UigeqHfejn1dn (talk) 06:31, 7 August 2017 (UTC) UigeqHfejn1dn (talk) 06:52, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per WP:COMMONNAME. -Roxy the dog. bark 07:27, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you please leave a brief reasoning as to why you believe it does not follow WP:COMMONNAME.
 * From the WP:COMMONNAME page- "Wikipedia generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the criteria listed above."
 * I've listed 68 sources from 13 countries. Do you want more of these sources?  Or do you object to the types of sources?  More countries?
 * UigeqHfejn1dn (talk) 07:55, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

SRS Commons policy discussion
I started this section per 's request

It looks like Alex Shih has closed the discussion. Can you still answer my question: @Roxy the dog: Can you please leave a brief reasoning as to why you believe it does not follow WP:COMMONNAME. From the WP:COMMONNAME page- "Wikipedia generally prefers the name that is most commonly used (as determined by its prevalence in a significant majority of independent, reliable English-language sources) as such names will usually best fit the criteria listed above." I've listed 68 sources from 13 countries. Do you want more of these sources? Or do you object to the types of sources? More countries? Thanks UigeqHfejn1dn (talk) 08:34, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Asked and answered at length by a number of experienced editors in the closed section immediately above this one. -Roxy the dog. bark 08:39, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I would appreciate your perspective if you're willing to give it. I linked google results and provided more than 68 sources from 13 countries.  I'm hoping you or someone can point to some things that they would like me to get (or data that they need to see change) for a future discussion.  As both  and  said they would be okay with this title change in the future, I would like to prepare whatever you all want.  (More sources, different types of sources, etc).  Thanks for the help.  UigeqHfejn1dn (talk) 08:47, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Firstly, contrary to the opening sentence of this thread, I did not request the opening of this thread. Secondly, Asked and answered at length by a number of experienced editors in the closed section immediately above this one. Thirdly, stop pinging me. -Roxy the dog. bark 08:50, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I asked you this question and you told me on your talkpage to use this page instead. But fine I'll leave you out of this. UigeqHfejn1dn (talk) 08:53, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
 * This ed is a Sockpuppet. see here -Roxy the dog. bark 12:01, 7 August 2017 (UTC)

Additional commentary
MjolnirPants, per my commentary seen at Talk:Sex reassignment surgery/Archive 1, I have doubts that gender reassignment surgery is more popular than sex reassignment surgery, but it is something to keep in mind. If it is, it clearly does not have so much of an edge that we need to change the article title at this point in time. Also, per what I stated in the previous move discussion, I think gender reassignment surgery is not as accurate.

As for what UigeqHfejn1dn stated about not using quotation marks with Google searches, WP:SET states differently, and I see that Rivertorch similarly stated above, "Since Google's early days, search results for a phrase have meant less than nothing unless the search terms are placed within quotation marks (or unless the advanced search page is used to specify phrase); this is pretty much Internet 101." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 01:27, 8 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You can see the numbers in my last comment; they are so close between Gender reassignment surgery and Sex reassignment surgery that arguing between the two is likely an exercise in futility. I'm not proposing such a move, though as I mentioned, I'd likely at least weakly support someone who did (presuming they didn't do it right after this discussion).
 * You're also right on the money about quotation marks. They should be used every time one attempts to google a specific term; no excuses. It is, indeed, internet 101. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  02:04, 8 August 2017 (UTC)

Informed consent from an baby?
That statement in the article section is the most ludicrous I have ever seen in Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:805:4201:2640:7862:BF56:FDB:6813 (talk) 14:28, 29 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Altered PriceDL (talk) 22:19, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Pelvis
What do they do about the pelvis shape? הראש (talk) 14:14, 27 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Usually nothing. However this page is not a general forum for discussing the subject of the article. It is reserved for discussions about how to improve the article. You can ask general questions at the reference desk. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants   Tell me all about it.  00:33, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Non penile inversion technique
The claim that these techniques offer some idea of greater aesthetics is fundamentally false, and until someone can pull an objective source on this it would be in the best interest to report the actual difference between the non penile and penile inversion techniques; that is, a lack of reliance on donor material allowing deeper neovaginal canals in the absence of developed genitalia. To assert this technique somehow has “closer resemblance to cis genitalia” is at best rehashing marketing jargon from surgeon websites who offer this technique (Suporn, Chett) and is completely unfounded in reality; especially considering that Suporn, the main surgeon using these non penile inversion techniques, includes organs which do not exist in cis women (known as the Chonburi organ/secondary sensate organ) and therefore the idea that this is closer to natal female anatomy is completely false.

Polyrain (talk) 07:41, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Gender or Sex Reassignment Surgery
One's sex isn't assigned or reassigned, it's observed at birth. There was nothing wrong with the term sex change operation, which is what most people would call this. The degree of politically correct nonsense on Wikipedia is just insane. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.18.7.61 (talk • contribs)
 * The article is still titled "Sex reassignment surgery." So what are you complaining about? Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 13:47, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

Reorganization of the lead
The lead should be reorganized to better fulfill the purpose of the lead of an article, which is to summar[ize] its most important contents. In its current state, the lead is far from fulfilling this purpose. I propose to reorganize the lead, moving 80% of the material currently there to other sections, and replacing it with three or four new paragraphs, summarizing parts of the article currently not covered at all.

In my view, the excessive number of synonyms in the lead, mostly all in the first sentence, detracts from readability, runs counter to the stated purpose of the lead and WP:FIRSTSENTENCE, and should be moved down to a new "intro" or "terminology/synonyms" section instead. MOS:FIRST says: The first sentence should tell the nonspecialist reader what, or who, the subject is. It should be in plain English. Be wary of cluttering the first sentence with a long parenthesis containing alternative spellings, pronunciations, etc, which can make the sentence difficult to actually read; this information can be placed elsewhere.

The lead is currently five paragraphs long. Article title synonyms occupy 1/3 of the first paragraph, and almost the entirety of the second, third and fourth paragraphs along with some other related terminology. The fifth and last paragraph of the lead discusses the Reimer case, which, while important, is an extreme outlier relative to the tens of thousands of adult SRS operations that have occurred worldwide. It deserves mention in the article, but not 20% of the lead, and possibly not in the lead at all given the article topic. Meanwhile, the article has ten content sections comprising 34kb (exclusive of end matter), almost none of which is summarized in the lead at all. This is highly disproportionate.

I propose to remedy this in several stages. In the first stage, I propose to create a new section, "Synonyms and terminology" immediately after the lead. One synonym (GRS, the second most common ) will be kept in the first sentence of the lead, with the other four moved to the new section. The entirety of lead paragraphs two, three, and four will be moved to the new section, leaving a single sentence in their place, stating the existence of numerous other synonyms. The new section will be beefed up with connecting words, a discussion of evolution of terminology (e.g, from earlier "sex change") and additional content added about related terminoogy as necessary to read smoothly and coherently cover the section topic.

Lead paragraph five, currently on Reimer and the risks and consequences of pediatric SRS following accident, will be moved to a new section, perhaps with H2 header "Pediatric intervention" following section Different SRS procedures, or perhaps an H3 subheader under that section, or under section Quality of life and physical health. By due weight, I don't think anything needs to be inserted into the lead to summarize the Reimer paragraph after its removal, but that could be discussed.

I welcome your thoughts. Mathglot (talk) 06:40, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Be bold; go for it. The "Be wary of cluttering the first sentence with a long parenthesis containing alternative spellings, pronunciations, etc, which can make the sentence difficult to actually read; this information can be placed elsewhere." piece is new wording at MOS:LEAD, but it aligns with other advice there. For example, per WP:Alternative title, we definitely should limit the alternative names to the most common, and include the others in a separate section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:48, 16 October 2018 (UTC)


 * I created this version as a test. (Not providing a diff link here, because it does such a poor job in this case.) If there's no objection, I'll install it. While doing this, I noticed plenty of other issues in the article that need attention. The "new" lead doesn't summarize sections of the body that I found to be problematic; they can be addressed later. Mathglot (talk) 11:12, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

Completed a first round of re-org, consisting almost entirely of adding and renaming section titles, and moving sections or paragraphs around. Other than the simplified lead as described and linked above, no other text was changed (other than to add a couple of Main links to one section). Further reorg is needed, notably to section "Surgical procedures" which is a still-awkward merge of two formerly widely-separated sections with overlapping text. The very short "International" section (which was there before, but under the poor section title "Society and culture") needs to be beefed up considerably, notably with the addition of Morocco and France, but also other countries with major contributions. The "History" section needs expansion as well, and probably the "International" section should be merged with it. I'm sure there's lots more that can be one, but hopefully this addresses some of the disorganization in the prior version.

For the next level of re-org, I think we should discuss whether three articles should be linked and written in Summary style with this article being the main article and containing brief, summary sections about the mtf and ftm surgeries, and the two articles Sex reassignment surgery (male-to-female) and Sex reassignment surgery (female-to-male) having all the detail about them. The main article could retain all the history and perhaps the pre-surgical care, at least the WPATH SOC, insurance, and perhaps more. Anything that is specific mtf or ftm procedures could go into the child articles. At least, that's how I view it; as it is, there's a lot of duplication among them.

Mathglot (talk) 13:10, 4 December 2018 (UTC) struck content and moved to separate section below; Mathglot (talk) 17:29, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Summary style and the two sub-articles
This article is closely related to the two articles Sex reassignment surgery (male-to-female) and Sex reassignment surgery (female-to-male).

I think we should discuss whether the three articles should be more formally linked and rewritten in Summary style with this article being the main article and containing brief, summary sections about the mtf and ftm surgeries, and the two sub-articles Sex reassignment surgery (male-to-female) and Sex reassignment surgery (female-to-male) having all the detail about them.

The main article could retain all the history and perhaps the pre-surgical care, at least the WPATH SOC, insurance, and perhaps more. Anything that is specific mtf or ftm procedures could go into the child articles. As it is, there's a lot of duplication among the three of them. Mathglot (talk) 17:29, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Workplan
Initial analysis of article: outdated language, lead needs work, no summaries of feminization/masculinization surgeries, viewed by over 1,000 people each day, complicated/hard to read language

J role: Primary edits for lead, summary of feminization surgery page, edits of summary of masculinization surgery page, edits for outdated language, find additional sources, reduce reading level of language

M role: Follow up edits for lead, summary of masculinization surgery page, edits of summary of feminization surgery page, edits for outdated language, review sources already existing, reduce reading level of language

Add? summary of masculinization surgery and feminization surgery pages

Remove? Title, outdated language

Augment? Lead (dramatically)

Note on sources in lead: 1,2 - on surgery for infants with DSD, 4 - just a link to the website for the plastic surgery professional organization, 5 - outdated primary source material, 6,7,8, 9, 10 also on surgery for infants with DSD. No sources sited for the majority of the content in the lead that actually has to do with the page's intended content. Needs major revamp.

Jjcubs92 (talk) 16:19, 3 December 2018 (UTC)jjcubs92, MannyMG85


 * Jjcubs92, see the past discussions about the title of the article. We go by the WP:Common name policy. And regarding supposed outdated language, see WP:Due weight. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:53, 4 December 2018 (UTC)


 * See Talk:Sex reassignment surgery/Archive 2. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:55, 4 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Jjcubs92, regarding some of your points above: can you please elaborate on what you intend to do about the lead (augment lead dramatically)? The lead needs to be a summary of the body of the article; so the last thing you want to do, is attack the lead; first, figure out what changes you want to make to the body, and then have the lead catch up (or, do them in parallel).  I wouldn't want to see any changes to the lead unless you can outline a more specific plan about it. Also, you may have noticed that since you wrote it has changed a lot; see the section above.
 * Where you mentioned "summary of feminization surgery page" (and "masculinization), please read the Summary style editing guideline. I can't tell what you have in mind from just that phrase, but I've also been thinking of converting this article and the other two into a more formal "summary style" linkage, as proposed at the guideline.
 * Where you're talking about "reduced reading level", what are you proposing? This is an article on a medical topic that deals with a lot of surgical procedures, and you don't want to dumb it down too much. Terms like "metoidoplasty" or "chondrolaryngoplasty" (not currently in the article, but should be) are what these procedures are called, and you can't avoid them just because people don't know what they are; that's what hyperlinks are for. Mathglot (talk) 13:22, 4 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I removed the three sections you added. Please see your talk page and review WP:SS. And don’t forget that verifiability requires referencing; see WP:MEDRS. Mathglot (talk) 02:09, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you Mathglot for engaging in this conversation, I was going to add sources but was unable to before it was removed. Thank you for the vigilance, but I do plan to always source my changes. Jjcubs92 (talk) 18:50, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Anything removed is not gone; you can find it in the history. So if you have your sources now, just put it back, this time with the sources included. Using the templates cite book and the related ones for journal articles and web pages is highly recommended. Mathglot (talk) 06:52, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * I will definitely use the name of what the procedures as they are named, but I also would like to make sure that this language is explained at a reduced reading level so it is accessible. Jjcubs92 (talk) 18:51, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Be bold, and use wikilinks for words that are not obvious or need further explanation. Another possibility is an explanatory footnote—see efn. Mathglot (talk) 07:00, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review
Peer review of article as part of UCSF Fall 2018 Wikipedia Medicine Elective.

Know that there has been a healthy amount of discussion (between Mathglot, Ian (Wiki Ed), and Jjcubs92) regarding including sections with cited sections. Understand that this discussion has limited the content added by Jjcubs92.

As is, overall this article is rich with controversy and interesting discussions about the ethical, surgical, and psychological considerations for this transformative surgery. Focusing on the recent edits made by MannyMG85 and Jjcubs92, there is one major section I can comment, which is the "International" section. It is well-cited and explores the complicated, diverse response by different countries to this controversial procedure in a fairly neutral manner. With regards to improvement:
 * In most sections, I would recommend more references to back up the statements made in this controversial article and ensure some neutrality.
 * In addition, it might be helpful to have images (although may be graphic) that complement edited section of this article.
 * Know that there may be additions to the Summary of Feminization and Summary of Masculinization pages, and look forward seeing any changes from MannyMG85 and Jjcubs92.

More than happy to review the article further as edits come in. --Rcchang16 (talk) 04:57, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Just so you understand, there is no “Summary of Masculinization” or Feminization articles, and piping them as you did could be misleading. Indeed, those two articles under a WP:SS paradigm would be expanded with details about the surgeries, and all the summarization would take place at the parent article, i.e. this one. Mathglot (talk) 06:47, 14 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you Mathglot for the clarification. To not mislead by piping, the previous "Summary of Masculinization" and "Summary of Feminization" (surgeries) were meant to be linked to the following respective Wiki pages: Sex_reassignment_surgery_(female-to-male) and Sex_reassignment_surgery_(male-to-female). I will leave the decision as to whether or not to expand these articles and/or summarize within this page to the contributors. --Rcchang16 (talk) 13:11, 14 December 2018 (UTC)

Peer Review

I have discussed many of my comments with Jjcubs92. It is my understanding that there has been substantial discussion between several users and that this is a controversial topic.

One of the goals in your work plan is to eliminate outdated language in the article. One such example is eliminating transexual and replacing it with transgender. Although I am somewhat naive in this issue, it is my understanding that these terms have slightly different definitions that go beyond outdated versus acceptable terminology. I don’t know what the correct usage is in this case, but would be quite interested to see the reasoning behind the use of one term versus the other, and it certainly seems worth continued discussion.

I also noticed within the discussion the idea to potentially merge the “History” and “International” sections with the reasoning that there is a lot of overlap between these topics. Having read through each more thoroughly, I believe that they can likely stand apart as separate topics and that a merge might be unnecessary. I do think that if you decide to go this route it would be worthwhile to write a short lead for the “International” section. However, if you do decide to merge, I would suggest removing the “International” section and incorporating the information there into the “History” section. I think that the information in the “International” section would fit fairly neatly into the “History” section’s timeline, more so than vice versa. But ultimately I think it could work either way. A few other small points from reading through the article.

The “Prior to Surgery” section is partially lacking citations. It also seems to me that many of the comorbidities that could impact a patient’s surgical candidacy are considerations regardless of the type of surgery, whereas in reading this article one might be inclined to think that these are SRS specific.

Under the “Ethical Considerations” section, it reads, “This is controversial because of the human rights implications.[13][14]” This seems like a topic that could be expanded upon slightly. As it reads currently, it is somewhat unclear what is meant by this. There are a few uncited statements in a number of sections. Given the controversial nature of this topic, additional citations might help ensure neutrality.

I am excited to see how the article shapes up over the next week. I can tell that you both are passionate and knowledgeable about this important and complicated topic. Quinnjkq (talk) 04:43, 15 December 2018 (UTC)QuinnjkqQuinnjkq (talk) 04:43, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

Language
I am seeing the word "transsexual" used multiple times in this article to refer to someone who has had hormones or surgery. This is actually an outdated term that is often used in a derogatory context. This word should be removed from this article in all locations in which it appears. The term "transgender" is appropriate as a replacement.

Jjcubs92 (talk) 01:03, 11 December 2018 (UTC) Moved to bottom, by Mathglot (talk) 01:24, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Jjcubs92, it's not outdated language for some people, though. This is made clear in the Transgender and Transsexual articles. Plus, the the term transgender can be broad to where it includes non-binary people and cross-dressers, but the sex reassignment surgery literature is not about cross-dressers and it is barely about non-binary people. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:58, 12 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you so much for bringing this up. Some people do indeed self-identify as transsexual, however it is often used in this article to be defined as someone who has undergone medical or surgical transition which in the transsexual isn't even the definition. It is outdated language for someone to refer to another individual as transsexual if that is not indeed how they identify, and is therefore not the best word to use as a generality for the community. These surgeries are actually very often sought out by non-binary or gender nonconforming people, many of whom I know personally, and are included in the literature (at least the literature that is current and inclusive). The transgender wikipedia page refers to how the term transgender "infrequently" includes cross-dressers. Let me know if this is still something you disagree with. Jjcubs92 (talk) 02:10, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Jjcubs92, I only recently saw your reply. You stated that the term transsexual "is often used in this article to be defined as someone who has undergone medical or surgical transition which in the transsexual isn't even the definition." Part of the lead of the Transsexual article clearly states "usually seeking medical assistance (including hormone replacement therapy and other sex reassignment therapies) to help them align their body with their identified sex or gender." So the Transsexual article has taken care to include that aspect of the topic. If it didn't and was essentially the same as the Transgender article, there would be no need for both a Transgender and Transsexual article. And, indeed, merging the articles has been discussed before; see Talk:Transgender/Archive 7. As for use of transsexual, if the sources use the term (which some of them do), I see no issue with using it, except for it causing an inconsistent tone in the article. Yes, some of the sources are outdated, but the term transsexual is still in use and still refers to the subset of transgender people who undergo sex reassignment therapy to align their bodies with their identified gender. As for non-binary or gender nonconforming people, well, gender nonconforming (also known as gender variant) people are a very broad group and being gender nonconforming is clearly not the same thing as being non-binary, seeing as "non-binary" falls under the transgender umbrella while someone who is gender nonconforming might not be transgender. Many cisgender gay and lesbian people are gender nonconforming, for example. I did not mention that group; you did.


 * That some people who get one or more of the surgeries involved in sex reassignment surgery identify as non-binary does not negate the fact that sex reassignment surgery is specifically about aligning a transgender person's body with their identified gender and is a treatment for gender dysphoria. In what sense do you think a non-binary person is trying to align their body with their identified gender? What gender? Some may want want to appear androgynous, but I'm not aware of any of the non-binary gender identities (excluding the third gender topic) being associated with body parts. Yes, some people identify as both male and female, but there is no body type or gender presentation thought to automatically go with that identification (regardless of people confusing a gender matter with the intersex topic, and their misconceptions about intersex people). Same goes for someone who feels fluid in their gender identity and as though they are male one day and female the next. By contrast, what is a male/man or female/woman is automatically associated with specific body types and gender roles. A trans woman, who is a person assigned male at birth and identifies as a woman, is likely to seek sex reassignment therapy to align her body with her gender identification if she feels like she is in the wrong body. So while a person who gets one or more of these surgeries might identify as non-binary, the sex reassignment surgery literature is not focused on non-binary people (and by "not focused on," I mean that the literature is overwhelmingly about transgender people in the strict sense -- excluding non-binary people). Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 20:43, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Reorganization of "International" Section
I am working on adding content to the "International" section and have alphabetized the current countries already listed. Once I have the information down I'm open to merging the "International" section with the "History" section. MannyMG85 (talk) 04:43, 11 December 2018 (UTC)MannyMG85 — Preceding unsigned comment added by MannyMG85 (talk • contribs) 04:38, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * That seems reasonable. A previous edit that got reverted for unrelated reasons merged all the country content into one section, and that’s also a valid approach.  It’s not clear to me at this point if one approach is better than the other, so afaic use your best judgment. One thing, though: regardless which approach one takes, Dr Georges Burou from Morocco is crucially important and should be in any History or International section.  Finally: there’s the issue about which article should really contain this content. Please read WP:SS and the two links at the very top of the article, as well as the section below this one.
 * Please also read WP:THREAD and WP:FOURTILDES about how to use Talk pages. Happy editing, and don’t hesitate to ask questions here (about how to best improve the article) or on your Talk page (with Help me; general questions about editing or any other topic not related to a specific article) or on Ian’s or my talk page. See also templates reply and ping. Adding Ian (Wiki Ed). Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 17:14, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the guidance! I'm sure you can tell this is my first time editing an article and I'm still getting the hang of it. I appreciate the patience and support while I continue to learn the ins and outs of editing.
 * Per your suggestions above, I was going to tackle Morocco first and then move on to France. Was there something specific you had in mind for France? Cheers! MannyMG85 (talk) 20:41, 11 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Sounds good; in this context, Burou is Morocco. I had nothing special to say about France, so whatever your research turns up should be fine. One other principle to keep in the back of your mind, although I wouldn’t worry too much about it right now, is WP:DUE, which is about "due weight" which basically means proportionality. Do read the section below this one, though. Mathglot (talk) 20:56, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

The longer the list of countries here becomes, the less appropriate it seems to be with respect to due weight with the rest of the article. Also, some of the country material seems not completely on-topic per the article title; in some cases at least, the content might be more relevant to other articles, such as the "Human rights in &lt;country>", or "LGBT rights in &lt;country>" articles (or even, in one case [Argentina], "Trangender rights in &lt;country>"). The subsections on Morocco, Thailand, and India seem clearly about the surgery, which is what this article is about, so they're on-topic. But the sections on Malta, Spain, and Switzerland and some others seem more about laws concerning gender, or insurance issues; they do have peripheral relevance here, to be sure, but they might be more directly relevant to articles such as LGBT rights in Switzerland, Spain, or LGBT rights in Malta, for example. (You can find what such articles exist, by browsing Category:LGBT rights by continent.) Finally, I wonder if having a subsection headers per country is a good idea, when some of the sections are very short. While good for organization and future expansion, it distorts the Table of contents or at least makes the article appear to be unduly about this subtopic. (There is another way to deal with that; see Template:toc limit.) Btw, I'm just one editor, and these are just my opinions and advice; other editors might have other opinions. Mathglot (talk) 18:01, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

I'm aware that your course has ended. Any further thoughts or intentions with this section or the article in general?

I'd also like to hear from other editors about whether to maintain subsection headers per country, or not. Pro: could encourage further expansion and promotion of summary style with possible splits to new articles. Con: I'd don't think that's likely to happen, and for now would look better as unified, prose paragraphs as well as improve the ToC; could always be divided by country later if it grew too large. Mathglot (talk) 21:43, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Top surgery
Top surgery refers to feminizing augmentation mammoplasty for transfeminine individuals or masculinizing double mastectomy for transmasculine individuals. Feminizing augmentation mammoplasty includes adding synthetic material to the chest to augment and form traditional breasts. Masculinizing double mastectomy removes breast tissue and often alters the location of the nipple to be more lateral on the chest.

Facial feminization surgery
Facial feminization surgery includes bone and soft tissue alteration to the forehead, nose, and jaw primarily to provide a more feminine shape to the face. Facial masculinization is often not performed surgically because hormone therapy often changes facial shape and further alteration is often not desired, but can also be performed.

Voice feminization surgery
Performed only after voice feminization therapy is not successful to the degree desired, voice feminization surgery can alter the pitch or frequency of the voice. Voice feminization surgery cannot change any other aspect of voice, and is often unsuccessful if performed without therapy. Success is measured by decreased frequency an individual is misgendered on the phone or by voice after treatment.

Jjcubs92 (talk) 05:23, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * , I presume you added this here, because you'd like to discuss this content and add it to this article, is that right? If so, then in my opinion, the material would fit better at one of the sub-articles. See section Summary style and the two sub-articles above.  But I'd like to hear what other editors think about that.
 * A couple of concrete points: in the first sentence under Top surgery, see Use–mention distinction, and WP:REFERS. Also, the lead sentence under Voice feminization surgery seems awkward; see if you can smooth it out a bit. Mathglot (talk) 09:38, 20 December 2018 (UTC)

History Section
While the history section is informative, as it mentions events of which many readers would likely be unaware, I was struck by the complete omission of any reference to Christine Joergensen from 1952. This was the case that brought the possibility of medical gender reassignment to the public consciousness. Quadibloc (talk) 23:25, 6 January 2019 (UTC)

Pakistan
In Pakistan, the Council of Islamic Ideology has ruled that sex re-assignment surgery contravenes Islamic law as construed by the Council. The Council of Islamic Ideology is a government organization that sets public policy.--2601:C4:C080:81C:24E2:CC18:7E3C:376D (talk) 15:12, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

Foundations 2 2019, Group 8a goals
Jiangyad (talk) 21:04, 30 July 2019 (UTC)
 * Add in drugs required for sex reassignment surgery for patients with HIV/Hep C/other underlying conditions
 * Add in insurance policies for major insurance companies for this procedure
 * Add in role of pharmacy for sex reassignment surgery (outpatient management)
 * Hormone suppression, risks vs benefits
 * Note added editing tags Health policy (talk) 05:16, 31 July 2019 (UTC)


 * Jiangyad, your class needs to stick to WP:MEDRS-compliant sourcing. Read WP:MEDRS for what I mean.Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:30, 31 July 2019 (UTC)

Foundations 2 2019, Group 8c peer review, Vivian
For goals, the edits achieved its overall goals except for specifying which risk and benefits arise from hormone suppression besides fertility. Drugs used for sex reassignment surgery could be expanded to specifically state which types of drugs are preferred over others. Great addition on insurance coverage policies since that is definitely information that many readers would be interested in (Just add the citation!). This topic is a highly controversial topic so the group did a fantastic job of maintaining a neutral tone that plainly state policies and potential complications of treatment. Overall, the additions to this topic so far have the potential to substantially improve the article more than they already have. They just need to be a touch more explicit in benefits/risks of treatment and what treatment would look like under medical considerations. Vivianle17 (talk) 21:36, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Foundations 2 2019, Group 8a Peer Review (8C)
Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”?

The group has made a substantial improvement to the article with an additional information on each of their goals. Their additions to information on insurance coverage and the healthcare team involved in SRS have proper citations and explain the material in a neutral manner at a layman's level for understanding of the topic. The information provided gives readers an overall consensus of additional factors to consider that are not commonly discussed when understanding sex reassignment surgery.The group did a great job removing transphobic and homophobic jargon and removing outdated terminologies.

Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement?

Their group has achieved some of their goals however additional information is needed to address the role of pharmacy in SRS and the medications used in SRS. These edits would be useful in giving readers additional insight towards the process of SRS and can help the group achieve the remainder of their goals.

'''Are the points included verifiable with cited secondary sources that are freely available? If not, specify…'''

Yes. All the additional edits have citations and any incorrect edits have been removed and addressed.

Francesca.alcala.96 (talk) 21:43, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Foundations 2 2019, Group 8C peer review, Mehr
The first goal this group had was to add drugs for underlying conditions and while it was addressed that they are necessary, perhaps including specific drugs could provide useful. They did a great job in meeting their second goal of adding insurance policies and with a citation it would be a very solid piece of evidence. For their third goal about the role of pharmacists in this setting in outpatient, if there was more information about the possible interventions to look out for or goals of continuing therapy that would help to elaborate on the topic more. Lastly, their fourth goal of talking about the risk and benefits of hormone suppression wasn't touched upon but could be a piece to elaborate on in the future. The addition of evidence that was included throughout the article matched the formatting previously presented and included proper sentence structure, formatting when using bullet points, and proper citations when included.

Mvirk422 (talk) 06:28, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Sterilization and fertility
The article discusses sterilization requirements in some countries, but needs to clarify that some surgical procedures in sex reassignment are sterilization themselves (e.g. orchiectomy). More broadly, coverage on fertility after reassignment surgery is quite lacking. --MarioGom (talk) 07:06, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Kiev case
The source does not mention forced sterilization in the body or the headline, only in a topic tag. According the source, the the claimant already had undergone orchiectomy (removal of testicals), so it does not look like fertility was at stake in the case. With respect to the court ruling, it is not clear that fertility was considered:

The text needs to be clarified or, even better, a source with more details should be used. --MarioGom (talk) 07:29, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

Removal of fact which is unsupported by citation
I just removed the claim that “not having suffered from gender identity disorders during childhood” is a risk category for post-operative regret, under “Psychological and social consequences”, since that claim is not supported. At best it’s a disputed claim, and at worst it’s just a psychologist’s bias, perpetuated through a purgatory of citations.

The claim in the article is sourced by Karpel, L.; Cordier, B. (2013). This study does not itself support the claim, but instead cites other four studies, which purportedly should:
 * Blanchard et al., 1989: The question of gender identity disorders during childhood is not addressed directly or indirectly.
 * Lindemalm et al., 1987: The question is addressed, but it makes the opposite claim, stating that “None of the items of early femininity was statistically associated with outcome”.
 * Pfallin, 1992: Gender identity during childhood is only mentioned in a particular sample of 3 regretters, all of whom cross dressed at or before puberty.
 * Landen et al., 1998: This one is more complicated. It does find statistical significance for regret among individuals belonging to the “non-core group of transsexuals”. The definition of a core-group transsexual includes six factors, one of which is “effeminate behavior as a child”. However, when “Age at onset of transsexualism” is tested on its own in this study, is found not to be significant to SRS regret.

All five of the studies here do note that a greater age at the time of request for surgery is associated with higher rates of regret. However, this is distinct from the claim that the lack of a gender identity disorder during childhood is associated with more regret.

It seems to me that this fact is ambiguously supported enough to warrant its removal. Apologies if I’ve done something wrong, since this is my first edit. LiteralBird (talk) 03:26, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

title change
"gender confirmation surgery" has the most results on google, and it is the actual medical term. can someone change the title of the page? i dont know how — Preceding unsigned comment added by Powelto42171 (talk • contribs) 22:38, 3 January 2020 (UTC)


 * A casual search for both SRS and Gender confirmation surgery seem to bring up a decent amount of results. Can you provide some reliable sources that use the proposed term instead of the one it's currently at? Sak ura Cart elet Talk 00:09, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I think we'd need a WP:RM for this in any case.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 00:19, 4 January 2020 (UTC)


 * a google search for "gender confirmation surgery" shows about 50% more results 900,000 vs "sex reassignment surgery" 600,000
 * here are some reliable sources from a google search
 * https://www.womenshealthmag.com/health/a30383703/jazz-jennings-gender-confirmation-scars-instagram/
 * https://www.uofmhealth.org/conditions-treatments/gender-confirmation-surgery
 * https://www.uchicagomedicine.org/conditions-services/plastic-reconstructive-surgery/gender-confirmation-surgery
 * https://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/u-s-gender-confirmation-surgery-19-2016-doctors-say-n762916
 * https://www.foxnews.com/health/gender-confirmation-surgeries-on-the-rise-in-us
 * https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2019/08/27/idaho-must-pay-an-inmates-gender-confirmation-surgery-court-says-governor-is-fighting-it/
 * https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2019-09-11/la-na-col1-trinidad-gender-confirmation-surgery-legacy — Preceding unsigned comment added by Powelto42171 (talk • contribs) 00:30, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * https://abcnews.go.com/Health/transgender-teen-jazz-star-jazz-jennings-sharing-final/story?id=58513271 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Powelto42171 (talk • contribs) 00:22, 4 January 2020 (UTC)


 * how do I get a WP:RM
 * Please see WP:RM. It has the text and everything needed.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 00:52, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Update the various types of male to female bottom surgery
The article uses outdated language as to the options for male to female surgery. While a majority of trans women still prefer to have vaginoplasty, sometimes called "full depth" surgery, some are getting limited depth, which is less invasive. Usually not enough for a full size phallus, but enough for a finger or toy. And more common is "zero depth" which only 1/2" to 1" of vaginal cavity is made with no attempt at making a vagina per se. This is chosen by those who may wish to have a vulva and clitoris and not need/want a vagina. The surgery is less invasive, Dilation to keep the neovagina open is not required, hair removal requirements are small or nonexistent, etc. The article should be updated to include proper language for each choice. Many sources, see https://www.mtfsurgery.net/vulvoplasty.htm as one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kittyba (talk • contribs) 17:28, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

wheres the indonesia by country for the Sex reassignment surgery ?
Please can you find and add it?125.166.91.114 (talk) 14:15, 17 May 2021 (UTC) its only india and iran but jumped past indonesia thats a freaking shock to me that no one can describe the statement of legality of sex surgery in indonesia

WP:OTHERNAMES to use in the first sentence?
The article currently reads: Sex reassignment surgery (SRS), also known as gender reassignment surgery (GRS), and several other names..., which is the result of this discussion (Talk:Sex reassignment surgery/Archive 2), where all alternative titles except the most common synonym were moved into the "Terminology" section.

While SRS and GRS are by far the most WP:COMMONNAMEs, the "gender (aff/con)firm(ing/ation)" terms seem, at the very least, notable enough that one of them may also be worth mentioning in the lead.


 * Google Scholar search for "sex reassignment surgery" - 14,300 results (430 in title)
 * Google Scholar search for "gender reassignment surgery" - 7,460 results (194 in title)
 * Google Scholar search for "gender affirming surgery" - 2,540 results (173 in title)
 * Google Scholar search for "gender confirmation surgery" - 1,860 results (83 in title)
 * Google Scholar search for "gender affirmation surgery" - 1,300 results (66 in title)

Without rehashing the RfC, what are editors' thoughts on the following construction?


 * Sex reassignment surgery (SRS), also known as gender reassignment surgery (GRS), gender affirming surgery (GAS), and several other names...

The relevant guidelines, WP:OTHERNAMES and MOS:LEADALT, don't provide any specific guidance on which names should be used, but seem to recommend listing one or two alternative names to avoid clutter. RoxySaunders (talk · contribs) 20:41, 21 June 2021 (UTC)


 * First of all, thanks for raising this, and thanks for starting off with the data. While I think it's probably not a problem in this case (I haven't checked yet), part of the due diligence in presenting alternative terms along with search tallies, is to demonstrate that the alternative terms are actually referring to the exact same thing. For example: if sexual reassignment surgery typically refers exclusively to a genital procedure 80% of the time in sources, but gender affirming surgery refers equally to either top or bottom surgery, or both, about half the time in sources, then it's not quite an apples-to-apples comparison, which would taint the search result tally comparison.
 * Secondly, interpreting search engine hit counts is a tricky business, for various reasons. That doesn't mean it shouldn't be attempted, but analysis of results should be done with care. One possible pitfall, is that the SE hit count includes any page that includes the expression, regardless of its semantic value, which can skew comparisons, or render them invalid. Example: if 1,000 pages use sexual reassignment surgery in a neutral way, and 13,300 pages say, "sexual reassignment surgery is a an older term that is no longer used", then the total hit count for sexual reassignment surgery will be 14,300. So a bit of spot-checking should be done, in an attempt to evaluate usage. As an illustration of this pitfall: I don't think anybody here would approve of including the term sex change operation as a bolded term in the lead (although it appears, entirely appropriately, in the #Terminology section) nevertheless, ordered by search result count, it would be #3 in your list, with four times as many results as gender affirmation surgery.
 * Anyway, as I said, I don't think your results are tainted by these or similar issues, but that's just my hunch, and I wanted to raise them so you could consider it, and maybe do a deeper dive if you think it's worth it. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 21:30, 21 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I think sticking to the two is best per the guideline. It seems to be a large drop off in numbers after those two. It's possible that these relative proportions will change in the future, but I don't think so yet. Crossroads -talk- 04:41, 22 June 2021 (UTC)