Talk:Feminizing surgery

Sources

"Regular application of estrogen into the vagina, for which there are several standard products, may help, but this must be calculated into total estrogen dose."

Can someone provide the source for this line? I think it might be factually incorrect and I'd like permission to remove it. I'd go as far as saying the whole article should be flagged because it has no sources.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.136.91.94 (talk) 13:22, 3 August 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 4 December 2024

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: moved. There is a clear consensus to move these articles to Feminizing surgery and Masculinizing surgery, respectively. (closed by non-admin page mover) Toadspike [Talk] 11:03, 12 December 2024 (UTC)

---

• Gender-affirming surgery (male-to-female) → Feminizing gender-affirming surgeryFeminizing gender-affirming surgery
• Gender-affirming surgery (female-to-male) → Masculinizing gender-affirming surgeryMasculinizing gender-affirming surgery

– Move these two articles to use WP:NATURAL disambiguation instead and updating to modern terminology used in WP:MEDRS in line with the sibling articles of Feminizing hormone therapy and Masculinizing hormone therapy per our policy of medical article titles WP:MEDTITLE. For reference, refer to modern medical sources Mayo clinic, Cleveland clinic, John's Hopkins all using this as terminology. Raladic (talk) 18:55, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Note: WikiProject Sexology and sexuality and WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies have been notified of this discussion. Raladic (talk) 18:58, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

• I'm surprised this discussion isn't garnering more of a response. I don't feel strongly, but I'd say the proposed move is fine. The rationale is compelling. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 18:54, 5 December 2024 (UTC)

  Agree that the rationale given for a move is compelling and like you I'm surprised that it didn't immediately gather more momentum, but it's a matter of where to and we seem to be making good progress now. Andrewa (talk) 20:34, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose Why is the "gender-affirming" still used if the sources you use simply use "feminizing surgery" and "masculinizing surgery"? I think either it should be kept as-is or the "gender-affirming" should be removed per WP:CONCISE, but that would require a new discussion. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 00:13, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  We could arguably drop the "gender-affirming" part in the middle per WP:CONSICE as you cited. I just kept the "gender-affirming" part in since the WP:BCA article for both together is Gender-affirming surgery.

  It doesn't require a new discussion if there's consensus here in the discussion to go with the alternative proposal, that's quite common.

  So I support your alternative suggestion to drop it to Feminizing surgery and Masculinizing surgery. We'll still have the redirects from the longer form titles in any case as alternatives.

  Pinging the other users who have voiced oppinions - @LEvalyn, @King of Hearts. Raladic (talk) 00:43, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  I’m OK with the proposed concise forms too (ie, feminizing surgery & masculinizing surgery). I also see no need to open some kind of new discussion while this one is open. ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:26, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

  Agree that these alternatives can and should be considered in this RM, see my !vote supporting them below. Andrewa (talk) 20:12, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

• Support removal of parenthetical disambiguation - the boundary between whether a term has multiple distinct meanings (e.g. Murder (United States law)) or whether a term has only one primary meaning that manifests itself in different ways (e.g. Murder in United States law) is somewhat hazy, but in this case I think it clearly falls in the latter camp. I am neutral on the specific terminology used, but will support anything non-parenthetical for the sake of consensus. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:16, 6 December 2024 (UTC)
• Support removal of parenthetical disambiguation per King of Hearts. Neutral on the particular terminology. Graham (talk) 07:00, 7 December 2024 (UTC)
• Move to Template:-r and Template:-r, both currently redirects created just a few days ago. These names are common, concise and unambiguous. Andrewa (talk) 20:07, 11 December 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.