Talk:Vaginoplasty

Attn: Admin RE: image license duplication

I have been imformed to paste this comment {{Edit protected}} regarding the image. Otto Placik (talk) 21:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

{{Edit proctected}} is for requesting edits to protected pages, which this is not. Algebraist 21:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Suporn technique

I've linked to suporn technique and redirected that to Suporn until it gets defined, and put a stub under his name. It's a bit confusing, because it doesn't mention him having any unique techniques. Does he do something different than the previous two? Tyciol 19:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Merges of content from Neovaginoplasty, Coloplasty and Penile inversion

I have merged the content from these three articles, and made each a redirect to Vaginoplasty. I don't see any need for four separate articles on the different forms of vaginoplasty. There is not enough information on each to constitute their own article. If each section becomes so large as to require its own article, that would be the appropriate time to break it out, not preemptively.

That said, help with cleaning up the References section would be useful. I removed the following sentence from the section now called Techniques for male-to-female transsexual patients:

(need ref. to Journal Urology articles from pubmed)

I'm not sure what is meant by this.

Also, the entire article is choppy and it would greatly benefit from the help of any knowledgeable person. I welcome polite suggestions and input on these changes. Joie de Vivre 17:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Dr.Chettawut Tulayaphanich and use of scrotal skin

Dr Chet in Thailand seems to use a method that is neither Penile inversion or colon vaginoplasty. He quotes from his site (http://www.chet-plasticsurgery.com) that he uses scrotal skin to line the neo-vagina while using the skin from the penis itself in the construction of labia. Is it just me getting confused here or is this really a different technique to those described? On his FAQ page he does say that it is not penile inversion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.189.66 (talk) 09:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I will leave it to someone else's expert hands to edit the Labioplasty section. The high point of the bias would have to be this part: "Many women are taught to dislike the large protuberant appearance of their labia minora. This may cause severe embarrassment with a sexual partner if the sexual partner is unused to the female genetalia outside of animated pornography."

Unclear picture

Sorry if this sounds stupid, but which panel is the "before" and which one the "after"? To my young male eyes the "left" panel is much more attractive, so if it depicts the situation "before labioplasty" I don't quite see the benefit of the surgical intervention. If on the contrary it's the "after labioplasty" situation, it seems illogical to present it first (based on LRTB writing). MCSmarties (talk) 20:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

The right is the after and I agree with you, the left is the more aesthetically pleasing.--Lakkasuo (talk) 20:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah. I was pondering the "before" picture and thinking, "Um, what's wrong with it, again??"Codenamemary (talk) 01:02, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Anonymous editor 70.142.40.28

Dear Anonymous editor Number 70.142.40.28:

Please contact me, and defend your censorship of a medical image. The weasel words "appears to be" ignore that the image denotes a type of vaginoplasty. Are you a physician? Let's correspond. Otto Placik (talk) 20:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)

BBC in paragraph 1?

The article mentions some cause of trauma to the vagina, including "BBC". I don't think they're referring to the british broadcasting corporation. Not good enough at wikipedia to tell if BBC was added as a prank or not. At a minimum BBC should be clarified if that's a real thing, if this is a black penis joke it should probably be removed.

Definition of vaginoplasty

This article is fuzzy and imprecise. It fails to define its terms. It includes surgical procedures that are not properly part of vaginoplasty. Here is the OED definition [1] of vaginoplasty:

n. Surg. repair, reconstruction, or creation of a vagina by plastic surgery; an instance of this.

According to the OED definition, vaginoplasty, therefore, does not include a labioplasty. This is because, by analogy to a vaginoplasty, labioplasty is surgery, repair, reconstruction or creation of the labia majora or labia minora, and the latter are not parts of the vagina. The image of the labioplasty, therefore, currently occupying a prominent position in the top right of this article has no place here. It needs to be removed.
1) "vagino-, comb. form." OED Online. Oxford University Press, December 2014. Web. 15 February 2015.
123.211.46.98 (talk) 04:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

We should be using Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) (WP:MEDRS)-compliant sources for this article, not dictionary sources (unless the dictionary sources are for an etymology section). Flyer22 (talk) 05:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Vaginoplasty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120609092150/http://www.centerforvaginalsurgery.com:80/nyclabiaplasty/vaginalrejuvenationnyc.htm to http://www.centerforvaginalsurgery.com/nyclabiaplasty/vaginalrejuvenationnyc.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:01, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

WP:Preserve

Barbara (WVS), do keep the WP:Preserve policy in mind when editing articles. If the content can be reliably sourced, then reliably source it. Don't simply remove content. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:13, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I've got a medical gynecological post graduate surgery textbook on my lap and fully intend to take your advice after trimming the refs. Best Regards,

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 22:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Barbara (WVS), okay. People don't consider the WP:Preserve policy enough. Even WP:Burden (another policy) states, "If you think the material is verifiable, you are encouraged to provide an inline citation yourself before considering whether to remove or tag it." This chunk you removed can be reliably sourced; well, a good deal of it anyway. That's why I restored this bit. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:19, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Your edit is perfectly fine for now but there is a better medical term for what you are referring to with better references that describe it. It will take me more than five minutes to address your concerns but the article will be better for it. Best Regards,

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 22:24, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

You mean better than "dilate the vagina" or "vaginal dilation"? It's usually referred to as vaginal dilation, so I think that term should be in the section in addition to whatever other term you add for the act. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:29, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

The medical refs that I am reading right now don't use the terms you mention-the terms are usually more specific than just "vagina dialation". Surgeons use terms like 'reconstruction', 'preservation', etc. Dilation is the end result.

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 22:48, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Barbara (WVS), we must not be talking about the same thing. Above, I noted that I took objection to your removal of this material. I stated that I restored the following bit: "One difference regarding vaginoplasty on trans women is the need to dilate the vagina." That is a vaginal dilation matter. It is not simply about reconstruction of the vagina; it is about maintaining the passage way of the constructed vagina. It is something that trans women who get this surgery must do. And right now, I see nothing in the article about that aspect of vaginoplasty. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:51, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

(Indentation for our convenience and clarity) There is no difference on the need for dilation for trans women or any other person who gets this surgery-dilation is part of the procedure, independent of how you define your sexuality. If you can find the MEDRS reference to support the statement, then by all means put it in. I haven't seen a reference on something that someone 'must do'. I've got one review article open, and two medical textbooks here on my dining room table. It strikes me as odd that you are telling me that unreferenced material must remain in the article even though I have the primo sources right in front of me and can't find what you tell me must exist. If the reference exists, then put it in! While I have your attention-the whole section called 'Criticism' does not follow the MOS for medical articles. Why don't you just help out instead of blessing me with your critiques? There are lots of wikilinks needed in this article and so you could start there-it would be a great example of two editors congenially collaborating on the improvement of the encyclopedia. Best Regards,

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 11:44, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Vaginoplasty covers a wide range of procedures, as the article shows. So it is incorrect to state that "There is no difference on the need for dilation for trans women or any other person who gets this surgery." Those who get the surgery to construct a vagina, meaning to create an entire vagina, need to dilate the vagina; this is because the vagina will begin to narrow and close, like a wound healing itself. As for you not finding material on what I mean, it seems you did not understand what I meant or did not look hard enough. It's right there on Google Books and Google Scholar for you to see. For example, this 2001 Transgender Care: Recommended Guidelines, Practical Information, and Personal Accounts source, from Temple University Press, page 239, states, "As postoperative healing progresses, contractures of the neo-vagina can occur. These are usually due to lack of diligent neo-vaginal dilation by the patient. It is difficult to understand why anyone would neglect to dilate on a regular basis when it is so vital to the outcome of their surgery, especially after they have come so far, but it does happen." This 2012 Handbook of LGBT-Affirmative Couple and Family Therapy source, from Routledge, page 307, states, "Van Trostenburg (2009) stresses the need to maintain dilation and hygiene for the newly created vagina and tissues left vulnerable to infections that may result from surgery. He further notes that transgender women and their male sexual partners have to be advised about vaginal intercourse, since the newly created vagina is physiologically different than a biological vagina." This 2013 (reprint) Current Concepts in Transgender Identity source, from Routledge, page 328, states, "Once the patient has been sent home, vaginal stenosis can and occasionally does happen if the patient does not fastidiously dilate the neovagina. The importance of frequent dilation cannot be stressed enough." This 2013 Transgender Emergence: Therapeutic Guidelines for Working with Gender-Variant People and Their Families source, from Routledge, page 361, states, "Vaginoplasty surgery increases the size of the vagina, though not without surgical complications, and often requires repeated dilation of the vaginal opening so that it remains open." This 2014 Trans Bodies, Trans Selves: A Resource for the Transgender Community source, from Oxford University Press, page 280, states, "The surgeon will also provide a set of vaginal dilators, used to maintain, lengthen, and stretch the size of the vagina. Dilators of increasing size are regularly inserted into the vagina at time intervals according to the surgeon's instructions. Dilation is required less often over time, but it may be recommended indefinitely." This 2016 Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Healthcare: A Clinical Guide to Preventive, Primary, and Specialist Care source, from Springer Publishers, page 71, states, "According to WPATH, male-to-female patients who have had vaginoplasty should be counseled on the need for vaginal dilation or penetrative intercourse to maintain vaginal depth and width." Various other sources state similarly. So when I stated to you that "this chunk you removed can be reliably sourced; well, a good deal of it anyway.", that is exactly what I meant. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Sex reassignment surgery heading and similar

With this edit, I changed the "Gender reassignment surgery" heading to "Sex reassignment surgery," along with corresponding text, per that being the WP:Common name of the procedure and the fact that sex characteristics are being altered, not gender. Barbara (WVS) reverted me, stating "my source calls the procedure gender reassignment; you don't have a source to support your edit. I suspect that you may be struggling with a POV." I changed the heading and corresponding text again, stating, "The only POV is that 'sex reassignment surgery' is the WP:Common name. We should be using the more common name, and we are allowed to do so."

Barbara (WVS), what POV do you suspect that I'm struggling with? "Sex reassignment surgery" is the more common name, which is why the title of its Wikipedia article still has that name, and we are therefore allowed to use it. There is no Wikipedia policy or guideline that states that we can't use the alternative, more common name in a case like this. I or you can ask at WP:Med for further input, if you feel we need outside opinions on this. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 21:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I maintain that the common name is Gender reassignment therapy from my brief survey of google, a pubmed search and a search through surgical textbooks on the topic. I've been reverted before over the term 'gender' vs. 'sex', though I don't maintain an index of little blue box links concerning the use of gender vs. sex from the past. Even the texts that are referenced above use the the term "Gender reassignment therapy". My sources are more recent than the ones you cite and I also maintain that the article with the same title is also probably mis-named though that it is not my editing concern at this time. I don't know what kind of POV you may be struggling with, but the consistency of changing 'gender' to 'sex' in your editing is familiar. I'm attempting to improve the article with accurate medical information with terminology that reflects current medical usage. As for being a common name, I have to disagree and a compromise would be to include the alternate name in the article.

Best Regards,

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 04:50, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Barbara (WVS), sex reassignment surgery (also known as gender reassignment surgery) and sex reassignment therapy (also known as gender reassignment therapy) are two different things. You are obviously free to maintain that gender reassignment surgery is a more common term than sex reassignment surgery (SRS) and that gender reassignment therapy is a more common term than sex reassignment therapy, but you are incorrect. Even the Google search for gender reassignment surgery has sex reassignment surgery at times leading in the terminology or otherwise thoroughly mixed in with the terminology. Same goes for the Google search on Google Books and the one on Google Scholar. Not only am I going by all of that, but by the fact that I am well-versed in the transgender literature; this is also how I knew what I was talking about when it came to our dispute in the #WP:Preserve section above. As for sources I cited in that section, those sources (such as this one) use the term sex reassignment surgery or similar (if any of them state gender reassignment surgery, that's understandable since it's an alternative name). And the years 2013 and 2014 are not long ago; I even cited a 2016 book. Furthermore, as has been explained to you before, newer is not always better; this is also made clear in the WP:MEDDATE section of the WP:MEDRS guideline. Newer also usually does not trump what is prevalent in the literature. The terms sex reassignment surgery and sex reassignment therapy are more prevalent in the literature than the terms gender reassignment surgery and gender reassignment therapy. This goes for the initialisms as well: "SRS" (an initialism for "sex reassignment surgery") is more common than "GRS" (an initialism "gender reassignment surgery"). As for your claim that I am consistent in changing "gender" to "sex," I only do that when sex is the more appropriate term. By this, I mean that I commonly adhere to the sex and gender distinction. So does Doc James. You are reverted on these matters because although the terms sex and gender are commonly used interchangeably, sex is more so a biological matter; it more so pertains to the sexual characteristics. Gender more so pertains to the social aspects. As for including alternative names in the article, if you mean the Vaginoplasty article, I don't mind the article stating "Sex reassignment surgery (also known as gender reassignment surgery)" and "Sex reassignment therapy (also known as gender reassignment therapy)."

I will contact WP:Med to weigh in on this dispute. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:22, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Contacted. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:45, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

At PubMed, I get 389 hits on the quoted phrase "sex reassignment surgery" and only 79 on "gender reassignment surgery". The MeSH term is "sex reassignment surgery". The WHO's website is similarly split in favor of "sex reassignment surgery".

Flyer's comment about changing aspects of biological sex rather than (social) gender are also relevant. Some advocates prefer the label "gender confirmation surgery" because their goal is the opposite of reassigning the gender. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:08, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

agree w/ WAID--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:50, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

(sorry, I easily get messed up on the indentation guidelines for talk pages) We can come to a consensus rather than a 'vote' by including both 'sex reassignment' and 'gender reassignment' in the article and this would make the article more comprehensive. As for the "sex reassignment therapy", that can also also be content sourced by MEDRS related to the counseling. Those who undergo vaginoplasty unrelated to male-to-female also receive counseling related to the surgical procedure. I haven't found any medical information on the the label "gender confirmation surgery" though, of course, I have not read any source. I have my doubts on getting 389 hits for review or meta analysis journal articles on "sex reassignment surgery" because I only got 13 returns for review journal articles within the past five years. I haven't been able to quantify the number of times these two terms appear in the medical texts that I have access to, so I can't give a count from them. ICD 9 and ICD 10 do not use the term. I'm guessing if you look for the term in some places you will find it. If you look for the term in MEDRS sources you don't find it so much. I don't like google books so much since self-published materials often appear in the searches there. As for a search for the terms on Google I have to confess that I don't use Google very often to find MEDRS sources. As for "advocates", I'm not sure that could be relevant since I am writing about a surgical procedure and not a social issue.

As for being "well-versed in the transgender literature", I don't believe that has relevance to writing about surgical procedures unless of course the information resides in MEDRS sources. As for the use of acronyms, so far I have not found it necessary since what ever term is going to end up being used in the article it may not appear enough times to warrant repitition. As for newer being better, a review article from 2016 is always going to be better than a review article from 1999. Please feel free to make further comments, but we should probably limit them to allow more time to add content-I don't enjoy using so much talk space when I could be adding content. Collaboration is welcome. I invite anyone to help make the article better with content and sources. The very best of regards,

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 11:17, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Barbara (WVS), I do not see the need to keep debating this either. I will state the following, though: "Well-versed in the transgender literature" is relevant when an editor who has more knowledge on the transgender literature is trying to inform another editor on aspects of that topic. There are a number of articles where editors who have more knowledge on a topic are able to help more or in ways that an editor who has less knowledge on the topic cannot. As for you stating "If you look for the term in MEDRS sources you don't find it so much.", that is incorrect...per my and WhatamIdoing's above arguments. As for you stating that you "don't like google books so much since self-published materials often appear in the searches there.", this is why one is supposed to check the quality of the books. Like WP:MEDRS states, "Ideal sources for such content include: review articles (especially systematic reviews) published in reputable medical journals; academic and professional books written by experts in the relevant fields and from respected publishers; and guidelines or position statements from national or international expert bodies." I have not cited one WP:Self-published book to you. The books I pointed you to are WP:MEDRS-compliant. A number of these books will also cover matters that may not be in a literature review, especially depending on what the literature review is about. These days, I usually do not have access to sources behind a paywall. And since most of what I want to source is covered by valid book sources, I usually do not need to seek sources behind a paywall. And I never indicated that a review article from 2016 is not always better than a review article from 1999, or anything similar to that. I do ask that you keep in mind what I stated to you in the #WP:Preserve section above, and in this section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 18:39, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I will keep it in mind. Best Regards, Barbara (WVS) (talk) 16:48, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Terminology problem?

This article defines sex reassignment surgery as an attempt to "create a vagina," while the sex reassignment surgery article defines it as "reshaping the male genitals into a form with the appearance of, and, as far as possible, the function of female genitalia." Does anyone have a source on the specific terminology? The things I can find aren't the best by wiki standards (there's a Dr. Chettawut, for example, who uses the term neo-vagina on his website). Certainly the latter definition is more accurate (the orifice created by SRS is not usually self-lubricating and will gradually close up over time without regular, life-long dialation), but I hesitate to change this without a source other than my own judgement.

Given that the SRS article is better sourced in general on this subject, it would seem best to use that terminology.

Pwoodfor (talk) 21:06, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

The neo- terms seem to be a trend. I've found several clinics using terms like neo-vagina or neo-clitoris in their websites and published papers. Pwoodfor (talk) 21:11, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

The Davydov procedure is also used in sex/gender reassignment surgery, this produces a self-lubricating vagina and the technique is currently performed at select clinics in Thailand, India, and the USA.

Editing comments

Vaginoplasty is reconstruction or construction surgery on the vagina. The correction of prolapse and other gyny problems have other surgical names. The suffix -plasty means reconstructive, not necessarily curative. Of course, during the course of a surgical procedure to treat a major problem like uterine prolapse or prolapse of the bladder, vaginoplasty can be the last step in more complicated operations. But vaginoplasty is not a treatment for pelvic organ prolapse. It doesn't matter how pretty you can make a vagina if your bladder is hanging out of it. Best Regards,

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 12:15, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Inappropriate presentation of primary research

I just changed the following text, inserted by @Barbara (WVS): in March 2016 in edit [1]:

The success of vaginoplasty to treat the virilization associated with congenital adrenal hyperplasiahas been investigated in Hong Kong. Those participating in the study evaluated the surgery as either good or satisfactory.

I have changed the text in edits [2] following a review of this primary research:

The success of vaginoplasty and other surgical measures to treat the virilization associated with congenital adrenal hyperplasia has been investigated in Hong Kong. A survey scored clitoral, labia and vaginal appearance, and necessity for surgical revision. The unnamed persons scoring the survey identified good outcomes in 12 of 23 patients, and satisfactory outcomes in 5.

The original text misrepresented the measures of success, and the survey participants. Framing the research as having participants implied that the persons treated evaluated outcomes. The persons who made the evaluation are not named but a structured evaluation of genital appearance and necessity for revision would imply that the research team conducted the evaluation. I am concerned that this research was presented in the original way by a visiting scholar. A related discussion of some inappropriate ways of measuring surgical outcomes can be found in Intersex medical interventions#Outcomes and evidence.

The research does not meet the standards WP:MEDRS and will probably merit removal, following discussion. Trankuility (talk) 00:48, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I went back to look at the article again. I have to agree that it is not a good MEDRS source. I was probably working too quickly and assumed that because the word 'review' was in the title, it was a review article. I'm not sure how much discussion needs to take place, but now that I've seen my error, I will go back and remove the content that was added based upon the source. OR, if I can recall that the information exists in another MEDR source, I will use that reference and retain the content. Best Regards,

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 11:26, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, @Barbara (WVS): I will replace the section with some more general references. This is a very contentious area of medicine due to human rights concerns with medical practice, and there appear to be no sound systematic reviews where surgeries take place on children. Trankuility (talk) 00:05, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I really could not agree with you more. This is not only a contentious subject, it is morally sensitive and in flux. Presenting the impassionate facts with impeccable references is something we (editors) are morally obligated to do. I normally avoid contention, but if you will be patient with me, we can show others what collaboration really means. I still want to thank you for pointing out my errors.

LOL! I just read what you said about a visiting scholar-too funny. The only difference between me and any other editor is that I asked for a University of Pittsburgh library card and got it. Best Regards,

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 00:22, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Contention is not avoided by uncritically adding primary research that does not acknowledge global concern. I have modified some WP:UNDUE sections of the page, adding material from a 2016 global update for pediatric medicine in this field. This is quote from that document: "Timing, choice of the individual and irreversibility of surgical procedures are sources of concerns. There is no evidence regarding the impact of surgically treated or non-treated DSDs during childhood for the individual, the parents, society or the risk of stigmatization." I have also added citations for human rights and children's rights concerns such as this. Trankuility (talk) 00:31, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Source removed. I think we may have an issue with WP:UNDUE. This surgery is primarily used to surgically reconstruct the appearance and function of the vagina in the older female population. Due to issues related to aging and menopause, organ and tissue prolapse, fistula formations and other needed treatments for the repairs, older women who come to read up on this procedure that their oncologist has just recommended might be a little confused about the rights of the intersex. I've read your edit history and have noted that your editing interests lie in the area of the intersex-ed. But this surgery to "treat"^[needlessly] ambiguous genitalia (I am agreeing with you on this...) simply cannot be that common due to the incidence of children born with chromosomal issues, or hormone deficiencies. Here is another way of putting it: 5000 babies a year are needlessly operated on (I am pulling this number our of thin air, btw) and 150,000 older women are treated with vaginoplasty every year. This doesn't even take into account the repair of obstetric fistulas which WHO has identified as a catastrophe in Sub-sahara Africa - perhaps more than a million women need this surgery. So you see, this is not really an article about the intersex-ed. It is an article about the surgery, who gets it, who doesn't get it, why don't they get it, geriatric gynecology, reproductive organ prolapse and the other issues related to the procedure. You could put in a whole section human rights issues that would be absolutely fasinating. You don't need MEDR citations for a section like that when you aren't describing clinical content. Are we on the same page? Best Regards,

Barbara (WVS) (talk) 00:53, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I didn't add the original WP:UNDUE, non-WP:MEDRS information, I seek to fix those and related WP:NPOV issues, but it is not ideal to pluck figures out of thin air in assessing the issues. At present, there is only one short sub-section on surgeries in children. It happens and is relevant to this article, I think it should be included. You adding the original primary research (and citing in 5 instances) indicates an omission that needs filling. Shuffling placement would be acceptable. Trankuility (talk) 01:29, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Though I did pull numbers out of thin air, I went to the website that lists the incidence of intersex occurrence and found the frequency to be low. I then went to the US census bureau website to find that there are over 400,000 women over the age of 50 at this time and the numbers will increase all the way to 2030. It would be original research to go into the incidence of vulvar and vaginal cancers in this population and subsequent reconstructive vaginoplasties. But you still got the point. I am not tempted to shuffle just yet. Best Regards,

Barbara (WVS) (talk)

Errors in labiaplasty section

I could have sworn I posted this earlier, but I must have typed it, and it got swallowed.

Please could someone with a track record on this article look at the section in question. There are multiple errors: the image, the sentence about vaginoplasty; the mention of menstruation. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 23:11, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

@Carbon Caryatid: I have modified this section, amongst others, because of my concerns about WP:UNDUE and WP:MEDRS. Trankuility (talk) 00:32, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 21:48, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

Clarification

The article states that "vaginoplasty is any surgical procedure that results in the construction or reconstruction of the vagina."

But "reconstruction" and "construction" are two totally different things, so that a "reconstructed vagina" and a "constructed vagina" are understood to be fundamentally different. A "reconstruction" requires an existent vagina, while a "construction" starts where there is no vagina, and so the surgeon is "constructing" one.

Another problem is that the term "vagina" is a misnomer, since it is not medically a vagina and has none of the physiology of an actual working vagina, and a more accurate name is needed, perhaps "trans vagina." For simple reference, a "reconstructed vagina" is understood to be an actual vagina that has undergone helpful surgery.

A "constructed vagina" is understood to be a surgeon's craft, and unable to menstruate and unable to facilitate fertilization and reproduction. The orgasm may somehow be a part of the fabrication, but is only part of what a real vagina does.

And God is said to make good vaginas, such that the surgeon's best attempts surely must fall short. He is either "creating" a vagina, or creating a "vagina." All of these things being given vague or unclear terminology and purpose makes the whole field out to be more pseudoscience than science.-ApexUnderground (talk) 06:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

Collapsed per WP:TPO and Wikipedia is not a forum. Mathglot (talk) 10:07, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

My comments were clear and editorial, having to do with the titles of linked articles used in the article. To collapse my text and call it a rant in violation of WINAF is a kind of censorship, and a pov way to handle someones valid use of talk pages in dealing with clarifies imprecise terminology in an article. -ApexUnderground (talk) 20:33, 1 July 2019 (UTC)

There's no call to express one's opinion of an editor's talk page contribution by collapsing it. Your opinion is noted. Two valid reasons for collapsing are if the comment is very long, or if it's an off-topic digression from the main thrust of a thread. Neither apply here. Comments which are vandalism, trolling, unrelated to the article subject, unintelligable, etc. are not collapsed but removed; that also doesn't apply here. Since the editor has objected, I undid the collapsing and recommend either addressing the editors points on the merits, or just ignoring them. Herostratus (talk) 03:20, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

@Herostratus: I reject your comments regarding the reasons for the original collapse and whether it was proper or not, but I edit-conflicted with you uncollapsing it, per the "objections" clause of TPO. Full details at your Talk page. Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 04:44, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Never mind, it's moot now. Struck comments by indef-blocked sock per WP:TPO. Mathglot (talk) 04:45, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Back to the merits...@ApexUnderground:, words are defined basically by consensus agreement on what they mean. Apparently, most people are OK with using the designation "vagina" for what you would (I guess) call an "artificially constructed vagina-like structure" or something. You personally not agreeing with most people doesn't really have anything to do with anything, sorry. There's no "right" or "wrong" about what a word means, generally. It means what people say it means.

The rest of the stuff regarding "construction" versus "reconstruction" and so on is, again, your own idiosyncratic personal take, I guess. What you would need it valid sources saying these things. Show some, and then we can talk. Herostratus (talk) 03:46, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Health Psychology

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 January 2024 and 14 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): SidaChu (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Lcortez26.

— Assignment last updated by FeliceRCLi (talk) 23:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

WikiEdu Evaluation & Edits

Hi folks! I evaluated this article for a class project in college. Below are some of my comments for the original article. I also had a shot at revamping the article's structure and improving its content with fresher insights and clearer articulations. You may take a look here: User:SidaChu/Vaginoplasty.

Lead section:

+ The lead has a clear and concise introductory sentence.

– However, it does not correspond well with the various sections of the article and includes information that is not present in the main article.

– It is excessively detailed on why vaginoplasty is needed, which I think could be put into a separate section on its own.

Content:

– The article glosses over vaginoplasty for gender-affirming purposes in the lead section and relegates it under "techniques," without contextual explanation for the need and usage of gender-affirming vaginoplasty in a coherent manner, hence leaving an equity gap in representation. It appears as if the writers have been consciously avoiding in-depth discussions of transgender patients: the history section makes no mention of trans identity even though all the figures it has listed are trans.

– The content is not quite up-to-date and does not reflect recent research and technical breakthroughs in vaginoplasty.

– There is no mention of the psychological reasons in seeking such surgery as well as the psychological effect of receiving the surgery. This is particularly striking in the sub-section about elective vaginoplasty, where it fails to adequately acknowledge the oppressive role of patriarchal norms and pornography in driving women to seek such risky procedures.

– The article does not talk about the benefits of vaginoplasty, which I believe is crucial especially for gender-diverse patients, but even for candidates in general there is only mention of risks and complications but not of the procedure's positive outcomes.

Tone and Balance:

+ The article generally maintains a matter-of-fact tone.

– However, it appears biased against people who do elective vaginoplasty without recognizing the root cause of their demand––women's body dysmorphia due to unrealistic social expectations.

Sources and References:

+ The article is generally backed up by peer-reviewed research.

– The references, however, can be quite dated, and the quality of sources on transgender people could be improved from the perspective of someone who has studied gender and sexuality more extensively in an academic setting.

Organization and Writing Quality:

– It is extremely poorly organized; information does not flow well from one section to another and is not ordered according to intuition, logic, or relative importance, which can confuse the reader.

– It's also full of grammatical and expression errors, resulting in a bumpy read.

Image and Media:

+ Relevant media is included.

– Images are not laid out in a visually appealing way, squeezing the words into narrow columns that are hard to read given the density of links and medical information.

Talk Page:

The talk page is sparsely populated and has not been active since 2019. Looking at the history bar, trans identity proves to be a point of controversy multiple times, as different editors go back and forth on terminology, inclusion of new material, and source eligibility.

Overall Impression:

The article does not appear well-developed and up-to-date on reflecting the state of vaginoplasty today. More information is needed to contextualize the procedure's usage, present its outcomes, and highlight its interplay with social, biological, and psychological factors.

Would love to hear your thoughts! So happy to contribute to this vibrant community.

SidaChu (talk) 07:57, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

Hello SidaChu, I'm glad you're giving this article so much attention! I've been putting off trying to improve this article for a while, and I think your list here is an accurate and comprehensive list of the current version's weaknesses. I took a look at the draft you linked and it looks like a big, big improvement on the current version. I am especially impressed how "whole" your draft feels, as all the parts feel well fleshed out and connected. I haven't looked closely at the sources, but if you're sure you're following WP:MEDRES I think you should put your new version in the "mainspace" article, where other editors can continue to refine the details. Thanks for your serious efforts here! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)

"Aftermath"

@Ambeskine: You introduced the word "aftermath" without an edit summary, and I justified my reversion with the edit summary non-neutral wording. After that, readding the phrase without an edit summary is inappropriate. Why do you think the word "aftermath", with strongly negative connotations, is an improvement over the previous word "results"? jlwoodwa (talk) 00:29, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

“Aftermath” is more encyclopedic, since it encompasses the complexity of the procedure. Ambeskine (talk) 00:34, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

According to wikt:aftermath, "aftermath" impl[ies] a preceding catastrophe. That's a value judgment, not a measure of complexity. jlwoodwa (talk) 00:59, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I concur with jwoodwa. The negative connotations of "aftermath" are so strong that honestly I think it could only be encyclopedically appropriate for an article about a war. Many complex processes have "results", so that justification is not compelling. I see no problem with the word "result" but it should only be replaced with a similarly neutral term like "outcome". ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:40, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

I think “outcome” is reasonable, as long as this or a similar graphic photograph is used. Are there other graphic photos available on commons to demonstrate the outcome of these surgeries? Ambeskine (talk) 04:09, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

@Ambeskine: That your edit does not violate WP:3RR is not a reason to make it. Please stop introducing unnecessarily negative connotations to a perfectly fine and neutral sentence. jlwoodwa (talk) 03:25, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

Clear NPOV violation, especially in light of their other recent edits. +1 to Jlwoodwa and LEvalyn. MaligneRange (talk) 04:29, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

@Ambeskine: You've now changed the word to "consequences". As that Wiktionary page states, the word "consequences" connotes an unwanted or unpleasant effect. Please stop changing this word to one with a negative connotation. jlwoodwa (talk) 04:38, 24 July 2024 (UTC)

@Ambeskine "Repercussions" is also an obviously negative word. At this point, it is challenging to interpret your edits in good faith, and no appropriate rationale has been provided for why the word "results" should even be changed. I think consensus is strongly against any change. Please do not attempt any other edits to this caption without first getting agreement here that your edit reflects WP:NPOV. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 20:48, 25 July 2024 (UTC)

They have since been blocked (with this "repercussion" edit as evidence), and proceeded to get their talk page access removed as well. jlwoodwa (talk) 22:32, 25 July 2024 (UTC)