Jump to content

Talk:Sex reassignment therapy/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Reorg done, please help clear fallout

The reorg has been done! All the tidy neat sections are here!

Also here are a few new references, and i probably botched them, as CS1 is very complicated. And because of time limitations I just had to stop adding/changing things, concentrating on making the reorg itself work. AS a result, the "ethical/cultural/political" part is rather sparse at present - but at least it's here to add things from Hijra to details of insurance coverage, without cluttering up the medical parts.Ramendik (talk) 02:31, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I am removing some superfluous opinions scattered throughout the article and placing them here. Here are the things I've removed from the article to clean it up (click edit to see the text):

(opinionated text)

Also, I wonder if we can maintain this about intersex people. Perhaps a link to "sex assignment" (which deals more with intersex issues) at the bottom of the article would help (click edit to see text):

(text on intersex)

This should allow us to start fresher with the article. I will also archive the older comments here. --Beneficii (talk) 04:49, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
I think the part where people w/o transsexualism/GD avail of GRT should not be removed, as it is referenced (though some of it in the old "Brown 105" format) and factual. The part where ppl with other diseases seek it might not belong in Eligibility. The Iran part does because "eligibility" does not equal "eligibility in the West" (WP:WORLDVIEW). Won't put it back before getting your opinion though - I'd like to avoid WP:EW. Ramendik (talk) 13:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. I am in agreement. I'm not sure how to fit it into the article, though, so I leave that up to your judgment. Let's see what you do with it. :) --Beneficii (talk) 07:42, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Here's another. We may want to redo the way the citations are done as well for that Brown source:
While some feel that formal diagnosis helps to destigmatize transsexualism, others feel that it only adds stigma, essentially feeling that such a diagnosis is equivalent to saying something really is wrong with them. (Brown 105)
--Beneficii (talk) 05:24, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
In my opinion, you have removed too much from the article. A lot of this material, for example, would have fit well in a History section, which is an aspect of WP:MEDMOS and is permitted by WP:MEDRS. WP:MEDRS does not suggest that we can't use any single studies or primary studies at all. And the repeated bolding of "sex reassignment therapy" is out of hand; that should only be bolded once, per WP:MOSBOLD and MOS:BOLDTITLE. Flyer22 (talk) 06:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Information about Paul McHugh came back in the reorg, it's now in the ethical/cultural section as its primary notability is not medical. (It is a documented case of ethics-derived bias, and is usually cited by political opponents of treatment). As for a History section, it was raised before, the problem is that it might overlap with https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_reassignment_surgery#History , as before the development of synthetic hormones, surgery was the only way available. So the question is what to put in the History section apart from some older single studies. I actually feel such a section would be a good idea - just not sure how to populate it. Ramendik (talk) 12:46, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
A lot of the issues were with opinionated statements that were interspersed with factual statements in parts of the article that should have just been about the facts, like the issues of diagnosis and eligibility, and the various treatments. Opinions should be moved to their own area, but I wasn't sure where to immediately move them, so I hid them in this thread. What do you think should be done with them? Ramendik seems to have the right idea by looking at these issues in the social/ethical/political considerations section, so perhaps we should work on moving them there?
I could perhaps add back the 2010 Sweden study. Also, there was a couple of really old primary sources that didn't seem to be referenced in any of the reliable, recent medical secondary sources, so I thought that maintaining them in the article would violate WP:UNDUE and WP:MEDDATE and so removed them.
Glad to have you aboard. We can now work faster to improve this article on then have it reassessed on WikiProject Medicine, to move it beyond start class. --Beneficii (talk) 15:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Also, if you want to create a history section, then let's see what you come up with. Remember WP:BE_BOLD. --Beneficii (talk) 15:01, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
The WP:OVERLINKING is also a problem; Wikilinks should generally only appear once in an article, though WP:OVERLINKING makes a few exceptions. Flyer22 (talk) 06:04, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

considering removing broken/outdated and not verify tags

In light of the expansion, I am considering removing the broken/outdated and not verify tags. Please post here any specific objections to that (i.e. any citations you find that are broken or outdated or do not verify the text). --Beneficii (talk) 17:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Terrible article

This whole article is simply terrible and is clearly written from an advocacy position. Pretty much everything is bad here. Staring with the title. These procedures do not alter the "sex" of the people, instead they would call it "gender" not "sex." A sex change is not a real thing (at least in this point in medical science). This error is repeated again in the "Sex reassignment surgery" section. There's much more wrong with the article, but that's a start. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.136.200 (talk) 15:21, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Historical?

This kind of procedure (castration) has been performed on gender non conforming men for centuries typically against the will of the person. Shouldn't there be some mention of this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.136.200 (talk • contribs)

Why would it not be mentioned that similar procedures on gender nonconforming (gay) people have been performed for centuries? It's obviously relevant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.136.200 (talk) 19:02, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

broad clinical consensus

This is false and needs to be changed. "The review of more than 100 international medical studies of post-operative transsexuals by the University of Birmingham's aggressive research intelligence facility (Arif) found no robust scientific evidence that gender reassignment surgery is clinically effective. " http://www.theguardian.com/society/2004/jul/30/health.mentalhealth — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.207.136.200 (talk) 18:59, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I would advise against that, because the statement of the existence of a broad clinical consensus comes from a reliable secondary source, the American Psychiatric Association; Birmingham's study does not make mention of whether there is a consensus. Also, the same secondary source does mention that there are few robust scientific studies showing the effectiveness of sex reassignment, which is actually in agreement with the Birmingham study that you posted, but it also adds some context to the statement: Robust scientific studies on this issue would largely be impractical or unethical to carry out, so experts in the field must lean more on clinical experience. --Beneficii (talk) 01:15, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Paul R. McHugh and WP:LABEL?

I noticed this edit by Magnolia677 (talk · contribs) which was made to remove the note of Paul R. McHugh's religion, citing WP:LABEL. Reading that page I don't see how it's relevant, the full title is "contentious labels". Is saying that he's "a psychiatrist affiliated with the Roman Catholic Church" contentious? It seems very relevant here; the previous paragraph describes how the Catholic Church is morally opposed to sex reassignment. Describing him instead as "a well-known opponent of sex reassignment therapy" seems much more subjective and vague, which is exactly what WP:LABEL warns against. — Flower f5a9b8 03:26, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

The article in the New York Times which was cited in the article in no way links McHugh's opinions about sex reassignment surgery to his religious beliefs. McHugh was director of the Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Science at the Johns Hopkins University for 26 years. His reasons for opposing this surgery seem founded in empirical research. Unless you can find a reliable source stating that McHugh's opposition was based on his being a Catholic...then don't add just to demonize this person and make a sloppy point. Editors must maintain a neutral point of view. Magnolia677 (talk) 04:22, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

Expanding on the psychological treatment section

The section on psychological treatment currently reads:

According to the WPATH SOC v7, "Psychotherapy (individual, couple, family, or group) for purposes such as exploring gender identity, role, and expression; addressing the negative impact of gender dysphoria and stigma on mental health; alleviating internalized transphobia; enhancing social and peer support; improving body image; or promoting resilience" is a treatment option.

I added this, from the same version of the SoC (here's the context so you don't have to download the pdf):

It also states "Treatment aimed at trying to change a person’s gender identity and expression to become more congruent with sex assigned at birth has been attempted in the past without success (Gelder & Marks, 1969; Greenson, 1964), particularly in the long term (Cohen-Kettenis & Kuiper, 1984; Pauly, 1965). Such treatment is no longer considered ethical."

I was trying to expand on the section and the statement in the opening that "Treatment of gender dysphoria does not involve attempting to correct the patient's gender identity".

This was removed here. I took it to the user's talk page, but that was a mistake. Here's the conversation, which I was advised to copy across:

Hi, I just saw your revert of my edit here claiming that it's a 50 year old quote. That is not the case: it's from the SoC Version 7, the same version as the quote directly above it that I was expanding on. This version was published in 2012. The studies it cites are old, but clearly the organisation still considers them definitive.
I actually just typed out a comment questioning another of your edits, here. I'll keep this separate as these are two separate issues. — Flower f5a9b8 03:33, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
No matter how recent the source was, the quote you added is 50 years old. My grandpappy was buying his new Oldsmobile when your quote was written, and you want to add it to a current article about sex reassignment surgery? Get real. Magnolia677 (talk) 03:41, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for responding, I'm sure we can come to an understanding without this being adversarial. You can download WPATH's Standards of Care Version 7 if you want to verify the source of the quote for yourself. It - like the passage directly above it - comes from that version of the SoC, which had not been published prior to 2012. I don't understand what you mean when you say that the source is recent, but the quote isn't. I am quoting directly from the SoC, it is not a passage that the SoC has quoted (although I'm unsure how that would undermine it anyway). It is quite common for scientists to refer to older studies when writing about a topic, in cases where those studies were important and no studies since then have called their findings into question.
All I'm interested in is improving the article, and the article states very early on that "Treatment of gender dysphoria does not involve attempting to correct the patient's gender identity, but to help the patient adapt." I think many people will wonder why that is, why the section on psychological treatment does not discuss this. The quote I added explains why this is not viewed as a treatment option. If you think that this is not relevant information for the article that people would not be interested to know, then please let me know why. I can certainly see that I could be wrong along those lines and would be open to being convinced of it. However I do not think that the quote can be dismissed on the basis of its source, any more than the one directly above it which I was adding to. — Flower f5a9b8 18:21, 17 November 2015 (UTC)
I have no expertise on this subject, and no opinion about the scientific merit of the information you added. I'm concerned about the encyclopedic value of adding a review of 50 year-old literature. Magnolia677 (talk) 02:43, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
(talk page stalker) Just a thought, but perhaps you should both read WP:MEDRS. John from Idegon (talk) 04:02, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
"medical guidelines and position statements from... international expert bodies" is an exact description of the SoC. Later on it calls medical guidelines or institutional position papers "ideal sources". On the topic of older research it notes "an older primary source that is seminal, replicated, and often-cited may be mentioned in the main text in a context established by reviews", which seems to back up what I've been saying (Reimer certainly fits that description). Not really surprising - if the 50 year-old literature is good enough for WPATH to base their position on, why on earth would it not be good enough for us? Even if it wasn't, surely we could just remove the citations and quote their conclusions on the basis that they are an international expert body? — Flower f5a9b8 20:21, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
And you both need to take this to the article talk page. Wide review of editing is the most important tool in the proper interpretation of medical sources. I have no idea which of you is right and very little interest in finding out. Just trying to make sure we present the best information possible. Let some people who do know what they are talking about in on the discussion. Feel free to copy this discussion over to the article talk page. John from Idegon (talk) 20:57, 18 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the help, I'm fairly new to wiki editing (or at least I still feel constantly out of my depth) and I really appreciate getting pointers. I started this conversation here rather than on the talk page because I was already discussing an edit this user made there (I linked to it above) and I expected this issue to be a simple clarification. I really don't see how the source could be an issue when it's already used throughout the article on the exact same topic, but I'm very happy to leave the discussion to other people. I don't come to wikipedia to get my head bitten off. — Flower f5a9b8 00:24, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
I support adding the quote into the section. If current secondary sources quote it, and if indeed current secondary sources depend on it, then it belongs in the article. This is the correct interpretation of WP:MEDRS. Naturally, we should cite the secondary source, perhaps having the primary sources accompany it. --Beneficii (talk) 16:58, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
I think I see your error here:
It also states "Treatment aimed at trying to change a person’s gender identity and expression to become more congruent with sex assigned at birth has been attempted in the past without success (Gelder & Marks, 1969; Greenson, 1964), particularly in the long term (Cohen-Kettenis & Kuiper, 1984; Pauly, 1965). Such treatment is no longer considered ethical."[11]
If I were you, I'd take those citations in parentheses out and just quote directly from the WPATH standards. --Beneficii (talk) 00:23, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for helping with this. I guessed that WPATH's citations wouldn't be wanted in the article, but I wasn't sure how to format it. I tried to copy the existing formatting of the section I was adding to, but the part of the source used for the previous quote doesn't have citations so it's not directly comparable. I thought that leaving it unedited would be the best way to avoid accidentally breaking policy or causing misunderstandings, and that someone would reword it if it wasn't right.
I've been looking through policy some more though, and I think after going through WP:INTEXT and WP:QUOTE I could give it a go. From my understanding of them one large direct quote is really not ideal, so the current paragraph in that section could probably be reworked a bit too. If discussion ends up indicating that there isn't any problem with the source of my addition, I'll maybe see if I can rephrase the section when I edit it again. For the part I added, perhaps something like this would be better?
Using psychotherapy to change a person's gender identity and gender expression has been attempted in the past without success, particularly in the long term. WPATH states that "such treatment is no longer considered ethical."
— Flower f5a9b8 02:10, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
OK. There don't seem to be any objections. Go ahead and add it. --Beneficii (talk) 03:39, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Statement of opinion

This statement from the "Ethical, Political and Cultural" section strikes me as entirely opinion, especially as it is single sourced and goes against the grain of many other references in the article: "though few post-operative transsexuals believe that sexual reassignment surgery was a mistake for them". Memarshall (talk) 05:32, 29 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Sex reassignment therapy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:18, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Sex reassignment therapy. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:26, 12 December 2017 (UTC)

Common name for the "medical aspect of gender transitioning" is "Sex reassignment surgery"

See extreme variant in usage on google trends: [1]

In books:

  • "Sex reassignment surgery" gets "... 38,900 results" while
  • "Sex reassignment therapy" gets "... 2,560 results" with no inclusion of this term in the book titles.
"Sex+reassignment+surgery"&source=lnms&tbm=bks&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjypNrWl5XcAhWSOcAKHeo2Bj8Q_AUIECgB&biw=1278&bih=675
"Sex+reassignment+therapy"&source=lnms&tbm=bks&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiL69PimZXcAhWLA8AKHVbQAR8Q_AUIECgB&biw=1278&bih=675

I'd suggest that the article would better be titled: "Sex reassignment surgery" and that any relevant mention of "Sex reassignment therapy" might be made within the article text.

GregKaye 18:58, 10 July 2018 (UTC)

We already have a Sex reassignment surgery article. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 07:01, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:51, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Sex_reassignment_therapy/Archive_2&oldid=1082473791"