body.skin-vector-2022 .mw-parser-output .skiptotalk,body.mw-mf .mw-parser-output .skiptotalk{display:none}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a{display:block;text-align:center;font-style:italic;line-height:1.9}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::before,.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::after{content:"↓";font-size:larger;line-height:1.6;font-style:normal}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::before{float:left}.mw-parser-output .skiptotalk a::after{float:right}Skip to table of contents

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Corrected trends graph with no capitalization - they are much closer to one another here. Ian Furst (talk) 16:57, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ian Furst, and Google Trends still shows that "sex reassignment surgery" is significantly ahead. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:11, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
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)
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
"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)[reply]
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)[reply]


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" [15]. WanderingWanda (talk) 07:50, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
@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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Just done a PubMed search based on paper titles published after 1 January 2020:
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:
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:
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 [17], [18], using the phrase only in citations to other papers and one [19] 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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]

...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.[20] We really did bungle the last move request. WanderingWanda🐮👑 (talk) 21:01, 29 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

If what you say is correct, I favor starting an RM discussion. — Ixtal ( T / C ) ⁂ Non nobis solum. 12:18, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
@Sideswipe9th and Ixtal: What do you two think? – Scyrme (talk) 18:17, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
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)[reply]
@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)[reply]
The former. But alright alright I'll do the thing, give me a bit. WanderingWanda🐮👑 (talk) 19:42, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

Requested move 23 November 2022

Sex reassignment surgery → Gender-affirming surgery – For medicine-related articles, the article title should be the scientific or recognised medical name that is most commonly used in recent, high-quality, English-language medical sources, according to WP:MEDTITLE. WanderingWanda🐮👑 (talk) 07:56, 23 November 2022 (UTC) (Continued below)[reply]

For this article, the correct title isn't "sex reassignment surgery", which the Endocrine Society calls a previous term,[1] and GLAAD calls outdated.[2] It's gender-affirming surgery.

"Gender-affirming surgery" is used by...

PubMed search results
Year Proposed title:
Gender-affirming surgery		 Current title:
Sex reassignment surgery		 Gender-affirmation surgery Gender-confirming surgery Gender-confirmation surgery Gender reassignment surgery Transgender surgery Sex change surgery
2015 1 Yes 41 0 2 2 8 2 0
2016 5 Yes 40 2 4 7 9 5 0
2017 16 Yes 24 6 11 14 19 14 0
2018 Yes 28 23 14 11 18 16 15 0
2019 Yes 56 28 32 11 18 13 10 1
2020 Yes 72 19 23 5 13 15 7 0
2021 Yes 106 28 46 6 13 12 11 0
2022 Yes 121 16 39 3 8 11 9 1
Google Scholar and the Directory of Open Access Journals also show "gender-affirming surgery" ahead of "sex reassignment surgery" in 2022 and 2021.[8]‖

The above evidence is overwhelming, but I can anticipate some objections and questions:

I think it's reasonably neutral. It just means surgery that matches, or affirms, a person's gender identity. Someone might disagree that surgery can affirm someone's gender. But someone might also disagree that surgery has anything to do with the "reassignment" of someone's sex. Perhaps, say, "transgender surgery" would feel more neutral. But it's not used in enough sources to make it a serious candidate.
I was misinterpreting PubMed search results. You can see where we went wrong if you go to PubMed.gov, type "sex reassignment surgery" into the search bar, change the display to "most recent", and click on some of the results. You'll see papers like this one, which uses the term "gender-affirming surgery".
...The issue here is PubMed's keyword system. Nearly all articles about transgender surgery are put in the category "sex reassignment surgery". As I wrote earlier: this category was named many years ago, before the terminology shifted, and the authors of the papers have nothing to [do] with this categorization. This means that a search for "sex reassignment surgery" will return nearly every single paper about trans surgery! To sidestep this, you need to go into the advanced search settings and limit your search to "title/abstract". (What about article bodies? PubMed unfortunately isn't able to search them.)[9][10]
Sure. But WP:MEDTITLE specifies we should be going by recent sources. Which makes sense: we shouldn't let Wikipedia fall years out-of-date.
I don't personally encounter either "gender-affirming surgery" or "sex reassignment surgery" much in casual conversation. For a medical topic, that's, I think, fine: take a look at Myocardial infarction.
The first should likely be merged with Transgender health care, and the other two should likely be moved to Masculinizing surgery and Feminizing surgery. But we can deal with those after this move request.

Just one more thing: this title change will also help clarify the scope of the article. The article covers everything from genital surgery to top surgery to face surgery. The term "gender-affirming surgery" is often used for all of these topics. Meanwhile, as author Julia Serano notes, the term "sex reassignment surgery" is most closely associated with surgeries that involve genital reconfiguration, as in many jurisdictions such procedures are required in order to have one’s legal sex officially reassigned (e.g., from male to female, or female to male).[11] There's even one source that draws a distinction between "reassignment surgery" and "facial feminization surgery", while putting both under the umbrella of "gender-affirming surgery".[12]

The sources and guidelines are clear: it's time to move this article.

^* The Endocrine Society's Guideline uses "gender-affirming surgery" 14 times, "gender-reassignment surgery" 3 times (including 1 time without the hyphen), "sexual reassignment surgery" twice, and "gender-affirmation surgery" 0 times. "Sex reassignment surgery" only appears once, and it's just to point out it is a former term. This count doesn't include the References section.

^† The WPATH Standards of Care uses "gender-affirmation surgery" 16 times, "gender-affirming surgery" 7 times, "gender-related surgery" 4 times, and "sex reassignment surgery" 0 times. Again, the References section wasn't included. Although "gender-affirmation surgery" is used most often in this source, this isn't true of sources overall.

^‡ I should note that the WP:MEDTITLE guideline specifically advises against "counting Google or PubMed results", so feel free to disregard this part of my analysis. I think such counts can be helpful, though, if done carefully.

^§ Both PubMed and Google Scholar seemingly disregard hyphens: "gender-affirming surgery and "gender affirming surgery" return the same number of results.

^‖ The Google Scholar results are admittedly closer and less clear-cut than the results from PubMed (or DOAJ). But Google Scholar isn't as good as PubMed, for our purposes, because their results are less likely to be high quality medical sources.

^¶ I'm placing a neutrally-worded notice about this to the following relevant places, per WP:APPNOTE: WP:WikiProject LGBT, Talk:Transgender, and WP:WikiProject Medicine.

References

  1. ^ a b Hembree, Wylie C.; et al. (2017-11-01). "Endocrine Treatment of Gender-Dysphoric/Gender-Incongruent Persons: An Endocrine Society* Clinical Practice Guideline". The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism. doi:10.1210/jc.2017-01658.
  2. ^ "GLAAD Media Reference Guide - Transgender Terms". GLAAD. 2022-02-22.
  3. ^ Oles, Norah; et al. (2022-01-01). "Gender Affirming Surgery: A Comprehensive, Systematic Review of All Peer-reviewed Literature and Methods of Assessing Patientcentered Outcomes (Part 1: Breast/Chest, Face, and Voice)". Annals of surgery. 275 (1): E52–E66. doi:10.1097/SLA.0000000000004728. ISSN 0003-4932. PMID 33443903.
  4. ^ Oles, Norah; et al. (2022-01-01). "Gender Affirming Surgery: A Comprehensive, Systematic Review of All Peer-reviewed Literature and Methods of Assessing Patient-centered Outcomes (Part 2: Genital Reconstruction)". Annals of surgery. 275 (1). doi:10.1097/SLA.0000000000004717. ISSN 1528-1140. PMID 34914663.
  5. ^ Lillemoe, Keith D. "Note from Editor-in-Chief to Annals of Surgery". journals.lww.com.
  6. ^ a b Schafer, Jason (2017-09-30). HIV Pharmacotherapy 2018: The Pharmacist’s Role in Care and Treatment. ASHP. ISBN 978-1-58528-578-5.
  7. ^ Coleman, E.; et al. (2022-08-19). "Standards of Care for the Health of Transgender and Gender Diverse People, Version 8". International Journal of Transgender Health. doi:10.1080/26895269.2022.2100644. PMC 9553112. PMID 36238954.
  8. ^ Google Scholar: 1, 2, 3, 4; DOAJ: 1, 2, 3, 4.
  9. ^ "Sex Reassignment Surgery - MeSH - NCBI". www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov.
  10. ^ "Introduction: What is MeSH?". www.nlm.nih.gov. Retrieved 2022-11-23.
  11. ^ Serano, Julia. "Julia Serano's trans, gender, sexuality, & activism glossary!". www.juliaserano.com.
  12. ^ Dubov, Alex; Fraenkel, Liana (December 2018). "Facial Feminization Surgery: The Ethics of Gatekeeping in Transgender Health". The American Journal of Bioethics: AJOB. 18 (12): 3–9. doi:10.1080/15265161.2018.1531159. ISSN 1536-0075. PMC 6549509. PMID 31159688.

WanderingWanda🐮👑 (talk) 07:56, 23 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Categories