Talk:Sex reassignment

Dismbiguation

All right - looks like a low-key edit war is starting here. I would be willing to create a disambig page, but I'll need some help (consensus?) on the title of the disambig page and how to work it. I've started a draft with a working title here (rmv redlink - pg no more). Help me out. ZueJay (talk) 04:28, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Took action similar to that for Society Hill as discussed on Wikipedia talk:Disambiguation#Should this be disambiguated?. Feel free to tweak. ZueJay (talk) 06:00, 4 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for understanding. My internet access and time available was too limited to do so earlier this week. I further elaborated the article. alteripse 05:08, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's fine; I totally understand that the original intended definitions/uses/concepts of words morph over time, potentially leading to confusion.
If you could, however, take a look at the WP:DAB page on the general recommendations of how to start/write the disambig lists and reconsider your revisions, I'd appreciate it. What you've got, while way more informative (read: better) than what I had (I cheated by just copying and pasting the first sentence in each article), seems a bit much. Specifically I'm thinking of the guidelines here. Maybe the link to Sex assignment can come first then the underlying explanation can be bulletted in, like:

Sex assignment:
* sex reassignment of an infant or child by parents and doctors, usually because of fuller understanding of an intersex condition
* social reassignment of sex of an older child or adult who asserts a gender identity opposite to his/her biological and originally assigned sex

Thanks, ZueJay (talk) 06:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

PS - might want to consider checking the What links here and changing links you're sure of directly to the appropriate article. I checked it the other day and found a nearly equal number of links for the more general def (sex assignment) as the more specific Transexualism uses; subsequently, I changed a few. 06:36, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Version of dismbiguation

See the attempt I made at streamlining the sex assignment portion was rv'd - why? The recommendations regarding disambig pages indicate that the primary article (i.e. sex assignment) be listed first, then a descriptor. I thought the revision was justified, made it clearer - fewer words to sift through. These should actually not be complete sentences... ZueJay (talk) 19:06, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fewer words yes, but it seemed less clear to me. This is partly opinion, but I am especially interested in making sure that we distinguish the usage in transgender contexts, where reassignment comprises the whole therapeutic program, and infant intersex contexts, where we make a clear distinction between the act of changing assignment and the medical or therapeutic measures that may or may not be taken in consequence. In other words, in intersex management, we most definitely do not assume that "reassignment" automatically implies a specific surgery, but apparently in a transgender context that seems to be common, judging from the "low-key edit war" (see above) that preceded this disambiguation page. If it just a matter of wording preference, I am among the many editors who think your opinion about word choice (as opposed to fact, grammar, spelling correction) counts more in articles you wrote. alteripse 22:04, 30 March 2007 (UTC) Whoops, just recognized you had contributed to the first version of this article. I prefer the current version on grounds that clarity trumps concision, but not enough enough to continue to revert over it. alteripse 22:08, 30 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]