Talk:Gender-affirming surgery/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Intersex issues and due weight

Boxed material is from discussion previously found at Talk:Sex assignment#Intersex issues and due weight

User:Beland removed the intersex section, which I undid because I think it's worth a discussion here first. A glance at the section sizes in the Talk header above shows that at 24kb, it is currently over half of the article. If the article were 200kb, that might be okay, but at its current size, that seems very disproportionate, and so should be cut back. How much to cut and where is the question. I believe some mention of the topic is worth keeping, in a Parent article-style summary, which could link to one of the Intersex articles with a {{Main}} link. Mathglot (talk) 19:40, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

@Mathglot: I didn't remove anything from this article. I did drop that sort of content from Sex reassignment surgery to here. That's because it said in part:

SRS does not refer to surgery performed on infants with differences in sex development (intersex).

References

I added a link to the intro of that article to point to this one, clarifying that the subject is not included in that article. If the text is correct, that still makes sense to me. If you feel that text is incorrect, then it should be changed in Sex reassignment surgery. I don't see anything in that document that discusses this terminology, but it does assert the considerations for transgender vs. intersex people are strongly different. Is that the intended difference between the scope of sex reassignment surgery vs. sex assignment articles? If so, it's possible different titles would clarify the distinction. -- Beland (talk) 20:10, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. Sorry, did I misread your edits? I'll go take another look; sorry if I got it wrong. (Off for a bit; back later.) Mathglot (talk) 20:15, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Oops, I see what happened; this discussion belongs at the other article; if you have no objection, I'll move it there. Mathglot (talk) 20:22, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Moved from Talk:Sex assignment § Intersex issues and due weight

Moved from other article; let's continue here. Thanks, Mathglot (talk) 23:19, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

So, I need to do a bit of a reset here, as my previous argument was predicated on a wrong assessment of the amount of material involved, based on my looking at the wrong article when I made the statements about section sizes. In this article, the amount of material removed (and then restored) amounts to around 4kb, in a 66kb article. The section involved here, is the one called #Ethical considerations. That makes the argument for trimming a lot less strong, although I'm still open to it, depending on what others think. Sorry for all the confusion. Mathglot (talk) 23:42, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

@Mathglot: So, as I mentioned above, I didn't trim due to length, I trimmed because the material claimed it was unrelated to the topic of the article. -- Beland (talk) 23:47, 22 July 2021 (UTC)

Understood; certainly a defensible position. Would like to get some more opinions. Mathglot (talk) 00:01, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

If the sources for the content don't call it "sex reassignment surgery" (or "gender...") then it doesn't belong here. So I would check the sources. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:00, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

The first source doesn't pass that bar, but does distinguish, compare, and contrast the two types of surgery. I support the inclusion of the short section. At the very least, a section hatnote could be helpful to confused readers. Firefangledfeathers (talk) 04:11, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Some sources do use the term "sex-reassignment surgery" to refer to surgery on intersex infants. For example [1]). I'll note that Sex assignment surgery redirects to Intersex medical interventions. That's probably the more common name for intersex surgery. Anyway, I'll drop the unsupported claim that SRS does not include intersex interventions. That section does not discuss the transgender case at all, so I'll add a quick note. -- Beland (talk) 22:18, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

Why is David Reimer in intersex? David Reimer was never once diagnosed with an intersex condition and neither nor anyone claimed he was intersex, so his case is technically unrelated to intersexuality.CycoMa (talk) 23:34, 23 July 2021 (UTC)

@CycoMa: Good point; I've tweaked the section to distinguish cases of genital trauma. Feel free to make any further improvements you think are warranted. -- Beland (talk) 00:04, 24 July 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Fall 2018. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): MannyMG85, Jjcubs92. Peer reviewers: Rcchang16, Quinnjkq.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment in Spring 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): KLMerry.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 July 2019 and 23 August 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jiangyad, Zaccarlson, Nzargham, Terry.vo. Peer reviewers: Francesca.alcala.96, Mvirk422, Vivianle17.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 August 2021 and 8 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): SomewhatAlex.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Ethics

I found this passage in a book:

The requirement of SRS as a prerequisite for changing the gender marker on one's legal document makes one wonder whether it is humane to pressure transgender people to undergo SRS in order to make such a change, or whether it amounts to torture, as it is an indirect way to coerce people to undergo surgical procedures that the patients may not feel are entirely necessary ...

--https://link.gale.com/apps/doc/CX3662300325/GVRL?u=wikipedia&sid=bookmark-GVRL&xid=bc9954f8

Use the Wikipedia Library for Gale (Cengage Learning), and look for "Global Encyclopedia of Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, and Queer (LGBTQ) History", chapter "Sex Reassignment Surgery in Asia".

I think it is important to be mentioned in this article but I wasn't sure where to add, may be a new section? RXerself (talk) 19:20, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Definitely (in my non-expert opinion) seems like it should be mentioned in the article. Perhaps an "Ethics" subheading in the "Surgical procedures" section? —AFreshStart (talk) 02:08, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Gender and Technoculture

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 January 2022 and 13 May 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dgriswold605 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Sandra1795. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ACHorwitz (talk • contribs) 18:34, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

it is not a sex reassignment but a kind of genitoplasty surgery.

Sex cannot be reassignment because, sexual characteristics for genital apparatus and organs are expressed by genoma and here there is not a real genetic change. Liars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.232.91.130 (talk) 04:52, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello! Wikipedia follows the common name for subjects, based on terminology used by reliable sources. Regardless of whether you agree with the idea that it is possible to alter an individual's sex assignment by altering their sexual characteristics, Sex reassignment surgery (followed by Gender con/affirming surgery) remains the most common name for this subject used by sources, including high-quality medical journals. Wikipedia is not the place to try and set the record straight. If you think terms are being used incorrectly or misleadingly, consider writing a tweet or blogpost about it, or petitioning the dictionary. Best wishes, RoxySaunders (talk · contribs) 07:30, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 4 January 2020

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved to the proposed title at this time, per the discussion below. Dekimasuよ! 02:05, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

---

Sex reassignment surgery → Gender confirmation surgery – "gender confirmation surgery" has the most results on google, and it is the actual medical term. It is used by reliable sources - see google and above Powelto42171 (talk) 01:37, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose, per WP:Common name. See Talk:Sex reassignment surgery/Archive 2#Title Change. "Sex reassignment surgery" is obviously the common name. And that hasn't changed since the 2017 discussion I linked to in this paragraph. "Sex reassignment surgery" is the actual medical term, and it has 10x greater results on PubMed than "gender confirmation surgery". Furthermore, "gender reassignment surgery" is more common in the medical literature than "gender confirmation surgery" is. Also see what WP:GOOGLEHITS states. I'll alert WP:Med to this move discussion. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 02:49, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

the surgeons who perform this surgery call it "gender confirmation surgery". that is the medical term.

"https://www.plasticsurgery.org/reconstructive-procedures/gender-confirmation-surgeries

see the other links posted above. the medical facilities that perform the procedure use the medical term, gender confirmation surgery.

gender confirmation surgery is the common name, things change. as I said google shows more results for "gender confirmation surgery" by 50% (see above), showing it is more common. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Powelto42171 (talk • contribs)

We've been over that source in the discussion I pointed to. "Gender confirmation surgery" is nowhere near the common name in the medical literature even today. I wonder if you are UigeqHfejn1dn from that discussion. UigeqHfejn1dn was a WP:Sock, and so are you. Yes, I'm calling you a sock in a straightforward manner. Take me to WP:ANI if you have a problem with that. Others there will agree with me. Maybe you are one of Pedrovariant's socks.

In the previous discussion, an editor (now blocked) told the UigeqHfejn1dn account, "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." And, yes, per WP:SET#Notability, using quotation marks matters. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:40, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

just going to ignore your crazy rant. go do the google search with quotes. the most results by far are for "gender confirmation surgery", because it is the common name. go read the sources i put up. the surgeons who actually perform the surgery use the medical term, "gender confirmation surgery", same for the medical facilities that perform the procedure. I'm not going to waste time explaining these same points to you anymore. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Powelto42171 (talk • contribs) 08:55, January 4, 2020 (UTC)

Nothing crazy about what I stated at all. You will be blocked eventually. Anyway, I know what term the literature more commonly uses, and "gender confirmation surgery" is not it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:11, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

seems like other editors agree that your crazy rants need to stop, see below. the surgeons and hospitals that actually perform the procedure use the medical term, "gender confirmation surgery". who knows why you're so obsessed with hiding the medical term, but im going to ignore you completely from now on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Powelto42171 (talk • contribs)

Other editors? It's one, and that is one that I have a tempestuous history with. I want to thank you for repeating stuff like "the surgeons and hospitals that actually perform the procedure use the medical term." This is because it's what the UigeqHfejn1dn account, whose sole focus (like yours) is this article, would state over and over again. The way you search/focus on Google also aligns with UigeqHfejn1dn's behavior. So the WP:ASPERSIONS link below? Evidence is here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 08:48, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

WP:ASPERSIONS: An editor must not accuse another of misbehavior without evidence, especially when the accusations are repeated or severe. If accusations must be made, they should be raised, with evidence, on the user-talk page of the editor they concern or in the appropriate forums. WanderingWanda (talk) 06:13, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

• Neutral not my area of expertise but I'll leave the Google trends graph here which supports the current name imo. Ian Furst (talk) 04:18, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

try it again but make the capitalization the same, it shows "gender confirmation surgery" rising to meet the same level. also if you just search the terms on google, "gender confirmation surgery" shows 50% more results than "sex reassignment surgery" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Powelto42171 (talk • contribs) 07:06, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Corrected trends graph with no capitalization - they are much closer to one another here. Ian Furst (talk) 16:57, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Ian Furst, and Google Trends still shows that "sex reassignment surgery" is significantly ahead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:11, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support. Seems to be medically preferred term (ref), similar to Streptococcal pharyngitis vs Strep throat. Also per google scholar searches for sex+reassignment+surgery (72k) vs gender+confirmation+surgery (213k). Similar results via the medline-trend webtool. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 10:03, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

  Thomas your Google searches return results containing the words, not just the phrase. If you use the menu link at the top left corner of Google Scholar, you can select Advanced search and choose the exact phrase option. That is equivalent to enclosing the phrase in quotes and you should get the same results as I get below. --RexxS (talk) 03:03, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

• Support per Evolution and evolvability's comments above. It's also known as "gender affirming surgery" [2]. = paul2520 (talk) 14:57, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 17:50, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
• Support per Evo & Evo's comment and my own searches on Google and Google Trends. Funcrunch (talk) 18:35, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
• support per Evo & Evo's rationale--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:26, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
• Comment: The above support votes are so faulty that I don't even know where to begin. They are a mixture of WP:ILIKEIT, WP:Advocacy, faulty research, and stating "support" without doing any real research. Even if we were to go by Google Trends alone, it clearly shows that "sex reassignment surgery" is significantly ahead even after Ian Furst's adjustment. If Mathglot, who commented in the previous move request, is willing, I'm sure that Mathglot can explain just why the research spurring on the "support" votes are very flawed. All that stated, if this article were moved, then Sex reassignment surgery (male-to-female) and Sex reassignment surgery (female-to-male) should be moved as well for consistency. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:11, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose - Evo & Evo's evidence is fatally flawed, and thus, so are the votes uncritically endorsing it.
• He first points to a single paper, but search results on PubMed take priority over a single paper. PubMed gives 696 results for "sex reassignment surgery", but only 60 for "gender confirmation surgery", an order of magnitude (10 times) difference, as mentioned above by Flyer22 Reborn. (For technical reasons, I can't link to the results directly, but please search PubMed yourselves and see.)
• Second, his Google Scholar searches are without quotes, and therefore return many results that do not contain the phrase, but instead separate occurrences of each of the words scattered. Searching sex reassignment surgery, 10 pages on the results are still all saying "sex reassignment" surgery (or very occasionally, "gender reassignment"); but searching gender confirmatiom surgery, as soon as page 3 we start getting some results not about gender confirmation surgery. The further you go, a higher proportion of irrelevant results show up. Beyond that, Google Scholar isn't showing me a total number of results, so I don't know where the "72k" and "213k" are coming from, nor can I test totals for the phrases with quotes. However, this is a medical topic, and WP:MEDRS applies. Google Scholar contains results from fields that are not medical, like sociology or queer theory, as well as containing preprints, predatory journals, and other such things. PubMed, again, takes priority.
• Third, I tested the Medline (PubMed) trend webtool myself with quotes, and again got results very strongly supporting the current name. Although I can't link the results directly for technical reasons, in 2018 (the most recent year shown), it had a whopping 109 papers for "sex reassignment surgery" vs. only 18 papers for "gender confirmation surgery". In 2017 it was 93 vs. 14; 2016, 76 vs. 7; 2015, 75 vs. 2; 2014, 61 vs. 0. All zeros before that for "gender confirmation surgery".
• As for Google Trends, Ian Furst's newer results [3] still support "sex reassignment surgery" as more commonly used. Look at the yearlong average. The recent uptick looks like a statistical outlier, probably caused by Jazz Jennings, who's been in the news for a related reason. However, it should be emphasized that regular Google and Google Trends are practically irrelevant because, again, this is a MEDRS topic, and PubMed is to be the determining factor. This means the nominator's rationale, and Ortizesp's WP:PERNOM, are dead on arrival.
• Pinging Evolution and Evolvability, Paul2520, Funcrunch, and Ozzie10aaaa, to give them a chance to change their votes, or else explain why we should ignore the medical literature results. -Crossroads- (talk) 05:50, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
  • Thank you for the additional searches and I agree that the medically preferred term is the relevant aspect here. I'd not appreciated the difference that the quotations would make, and I was trying to allow Gscholar to search for minor variations (e.g. confirming/confirmation) and skipping forward to pg 5 appeared to still contain relevant results. Gscholar should report results number just under the search bar. For reference, with quotes I get "sex reassignment surgery" (12k) and "gender confirmation surgery" (1.2k), which agrees with your observed reversal and I suspect that including variations will probably only add a few thousand to the number. A minor issue observed in the Pubmed results for "Sex reassignment surgery" (696) is that several in the first page seem to also use "Gender-Affirming Surgery" in their titles). The reason I pointed to a single paper was as an example from a quick search on whether there were any statements on the preferred terminology and I was unable to find publications specifically recommending the opposite to give as a balancing argument. T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 23:51, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
• Comment Searching just titles in PUBMED we get 133 results for "sex reassignment surgery"[4] and 37 for "gender confirmation surgery".[5] Contrary to what was stated above by Evolution and evolvability, the figures are 696 and 60 respectively, if we search whole texts.[6][7]. Alexbrn (talk) 07:21, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

the surgeons and hospitals that actually perform the procedure call it "gender confirmation surgery" see the links above. and the google quote search results show it is the common term, with the most results by far. and so far the consensus is far more in favor than against. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Powelto42171 (talk • contribs)

• Oppose. And if Google is going to be the measure of all things ... my search for "sex reassignment surgery" returned 3,080,000 results; while the search for "gender reassignment surgery" returned 2,570,000 results. Additionally, the first 5 pages for "gender reassignment surgery" included 18 titles that were about "Sex reassignment surgery" (and just for the heck of it, I did a Duck Duck Go search of "gender reassignment surgery" and the first 5 pages returned 30 titles with "sex reassignment surgery"). Besides, sex and gender are two different things. "Sex" is what a human creature pops out of the womb as, while "gender" is the role that society imposes upon the individual (or the individual imposes upon him/herself). You need surgery to change the physical bits and pieces of a human's sex. You don't need surgery to change the costumes, cosmetics, and affectations that make a human's gender. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 08:34, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. WP:NCMED obliges us to use the term prevalent in medical sources (not google hits), and per the accurate search results above, the prevalent term is the term currently used. Alexbrn (talk) 08:40, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
• No strong position Common name appears to be still sex reassignment surgery. Medical literature uses both. Reducing the Google scholar search with quotes gives 12K for sex reassignment surgery and 1K for gender confirmation surgery so leaning towards keeping it as is. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 11:21, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
• oppose. I see no reason to change my ivote from last time, per commonname. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 19:37, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per Alexbrn. Some sources have been found using each term and no reason to prefer a new term has been given. Johnuniq (talk) 22:05, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. No support for this sort of thing is found in MOS:GENDERID, and the move would be against WP:COMMONNAME, WP:RECOGNIZABLE, WP:NPOV, WP:NEO, and MOS:JARGON. I sympathize with the emotional basis for proposing such a move, but see WP:NOT#WEBHOST, WP:NOT#SOAPBOX, WP:GREATWRONGS, WP:TRUTH. Language-change advocacy on behalf of minorities belongs on your blog, not in the encyclopedia. If "gender confirmation" or "gender affirmation" replaces "sex reassignment" in a strong majority of contemporary reliable sources, then we'll move it. Try again in 5 years. To add to Alexbrn's reliable-source stats: Google Scholar produces ~12,100 results for "sex reassignment surgery" [8], but only ~1,200 for "gender confirmation surgery" [9] and an additional ~700 for "gender affirmation surgery" [10], so the current title has a 6:1 lead. If you constrain the results to 2010+ publications, you get ~7800 for "reassignment" [11], ~1100 for "confirmation" [12], and ~700 for "affirmation" [13] (rounding in favor of the "gender" versions), which is still about 4:1 in favor of the current article title.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  00:07, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Tony (talk) 00:40, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose. Using an anonymised browser via a VPN, I get the following results (all terms include quotation marks in order to search only for the entire term):
  • Google search for "sex reassignment surgery" = 810,000 results;
  • Google search for "gender confirmation surgery" = 662,000 results;
  • Google Scholar search for "sex reassignment surgery" = 12,200 results;
  • Google Scholar search for "gender confirmation surgery" = 1,180 results.

  Using searches like this is fraught with potential pitfalls, but those above should be reproducible by others by using a browser that they've never signed in to. I'm wiling to AGF the original poster as being simply mistaken, but if they are unable to quote the numbers they are getting and the method they are using, I'm afraid that their conclusions carry no weight. --RexxS (talk) 02:47, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

• Mild oppose for now. It's hard to argue with the raw numbers: the term "sex reassignment surgery" seems to dominate in scientific papers. In addition, the latest Standards of Care from the World Professional Association of Transgender Health uses "sex reassignment surgery" as the primary term [14]. So does the latest GLAAD Media Guide [15].

This is only a "mild" oppose for a couple reasons: 1. Looking at the sites of the health providers who actually perform these surgeries, they tend to describe them as "affirming"/"confirmation"/etc surgeries rather than "reassignment" surgeries. See: Johns Hopkins, American Society of Plastic Surgeons, Michigan Medicine, UCSF, Boston Children's Hospital, UChicago Medicine, UCLA, UI Health, NYU Lagone Health etc. 2. As I noted below, "sex reassignment surgery" might imply a narrower range of surgeries than "gender confirmation" or "gender-affirming" surgery. WanderingWanda (talk) 05:22, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

right, its clearly the medical term. and the google quote search results show its the most common name too. but if the wikipedia rules for article titles are solely based on google scholar and pubmed results then I guess well have to wait for those results to match the medical term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Powelto42171 (talk • contribs) 00:03, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Wrong. It clearly isn't the medical term. The Google and Google Scholar as well as the PubMed search results show it's the less common name. The Wikipedia policy – not rules – for article titles states

The article title should be the scientific or recognised medical name that is most commonly used in recent, high-quality, English-language medical sources

Unlike the rest of the contributors here, you've provided absolutely no evidence for your incorrect assertion that the current title is not the "most commonly used in recent, high-quality, English-language medical sources". I guess you'll just have to wait for your preferred choice to become that. If it does, you'll get my support for the move, but not before. --RexxS (talk) 01:51, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

i never said that. if youre still confused see wanderingwandas comment above. or mine from the 2 sections on this page. "Gender confirmation surgery" is the medical term, not "its the medical term according to wikipedia rules". Look at this post and "title change" post above.

It is the medical term according to the medical doctors and hospitals that actually perform the surgery. apparently, wikipedia rules say that google scholar and pubmed quotes search results determine article titles (not medical terms), which is fine if thats what the wikipedia rules are. but the actual medical term is defined by medical doctors and hospitals (see the links), which is "gender confirmation surgery". I don't know why you want to argue with surgeons and tell them theyve named their surgery incorrectly.

and it is also the most common term too, according to google quotes search which show the most results for "gender confirmation surgery"

but like i said since wikipedia rules say that article titles are based solely on search quote results from google scholar and pubmed, well just have to wait until the most results on these 2 sites come up for the medical term.

First: The only person here who is confused is you. Who says it's the medical term "according to the medical doctors and hospitals that actually perform the surgery"? You? That's not how Wikipedia works - we don't take the word of someone who comes in off the street and starts telling experienced editors how they should be writing articles. Work out how medical articles are written, based on the full range of reliable published medical sources – not a cherry-picked handful – and you might start to be taken seriously. The numbers for PubMed are above, and if you can be bothered to read them, you'll find them 10:1 in favour of the current title.

Secondly, we don't write articles for medical doctors and hospitals; we write them for the general reader. This is Wikipedia, not The Lancet.

Thirdly, only an illiterate would continue to try to peddle the patent nonsense that a Google search for the phrase "gender confirmation surgery" (662K results) has more ghits than a Google search for the phrase "sex reassignment surgery" (810K results).

Finally, nobody is arguing with surgeons. They are trying to sell their operations, and are entitled to used whatever prosaic terms they think will make them most attractive to their clients. There's no problem with that; the only problem occurs when somebody is gullible enough to ignore all the evidence and tries to push the marketing blurb onto everybody else. That's not going to happen here. --RexxS (talk) 19:51, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Ive stated this twice but I guess you’re still confused, so for the 3rd time: I guess since wikipedia rules say that article titles are based solely on search quote results from google scholar and pubmed, well just have to wait until the most results on these 2 sites come up for the medical term.

If I must spell it out for you: I am not trying to convince you to change the article title. I understand that Wikipedia rules don’t care about what the actual medical term is or what the most common name for general readers (see google search results that show more results for “gender confirmation surgery”). And agreed, you would not be able to edit for the Lancet.

See the links I posted and wanda posted (you should have looked at these already, you’re wasting everyones time). Gender confirmation surgery is the medical term according to the surgeons and hospitals that actually perform the surgery. But I guess because surgeons think "gender confirmation surgery" is the most appropriate term, while you (random sole non-surgeon/non-doctor) prefer the old term, then "they're just biased and want money".

Interesting how you initially deny that it is the medical term according to surgeons and hospitals, and then later acknowledge that "gender confirmation surgery" is the medical term, while trying to argue that surgeons just use the proper medical term to “sell the surgery”.

That is a wild conspiracy theory you’ve got there.

First, surgeons have patients, not clients. Second, surgeons do not name surgeries with “prose” or as “marketing blurbs”. This is just conspiracy theories and confirmation bias. Just baseless accusations against the entire medical community to avoid accepting that surgeons, medical doctors, and hospitals do not agree with you. Gender confirmation surgery is an established effective medical treatment for many patients with gender dysphoria and an important surgery for transgender patients. Its not some “product” pushed on “clients” for surgeons to make money. Medical doctors (across many different specialities) refer patients for the surgery, why do you think they would do that since they do not get paid for it? If you’re still confused, think about whether it is more likely that the entire medical community is biased and pushing surgeries on patients to make money, or you as a sole non-surgeon/non-medical doctor do not know better than the medical community, which has wholly embraced this medical procedure. Gender confirmation surgery is the medical term for the surgery because the purpose of this medical procedure is to confirm transgender patients gender.

At least you stopped arguing with surgeons and now at least acknowledge that "gender confirmation surgery" is the medical term, even if you (a non surgeon/non medical doctor) prefer the old terminology (for what Im sure are unbiased completely scientific reasons). Maybe if you read about the science of the procedure, of being transgender, and of why medical doctors (that are not paid for the surgery) prescribe this surgery to help their patients, you will stop relying on baseless accusations of widespread medical negligence (pushing what you imply are unnecessary surgeries onto "clients" to make money") to confirm your bias in favor of the old terminology.

And none of this matters because the medcial term and the most common term are irrelevant. As I've pointed out, the wikpedia rules say that article titles are based solely on search quote results from google scholar and pubmed.

So well just have to wait until the most results on these 2 sites come up for the medical term.

But I'm not going to waste any more time talking to you. If you want to learn about the medical procedures and medical terms, like gender confirmation surgery, see the medical doctors, surgeons, hospitals, and universities that actually perform the surgery and treat these patients.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Powelto42171 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

I've already told you quite clearly that Wikipedia articles are titled according this:

The article title should be the scientific or recognised medical name that is most commonly used in recent, high-quality, English-language medical sources

Are you incapable of reading or of following the link that I provided?

You need to stop trolling and get back under your bridge. " I am not trying to convince you to change the article title" - then why are you wasting everybody's time with a request to do just that? You have no idea what journals I have been published in, so you can quit your smug condescension. Here's a clue: only the Lancet editors edit for the Lancet; the rest of us just write the articles.

You posted half a dozen links to adverts from hospitals and news items, including one from Fox News, and you expect anyone to take you seriously? Give us all break from your ramblings and go find out what a reliable medical source is. Wanda's list of 9 was considerably better, but again consisted solely of US hospitals advertising their services to their clients. It's disappointing that you don't seem to understand what the phrase "recent, high-quality, English-language medical sources" actually means. Follow this link to get a list 691 reliable medical sources that use the term "sex reassignment surgery". How does your paltry list of 15 or so stack up against that? Let me give you a clue to help: read some of those articles; some of them actually also mention "gender confirmation surgery" and that's a genuine argument that carries weight in assessing the relative prevalence of the terms, although the former is still clearly in the majority.

I heard what you said about surgeons the first six times you made the claim. But Gender confirmation surgery is not the medical term according to "most commonly used in recent, high-quality, English-language medical sources." and that's what decides the result of your request to change the article's title.

It's interesting how your reading comprehension is so poor that you don't understand that a phrase can be a medical term without it being the most common medical term. Especially when it's been explained to you so many times.

You don't think that hospitals and surgeons in the USA sell products such as cosmetic, plastic and reconstructive surgery? You think they do it for free? Your link to UChicago Medicine should have shown you that these procedures take place in the same department.

Firstly, when you're electing to have treatment, there's no difference between a patient and a client. Secondly surgeons don't write websites. You're reading the carefully considered presentations of a marketing department, not what a group of surgeons have decided to call a procedure. That's a simple fact no matter how inconvenient you find it for your misguided attempts to impose your preference on the academic medical community whose journals we use to write Wikipedia articles. Sex reassignment surgery is a longer established and more commonly used term for "the treatment received by those patients with gender dysphoria and an important surgery for transgender patients". Ask yourself why some hospitals have felt the need to change their terminology. Fortunately, medical doctors are concerned about patient's well-being and will refer them for whatever treatment they consider best. GPs don't get paid for referring patients to an oncologist, but they still do it. So much for your argument. As you are clearly still unable to grasp the point, I'll make it clear: the systems and procedures involved in sex reassignment surgery are designed to be of greatest benefit to the patient who needs the treatment, regardless of cost (at least where I live). However, when institutions and practitioners enter a competitive market such as elective procedures, then the advertising department plays a major role, especially in the terminology. You've been reading too many adverts.

Now, if you want to be taken seriously, you'll have to drop these strawman arguments and address the real issues. The medical term most commonly used in quality literature is completely relevant. You come here demanding we change an article's title based on your faulty research of Google searches (see "title change ... "gender confirmation surgery" has the most results on google, and it is the actual medical term and then you change your mind and rail against searches. You want to strike that inaccurate "has the most results on google"? Or do you still believe 662K is bigger than 810K? You want to retract your "I am not trying to convince you to change the article title."? I'm glad you've decided to give up talking. You can then spend your time more productively reading the 691 published articles about sex reassignment surgery, and perhaps learn something, because you haven't managed to so far. --RexxS (talk) 01:23, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Gender confirmation surgery is the medical term according to medical doctors. as i keep explaining to you wikpedia rules determine wikpedia article titles. not medical terms. we dont care what your wikipedia rules are, we determine our medical terms independent of the secretaries editing wikipedia. that is why...try to read this part: the wikpedia rules say that article titles are based solely on search quote results from google scholar and pubmed. So well just have to wait until the most results on these 2 sites come up for the medical term.. I am not trying to change the article title. I just said that in the previous post, so in response you write multiple paragraphs arguing about what the article title should be and the wikpedia rules. We need to wait for those 2 sites results to come up to the medical term, those are the wikpedia rules. And I gave you the google search quote results already, read above if you forgot them and/or are confused once again.

so you do know where all the links wanda and I put up. and yet you still pretend not to see where I gave you the google search quote results, which show by far the most results for "gender confirmation surgery". every post you write is just wasting our time. you feign ignorance of counter evidence. and endlessly talk about wikpedia rules as if I care or they have any relevance to medical terms. I haven't tried to convince you of changing the article title once. I keep trying to explain to you the medical term, and you waste time talking about article titles and wikipedia rules. once again, i dont care about that. I am trying to tell you what the medical term for this surgery is according to the actual surgeons, doctors, hospitals, which is gender confirmation surgery.

I said the links from hospitals, surgeons, and medical doctors. Try to follow along bud. Its not "a group of surgeons". Its the official organization of the plastic surgeons in the country. Again you display your blatant ignorance of the medical field. Were not going to change our medical terms because some wikipedia editor wishes we would use an antiquated term.

"the advertising department". no. the surgeons orgnaizaion, the hospitals, the doctors are not an advertising department, nor do we name our surgeries based on your conspiracy theories about money. I'm not going to waste my time arguing medical terms with some non-doctor on wikipedia. you can learn our medical terms if you want, but they are what they are. if you don't like the medical terminology you can believe your baseless conspiracy theories.

and you completeley misunderstood the doctors are not paid for the referrals concept. but I think at this point it is clear you just dont want to understand. "surgeons don't write websites". really? brilliant. you think we just say "hey webmaster and "advertising department", make up medical terms and put them on our site." no. the link you listed and the many that wanda and I posted are from hospitals, surgeons and doctors, and have the official medical terms for the surgeries we offer. the sites can advertise with the medical terminology, but they can not change our medical terminology for "advertising". you can continue to refuse to use the medical terminology, but medical doctors use gender confirmation surgery as your own link shows.

"Firstly, when you're electing to have treatment, there's no difference between a patient and a client." spoken like a true non-doctor. no doctor would ever call their patients, "clients". its just disrespectful. if you cant do medicine just stick to editing the wikpedia articles for the medicine we do. this is why you say ignorant thinks like gender confirmation surgery is "elective" for people with gender dysphoria, trying to imply that it is just some random business transaction. i can't even tell how much of your posts are trolling vs complete ignorance about medicine. elective just means its not an emergency sugery. gender confirmation surgery is a core component of the established medical treatement for many patients with gender dysphoria. it is not a simple cosmetic procedure like you keep desperately trying to imply. when youre trying to learn about medicine, remember that wikipedia rules are irrelevant to medicine. wikipedia rules do not determine medical terms. medical doctors do. if youre still confused, that means that we do not ask google scholar or pubmed search results to tell us what the medical terms will be. we decide and google scholar and pubmed follow. then eventually when they catch up, wikipedia editors follow. if you have a question for a doctor about medicine, medical terms, etc just ask one of us. and you should stop with the confirmation bias, when medical doctors medical opinion is different from your wikipedia editor non-doctor non-medical opinion about medical terms, you should not turn away from medical information and into baseless theories about money and medical negligence.

back to you, please continue endlessly pontificating about arbitrary wikipedia rules as if they have any relevance to what is the medical terminology. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Powelto42171 (talk • contribs) 04:28, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

"I'm not going to waste any more time talking to you" – and yet that's exactly what you've done.

You don't get to decide what a medical term is. That's decided by what we find in reliable published medical sources. Quit reading adverts and start reading respectable journals.

"if you have a question for a doctor about medicine, medical terms, etc just ask one of us". I don't need to ask some anonymous troll about anything. You're clearly not a doctor – let's face it, you're not even competent to use a spell-checker, let alone anything more complex. Unlike you, I know how to find reliable sources to answer any question that arises, and nobody on Wikipedia is going to take your opinion over what the sources say.

"I said the links from hospitals, surgeons, and medical doctors. You think 15 examples of adverts and news stories that use your preferred phrase are more important that the 691 academic articles published in indexed journals that confirm the current title. How clueless can you get?

If you don't want to change the article title, I assume you are withdrawing this request. I'll close the discussion as "withdrawn by original poster" then. --RexxS (talk) 17:05, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

you dont get to decide medical terms. I actually do get to decide, as I said medical doctors, surgeons, and hospitals determine medical terms. after we decide medical terms, eventually google scholar and pubmed results catch up, then wikipedia editors like you follow and secretary our work to wikipedia. have fun with that bud. incorrect, what you find in google scholar and pubmed results determine wikipedia article titles according to wikipedia rules. that does not determine medical terms. as you can see by the links to our professional pages, we do not take into consideration wikpedia rules when we determine medical terms, like gender confimation surgery.

your blatant confimation bias in attemptting to demean surgeons, medical doctors, hospitals, and our professional organizations as "adverts" is transparent and a waste of time. a baseless claim that you didnt even try to support with evidence. but agreed, you do know how to follow wikpedia rules and do a google scholar and pubmed search result and routely copy it to the wikpedia aritcle title. at least talking to you wasn't a complete waste of time, you now understand what elective surgery means, how transgender patients with gender dysphoria are treated with medical treatments like gender confirmation surgery. if you have any more questions for a medical doctor about medical terms, etc just let me know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Powelto42171 (talk • contribs) 17:49, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose per Crossroads. Evidence presented for support is obviously bogus. --MarioGom (talk) 01:18, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Additional discussion

I think we need to talk about the article's scope and whether that affects the title. The article briefly covers facial feminization surgery, for example. Does that fall under "sex reassignment surgery"? Here is one recent bioethics study that draws a distinction between "gender reassignment surgery" and "facial feminization surgery" but seems to put them both under the umbrella term "gender-affirming surgery". Similarly, the American Society of Plastic Surgeons puts "Facial Feminization Surgery" along with "Top Surgery", "Bottom Surgery", etc, under "Gender Confirmation Surgeries" [16]. WanderingWanda (talk) 07:50, 5 January 2020 (UTC)

Hmm. Yeah. I'm not sure whether it's better encyclopedia writing to combine these topics as "trans surgery", as it were, (possibly under gender reassignment surgery which may be the most common of these terms that starts with "gender"), or to separate them as medically unrelated procedures. I would lean toward the latter, but of course use cross-references so that those reading this material from a socio-pyschological angle find what they're looking for, not just those looking from a medical surgery angle. PS: On the "many surgeons who perform these surgeries use 'gender confirmation/affirmation surgery'" notes (at least two editors above commented on this): That's what they're doing in Web materials and brochures, mostly aimed at the target audience for the surgeries (and families of those people). That's not what the bulk of the medical material says (the medical people clearly have two different registers of usage for different audiences), nor what most more mainstream sources say, so I still think this is at least a few years too soon as a move proposal.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  08:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC)

SMcCandlish, facial feminization surgery is an aspect of sex reassignment surgery and sex reassignment therapy. That's why we cover it in those articles. Getting this surgery is about changing a sex characteristic. "Gender reassignment surgery" is just an alternative name for "sex reassignment surgery" (like "gender assignment" is an alternative name for "sex assignment"), but it's less accurate in the case of sex reassignment surgery for reasons Pyxis Solitary mentioned above -- distinguishing sex and gender. Of course, gender can obviously also refer to one's gender identity and not everyone goes by the sex and gender distinction. But the fact that it can also apply to gender identity is another reason that "sex reassignment surgery" is more accurate since a lot of transgender people state that they aren't changing their gender/gender identity, but are rather altering their sex characteristics to align with their gender identity. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:49, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

for the next time a rename of this article is discussed

I suspect that one reason for the difficulty in showing that "gender confirmation" is preferable and more current terminology is that there is still a lack of consensus on gender confirmation vs gender affirmation, particularly in the USA. Within many informed (and non-transphobic) discussions, either of those terms tend to be treated as analagous (yeah, that's my opinion and/or original research, but note that I'm not putting in a WP:RM at this time, either). A trends search using the + operator (which acts like a Boolean OR for Google Trends, while a simple "OR" does not) shows the semantically similar terms "gender affirmation" and "gender confirmation", when considered together, are in real competition and show growing usage versus "sex reassignment".

Because these two terms are nearly interchangeable semantically and have very similar connotations, I think the best choice – when this article is renamed (and it will be, the question is when) – is to look at usage of them together to defeat the (now very dated) "sex reassignment" phrasing, and then choose between those two terms based on what medicine and culture are preferring between the two. I think it will be a long time coming if we wait for a single one of the pair to win out over both the old term and its own twin.

I would also politely ask that those who have a personal disdain for transgender people or their medical treatment simply not take part in the next renaming discussion, because some of the comments in the previous one reek of personal bias and a perhaps transphobic reticence to the use of current terminology.

-Dayv (talk) 14:44, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

• What you want to be done regarding moving this article is not how Wikipedia works.

And as for "because some of the comments in the previous one reek of personal bias and a perhaps transphobic reticence to the use of current terminology", I don't see that at all. I know that my commentary on the matter was not at all about a "personal bias and a perhaps transphobic reticence to the use of current terminology." Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:08, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

• Dayv, let's focus on the content, not the editors. Kaldari (talk) 17:45, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

• @Dayv:, I've demoted the section header you created for this section to an H3, so it becomes a subsection of the Rfc. The only effect this has, other than reducing the size of the font of the header, is that as part of the same section as the Rfc, it will get archived (or not) *with* the Rfc; so when someone looks for the Rfc, they will find your comments with it. If left as it was, they could be archived separately and harder to find. This change is technically a WP:TPO violation on my part, so feel free to revert if you preferred the section header the old way. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 18:01, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

• Just a note that, based on research I've conducted since the last move discussion, "gender affirming surgery" has become the most common term in the scientific literature. (Actually, mea culpa, I believe it's been more common since before the last RM. Which is to say that my !vote in that discussion was incorrect.) Still, I'd like to wait until WPATH's new Standards of Care are released before embarking on another RM. Supposedly that'll happen some time this year. WanderingWanda🐮👑 (talk) 05:50, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

• @WanderingWanda: WPATH has made the draft for SOC8 available for public comment at www.wpath.org/soc8 until 16 December 2021; the final version of SOC8 will be released in the following spring of 2022. Presumably the release date of the final version depends on the feedback the draft gets, so they've been vague about it. The chapter on surgery can found at [17] and uses "gender-affirming surgery". This could change in the final version, but if it does change I doubt it will be back to SRS. - Scyrme (talk) 17:43, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

• Regarding neutrality: I know this is an old discussion, but since it's likely it will be reopened eventually I wanted to point out that the terminology "sex/gender reassignment surgery" is not actually neutral, but in-fact reflects a particular point of view. It implies that sex/gender is determined by anatomical characteristics, that the purpose of the surgery is to alter ('reassign') a person's sex/gender by altering these characteristics, and that a transsexual/transgender person must undergo surgery to validate their identity. It should be obvious why this is not remotely neutral. This is not just a hypothetical reading as, in-fact, this biased framing has had been and continues to be used to defend real-world policy: look at any jurisdiction where only post-op transgender people have the right to change their legal records. I bring this up not as a case for "righting great wrongs" but to ensure that if this discussion is reopened that it is not misled by omission of these facts, particularly since in the previous discussion somehow someone still cited NPOV against the proposal to move this article as though the current terminology used in the article is more neutral simply because it is attested in more literature (according to search engine hits).

tl;dr: There may be valid Wiki-policy reasons to not move the article but neutrality is not one of them.

(To be clear I've use "sex/gender" above to cover both the current article title and the alternative given in the lead paragraph, not to conflate the two; the point stands regardless.) - Scyrme (talk) 00:34, 7 July 2021 (UTC)

Tripartite terminology, for next time

I missed the discussion unfortunately, and rather than risk missing it again or forgetting, I'll just put some thoughts here while they're fresh. One thing implied somewhat in the Rfc discussion but not specifically called out, is that terminology for some of these surgeries is not only a dual division of formality between a medical name and a popular name, but often (not always) a tripartite division including a distinction of formality and of register into: 1. medical name; 2. name understood by the public; 3. name used by those affected, but less understood or not understood by the public. Examples of this are:

Medical term	Lay term	In-group term
chondrolaryngoplasty	Adam's apple reduction[redirect] surgery	trache shave[redirect]
reduction mammoplasty[redirect]	breast reduction surgery	Top surgery[disambig] (for trans men)
augmentation mammoplasty[redirect]	breast augmentation surgery	Top surgery[disambig] (for trans women)

Terms in the first column arise from medical community jargon when talking amongst themselves and publishing, out of training, habit, and a need to be precise. Those in the second column arise out of a need to discuss things in plain English to or among non-specialists, as in heart attack^[redirect] instead of myocardial infarction. Those in the third column arise out of community and did not exist before there was a trans community. In-group terms such as top surgery can be non-specific, and refer to more than one surgical technique, as seen in the last two examples above.

As can be seen by the links, there's no consistency on whether the medical term or the popular one is used as the article title (although rarely the third) but that's probably okay, as it should be subject to WP:AT policy, which may not yield the same result in each case. Also, whereas the terms top surgery and bottom surgery have an obvious parallelism of term construction, there's little parallelism in their meaning. The former, given a target sex, imply a single surgical procedure, whereas bottom surgery does not; in the context of trans women, for example, it corresponds to at least three surgical procedures: orchiectomy, penectomy, and vaginoplasty, and while orchiectomy has a lay equivalent there isn't the kind of tripartite division among these words as there is with the ones listed above.

In my view, Sex reassignment surgery is more of a group 2 term, and Gender con/af/firmation surgery is more of a group 3 term, and both of them are non-specific and refer to any of a number of surgical procedures that might be chosen in an individual case. That has no bearing on which term should be used for the article title, which should be based on WP:COMMONNAME, but it's something to keep in mind when discussing the issue here, or even in the terminology section of the article. I'm not actually trying to engage with this issue now since the Rfc is finished, but I just wanted to get it out there before I forget. Mathglot (talk) 22:53, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with this, I think that the context of the writing determines this to a great degree. I think the problem with your suggestion is that often a single term has to be used, and in that case the neutral term should be used not the 'affirming' term which is comparable to slang, 'gender reassignment' or 'sex reassignment' are obviously not bigoted but neither are they strictly scientific. A neutral POV should be neither expressly 'bigoted' nor should it be 'affirming'.LikkerdySplit (talk) 15:33, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

@LikkerdySplit:, only just now noticed your comment. Above, I haven't so much made a "suggestion", but rather, an observation which is intended more to arm people with a paradigm and perhaps some terminology that will enable everyone to discuss the issue better, no matter where they come down on preference for article title, or anything else. I have no preference among any of the terms above just because of what column they happen to lie in; rather, I think article titles should be chosen per WP:Article title policy, irrespective whether that ends up being something from column one, two, or three. Thanks for your comment. Mathglot (talk) 04:25, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

Gender confirmation surgery

Is there any reason why the article isn't called that, despite this being the official and most widely accepted name? 46.97.170.139 (talk) 09:42, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

IP, Wikipedia article names tend to change slowly (especially so in medical areas). To my knowledge, SRS is still the term used by major international organizations (e.g. WPATH) to describe the surgery in question. If and when that name is changed, I'm sure the article will follow promptly. If GCS is now the more widely adopted name by these organizations and I didn't realize, I'd be glad to help draft a discussion to move the page. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Join WP:FINANCE! 10:15, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

From memory the upcoming WPATH SoC 8 refers to it as "gender affirming surgery". Unfortunately I no longer have access to the draft chapters, and the final release seems to have been delayed.

A quick Google search of the terms shows 1.18 million results for "sex reassignment surgery", 990,000 results for "gender affirming surgery", and 223,000 results for "gender confirmation surgery. The larger number of results for SRS makes sense, as its been the common term for longer. Restricting the search to only results published between 1 January 2020 to present gives 52,200 for SRS, 50,900 for GAS, and 12,700 for GCS. I'd need more time to do a skim of the literature to figure out which is the more common term in recent research publications, but given the shift in WPATH terminology as well as the general Google results, I'd guess it's "gender affirming surgery". Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:22, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

Oh, one other quick comparison point; Google Ngram shows "gender confirmation surgery" as the most frequently used, overtaking "sex reassignment surgery" sometime in 2014 as the most frequently used term, following an exponential growth curve. While we do need to do a more through analysis to figure out which term to use, IP is right in pointing out that the article name is rather starkly out of date. Sideswipe9th (talk) 16:37, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

In reply to the anonymous ip, there were discussions to move it to that title in 2016 and 2020, and the proposal was rejected for various reasons both times. Those discussions are linked at the top of this talk page.

@Ixtal: I can confirm that "gender-affirming surgery" is the term used in the draft for the updated standards of care (SOC8) due to be finalised this year; it may change in the final version, depending on the feedback they received on the draft, but I doubt they will change it back to SRS. Regardless, until the final version is published SRS remains the "official" terminology used by the current standards of care (SOC7).

@WanderingWanda had planned to initiate a move discussion after the final version was published; I don't know if they still intend to do so, since this was decided in the most recent move discussion (pinned at the top of this talk page) before SOC8 was delayed. I would suggest waiting until SOC8 is published; I doubt they'll delay until 2023.

If any of you intend to initiate a move discussion before SOC8 is finalised, I would suggest requesting a move to "gender-affirming surgery". A discussion to move to that title has not been had at all whereas moving to "gender confirmation surgery" has been had twice already. Additionally, it was the term used in the draft of SOC8 so it's the best guess as to what will be in the final version, and "confirmation" has the same biased implications as "reassignment" (ie. that surgery is what validates your transition, and until you have had surgery your gender has not been reassigned/confirmed - such a point of view is not neutral; "gender-affirming" implies no such point of view). – Scyrme (talk) 19:25, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

WanderingWanda had planned to initiate a move discussion after the final version was published

That's still my plan. Admittedly this is a somewhat arbitrary milestone, and you could make the case for moving it right now. "Gender-affirming surgery" is the correct title per WP:MEDTITLE as of now. WanderingWanda🐮👑 (talk) 01:48, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Looking briefly over the arguments from the past discussions, I suspect a move request would have a stronger argument in favour after the SoC is released should it continue to use "gender-affirming surgery". As it stands right now, I suspect most arguments would be in favour of "gender confirmation surgery" per some variation of the Ngram search I linked previously. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:15, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

We need to keep in mind WP:MEDTITLE, which states, The article title should be the scientific or recognised medical name that is most commonly used in recent, high-quality, English-language medical sources, rather than a lay term (unscientific or slang name). That restricts us to medical sources. At the 2020 discussion, PubMed was searched, and the most recent years specifically searchable still heavily favored SRS. It isn't impossible that something changed in the last few years, but this is something to keep in mind when considering this. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:44, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Just done a PubMed search based on paper titles published after 1 January 2020:

• Sex reassignment surgery - 8 results
• Gender confirmation surgery - 11 results
• Gender affirming surgery - 72 results.

For comparison here's the same search but for papers published between 1 March 2016 and 4 January 2020. The dates between the first and second move request:

• Sex reassignment surgery - 31 results
• Gender confirmation surgery - 33 results
• Gender affirming surgery - 37 results

And because I can, here's the results between 8 September 2002, and 1 March 2016. The dates between the article creation and the first move request:

• Sex reassignment surgery - 69 results
• Gender confirmation surgery - 3 results
• Gender affirming surgery - 0 results

So, on a surface level it does look like per WP:MEDTITLE there has been a rather substantial shift in terminology in the last two years, and a rather monumental shift in the last twenty year.

Also I'd like to note that I restricted the search to titles because searching for the same phrase using the [Text Word] search modifier produced some very noisy and potentially false-positive results for "sex reassignment surgery". It may have done so for the other phrases as well, but it was particularly noticeable for that phrase, with two of the first three results [18], [19], using the phrase only in citations to other papers and one [20] not using the phrase at all. With a combined total of 512 sources across all three phrases when using that search modifier, I don't really fancy manually validating the result sets at this time. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:10, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

PubMed search results were, in fact, badly misinterpreted due to noise last time around. (A big issue is that PubMed puts all articles about trangender surgery under the category "sex reassignment surgery". The category was named many years ago, before the terminology shifted, and the authors of the papers have nothing to with this categorization.) WanderingWanda🐮👑 (talk) 14:31, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

Interesting. That would definitely track with the paper that does not contain the phrase "sex assignment surgery" appearing in the Text Word search for "sex assignment surgery". Is there a way to refine the PubMed advanced search so that it only checks whether the phrase appears in the paper title or paper body minus citations? I couldn't see an obvious way to do it from their query builder. Sideswipe9th (talk) 14:49, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

I believe the best thing to do is select "title/abstract". As near as I can tell, PubMed is not capable of searching the bodies of papers. WanderingWanda🐮👑 (talk) 16:30, 7 June 2022 (UTC)

...So it turns out that the Endocrine Society guidelines (the other major set of trans healthcare guidelines, apart from WPATH's) have been using "gender-affirming surgery" since 2017.[21] We really did bungle the last move request. WanderingWanda🐮👑 (talk) 21:01, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Annoying, but hopefully it can be fixed in the next one. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:24, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Peritoneal pull-through vaginoplasty

There is a newer technique called peritoneal pull-through vaginoplasty that isn't mentioned in the article. It's lower risk than sigmoid colon, but otherwise has most of the same benefits. 72.69.118.173 (talk) 11:38, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

QoL/Psychosocial sections and WP:MEDRS

I imagine this comes through in my edit summaries, but I was rather shocked to discover just how much the Quality of life and Psychological/social sections relied on primary studies without any secondary sources, making generalized statements about all SRS patients, in the encyclopedia's voice, sometimes based on a single study of 20 people—and, worse, synthesizing these already not-very-reliable sources to make even broader statements. (Also in one case literally citing a random opinion piece.)

I've removed a lot. And added a bit, pulling some meta-analyses to the top. I didn't want to outright remove all of the studies, so for many I just reduced them to a plain statement of their findings, as allowed by MEDRS. The result is that the section doesn't look very pretty now, a lot of "X et al."s. All of these studies should either be paired with a secondary source establishing their relevance, or removed. And in either eventuality the section should be expanded back out using not a bunch of cherry-picked studies, but reviews and meta-analyses. The three I encountered while doing this, and put in the first paragraph, are from '98, '09, and '10. I'm sure there are more recent ones out there.

(Also should QoL really be a separate subsection? It overlaps quite heavily.) -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she|they|xe) 10:06, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

SOC8 has been published

@WanderingWanda, Sideswipe9th, and Ixtal: The final version of WPATH's Standards of Care 8 has been published. The document refers to "gender-affirming" surgery, procedures, treatment, care, therapy, etc. consistently throughout the document. It also refers to "gender-affirmation surgery" and lists this term in the glossary ('appendix B'); "gender-affirmation" always precedes surgery/surgeries in the text, although "gender-affirming" surgery/surgeries is used more often. However, the glossary also lists "gender-affirmation" by itself as a separate entry defined in a broader sense. "Confirmation" is not used by SOC8, although it appears in some of the literature referenced in SOC8.

Since the Endocrine Society and WPATH now evidently both favour "gender-affirming surgery", I would recommend requesting a move to that title; an "also called gender-affirmation surgery" can be listed in the lead section.

Any requested move should also apply to Sex reassignment surgery (female-to-male), Sex reassignment surgery (male-to-female), and Sex reassignment therapy; regarding the last, as noted earlier, WPATH's SOC8 consistently refers to "gender-affirming therapy". – Scyrme (talk) 11:50, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

If what you say is correct, I favor starting an RM discussion. — Ixtal ^{( T / C )} ⁂ Non nobis solum. 12:18, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

While I'd still like to hear from @WanderingWanda before proceeding, I'm satisfied that the bulk of current sources refer to it as gender-affirming surgery. Unless Wanda has any objections, I'd be happy to proceed to a RM, though we should do a little prep to demonstrate that the terminology has shifted in the last 5-10 years, to avoid a repeat of the previous RM per what I said previously on this back in June. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:03, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Beyond renaming the article, we should also look at using the new SoC to update our own content. There's a rather helpful table on page S136 of the document (PDF page 138) listing the various forms of gender-affirming surgical procedures, along with the expected variations. As the document is 260 pages in length, and there's content here that will be of note for many articles, it may take me some time before I've read it fully with regards to the content for this article. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:07, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

Agree it's time for an RM. I'm a little unsure about Sex reassignment surgery (female-to-male) and vice versa, since the "female-to-male" construction is falling out of fashion, and the parenthetical disambiguation is a bit clunky. Maybe Feminizing gender-affirming surgery and Masculinizing gender-affirming surgery, to match Feminizing hormone therapy and Masculinizing hormone therapy. WanderingWanda🐮👑 (talk) 00:06, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

SOC8 doesn't appear to use FTM and MTF at all, although they are used by some of the literature it references, however it does use "feminizing" and "masculinizing" in many instances. Although it usually uses them in relation to gender-affirming hormone therapy, it does also use them in relation to surgery. (eg. ... feminizing genital surgery was seen as easier and less side-effect prone than masculinizing surgery.) Using them would make the titles more consistent and predictable for readers looking for these topics, so it seems like a sensible suggestion to me.

I also checked the link you provided earlier; the Endocrine Society refers to "feminizing surgeries" and "masculinizing surgery", but it also uses "-to-" terminology. I'm pretty sure the Wikipedia guidelines prefer natural phrases to parentheses anyway, although I don't remember the shortcut to that guideline.

An alternative might be simply Feminizing surgery and Masculinizing surgery, since they are more concise and appear to be more common, although that may alter the scope of these articles. – Scyrme (talk) 14:18, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

although that may alter the scope of these articles Yeah, when I search for those terms I see articles about intersex surgery, such as this one on nonconsensual early childhood surgery. This is a subject that the "female-to-male" and "male-to-female" articles don't currently cover, although it is briefly covered in the main sex reassignment surgery article. WanderingWanda🐮👑 (talk) 19:56, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Might be best to deal with these as two pairs: start with Sex reassignment surgery and Sex reassignment therapy, and deal with FTM and MTF afterwards since the situation with them is more complicated.

I don't know if mentioning them as a side note in the move proposal is a good idea. It would to make it clear up front that we're already aware that this has implications for other articles and might avoid someone arguing against the move because it would the titles inconsistent, but it could also lead to things veering off-topic.

(To be clear, I don't plan on taking the lead in this process; I don't have much experience with move discussions. I'm just trying to be helpful.) – Scyrme (talk) 22:09, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

@Sideswipe9th and Ixtal: What do you two think? – Scyrme (talk) 18:17, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Yeah I think starting with Sex reassignment surgery and sex reassignment therapy makes sense, they are (relatively speaking) the simpler moves. Including a note in the rationale for the move, stating that updated names for the MTF/FTM suffixed articles are still being assessed, as some potential name replacements in-line with current medical usage alter the scope of the articles. Sideswipe9th (talk) 18:50, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

@WanderingWanda and Sideswipe9th: Been a while. Is the delay due to busy-ness, or are you waiting for Ixtal to reply? I don't think Ixtal is interested. – Scyrme (talk) 14:37, 23 October 2022 (UTC)

The former. But alright alright I'll do the thing, give me a bit. WanderingWanda🐮👑 (talk) 19:42, 26 October 2022 (UTC)