Talk:Masculinizing surgery/Archive 1

Archive 1

Cancer Rates

Better defined: Ovarian cancer is essentially a mathematical impossibility since the population at risk (middle age and older transmen who are on HRT and who have retained their ovaries,) is simply too small for a disease with such a low prevalence even if the N of the study was 'every single person on the planet in this group.' With endometrial and cervical cancer its within the realm of epidemiological possibility, but I imagine with the amount of funding available to transgender research, that will finally be discovered just a few weeks before the eventual heat death of the universe. NickGorton 04:51, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

Graft

Curious, why don't they just use tissue removed from the breast since they're removing it anyway? Karmafist 05:32, 25 November 2005 (UTC)

Breast tissue is mainly fat and connctive tissue, not a good material to make a penis from. // habj (talk) 14:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Genital reassignment

The article does not mention how comparably poor the results of FTM genital reassignment is, compared to nature and to FTM genital reassignment. It says that phalloplasty is less close to replicating nature than metoidioplasty, and regarding physiology that is true of course. The clitoris is the corresponding body part to the penis, so it makes sense. However, phalloplasty probably yields more cosmetically "close to nature" results, regarding size etc. The section should be expanded. // habj (talk) 14:58, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Article appears to have been vandalized

FSBDavy (talk) 01:40, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

If you meant the edits by Fluke.magik (talk · contribs) that was not vandalism but good faith edits although violating No original research policy as can be evidenced quite simply by this edit in which the writer tries to reference himself! I restored a previous version. -- œ^™ 15:59, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Why the link to "Clitoridectomy"?

I didn't think clitoridectomy was a normal part of SRS for trans men. It certainly isn't part of any of the surgeries described in this article. Is that an appropriate link to have here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.216.65.237 (talk) 02:51, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Sex reassignment surgery which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 15:14, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Thyroid issues

I have hashimotos and I’m considering getting my thyroid removed, would this affect my plan to get sex reassignment surgery? I’ve looked around and can’t find the answer anywhere, please help me figure this out. AmericaTheFree (talk) 03:04, 20 November 2017 (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 21 September 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Inquiryucsff1, Dbazyani, Sunsetbagel3789. Peer reviewers: Singh.med.

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

Inaccurate and opinion-based information about phalloplasty

I recently removed several sentences from this article which are false or simply reflect the opinion of editors rather than factual information. Since this was quickly reverted, I wanted to outline my reasoning in more depth here so that this can be further discussed with other editors.

"Compared to metoidioplasty, phalloplasty provides a larger penis with a more satisfying cosmetic appearance". Obviously, saying that phallo is larger is true, but it is editorializing to say that is provides "a more satisfying cosmetic appearance." Some patients might be more satisfied with the cosmetic appearance of meta, and some might find both surgeries to provide equally satisfactory or equally unsatisfactory aesthetic results.

"many times the penis lacks the ability to achieve an erection" is an incomplete and misleading statement. Penises created by phalloplasty are unable to achieve erections in the same manner as a natal penis. This clause can be simply combined with the following sentence about penile implants to state that penile implants are a solution that allow phalloplasty recipients to achieve erections.

"and get more satisfying cosmetic results". See above for my reasoning of why this is inappropriate for Wikipedia.

"Sexual sensation is usually preserved to the base of the penis" is an incomplete and misleading statement. Sexual sensation in phalloplasty is a complex topic that is more appropriate for the full phalloplasty article, but the intensity and location of sexual sensation varies among phallo recipients. To imply that it is limited to the base of the phallus is incorrect, as many phallo recipients can achieve sensation throughout the entire phallus.

The current paragraph on phalloplasty contains several issues, and it is constructive to remove those sentences in order to correct these issues. I understand the concern that an edit that merely removes content might initially appear to violate the WP:PRESERVE policy. However, that policy states that imperfect information should be retained provided it meets the content policies of neutral POV, verifiability, and no original research. The information that should be removed from this article does not meet those content standards, as described above, and therefore it would be appropriate and constructive to edit this article to remove these sentences from this article. SpeechBudget (talk) 20:03, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

The concerns you raise here strike me as accurate and nuanced -- more nuanced than the way the article originally expressed this information after your removals. I've written an attempted "compromise" wording in the article: does the new version strike you as accurate and appropriate? I've left the "citation needed" tags; are there sources from the main phalloplasty article, maybe, that can be used to support these statements? I believe that they are true, but but they should also be verifiable. Thanks for your careful attention to this article. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 00:11, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Appreciate your feedback & collaboration! Yes, I think your re-write eloquently addresses my concerns. I'll work on hunting down citations later :) SpeechBudget (talk) 21:42, 29 January 2024 (UTC)