Misplaced Pages

Talk:Gender-affirming surgery

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Sandra M. Lopes (talk | contribs) at 02:26, 20 March 2016 (→Name change to 'Gender confirmation surgery'). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 02:26, 20 March 2016 by Sandra M. Lopes (talk | contribs) (→Name change to 'Gender confirmation surgery')(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconLGBTQ+ studies
WikiProject iconThis article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Misplaced Pages. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies
WikiProject iconSexology and sexuality
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality
???This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconMedicine Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconWomen's Health
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's Health, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's Health on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HealthWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HealthTemplate:WikiProject Women's Healthwomen's health
???This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Archiving icon
Archives
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3
Archive 4

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

MTF / FTM

I was thinking that perhaps MTFs and FTMs should have separate sections since SRS has so many surrounding topics for FTMs. I know both consistently get lumped together, but realistically, the surgical techniques and standards for FTMs are unfortunately decades behind those for MTFs and this is both relevant here and a topic which needs greater attention. Agree/disagree? I would love to see some one with better firsthand knowledge do this, but I suppose I could try to do it if no one else stepped forward. Any thoughts? Paige

I don't think that's necessary, especially not if there is no extra large article about both directions. After all, one can safely assume that most people looking up SRS on Misplaced Pages are not particularly interested in the latest techniques, but want more of an overview. Also, since most people tend to think of transwomen only if they think about transgender, I fear that that would lead to people reading the transwomen article and then stop. Counter-productive from my point of view ;-)
Seperate articles would also, if they are done and IMO, make more sense if not lumped together in a transmen and a transwomen article, but seperated by procedure. After all, an article about hysterectomy is not just interesting for transgender people. Same goes for breast enlargement.

I disagree with transmen technique being so much behind. It is just a much more complicated thing to do - as doctors say, "It's easier to make a hole than to build a pole!". After all, remember, the transmen techniques have been developed to give cismen back theirs when they have lost it. You can safely assume therefore that just as much research is being done ;-p AlexR 09:07 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Hi Alex, what I meant was possibly cleaning up the current article, just so we're not switching back and forth between procedures so frequently, which I think would be confusing to the uninitiated, and then expanding. And as far as equal effort being put forth for transmen, I just really haven't seen that. I've always seen the good ol' boy medical profession (though there are exceptions) as not wanting to let anyone into their private little clubhouse. I think it's shameful the lack of consideration that FTM patients seem to be given. The only reason any significant effort has been put forth on surgical techniques is precisely for applications for cismen, which is part of why they have never been adequately adapted for SRS. (Do you think the disparity is due to the left-over "male privilege" from that little M on transwomen's birth certificates? That would be ironic...and sad.) I only said the procedures were decades behind, because they are historically. Back when Christine Jorgenson was making headlines, transmen weren't being taken seriously at all. In fact, until fairly recently, MTF were the only ones usually talked about, and transmen were treated as a footnote. I guess I just think it's something that needs to be talked about. I feel that as long as my brothers aren't being treated equally, then no transsexual is being treated fairly. I know it seems silly and even counterproductive to divide the sections in order for us to support each other, so what do you think? Any suggestions? If you think it's fine the way it is, that's okay too. Thanks, Paige
Hi Paige! I think the neglect transmen are given is due to a combination of factors. One is that "women" were not been taken so seriously, certainly. OTOH, their "aim" was seen as much more "unterstandable" by a predominantly male profession, so that in practice the rules were often less stricktly followed (especially the more stupid rules) at least here in Germany. And of course, because of that, and because we were less obvious and therefore less of a thread, many people were, until a few years ago, quite content with keeping transmen on the side line.
As far as the Article is concerned, I still think that seperate articles for every procedure would be the best way to go, with the main article only having a list with very short definitions. In the German article I also put transmen first, and then transwomen. After all, it's so often the other way round. It also has a list first, and then short explanations, because I had too much to do to write long articles about each. I am also not exactly a specialist for surgery, because I am quite content with my own top-surgery only. http://de.wikipedia.org/Geschlechtsangleichende_Operation AlexR 16:13 2 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Regarding Standards of Care
It would be nice if the article stayed that way with regard to SOCs, and not get changed back again to a US-centric view. In many European Countries, the HBIGDA-SOC are not the SOCs usually used, but local SOCs exist. The HBIGDA-SOC would be a real improvement there, believe me!
And I am thinking that maybe it would be a good idea to put SOCs into a seperate article altogether. It is not directly related to surgery, and a seperate article would also provide the opportunity to cover the different standards better.
AlexR 23:56 4 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Good idea. The part about who Harry Benjamin was and what the HBIGDA does doesn't really fit in this article. It would also be interesting to discuss the trends seen in recent revisions of the SOC. And as you say, in many European countries at least the official care providers have their own protocols that are way behind the HBIGDA SOCs. -- Kimiko 07:22 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Thanks, Alex and Kimiko. My only problem with that is that the Standards of Care is the proper name of a specific document, so changing that is kind of like saying "Other countries use their own version of the Magna Carta," or "Other religions have their own Ten Commandments," you know? A Google search returns only one other document using the term Standards of Care that deals with GID, and that it also from the US, by a group called the Health Law Project and was written for the express purpose of rebutting the HBIGDA document. Can you cite an example of another set of guidlines that uses this title? Also, it should be noted that standards of care (common noun) is a term used throughout the medical industry for all types of topics, with a special focus on Psychiatry. So perhaps this could be said in a different way, as the current edit offers readers no additional info, but simply removes clarity from the factual points. What do you think? (Also, I'm going to do an HBIGDA page, hopefully today, and I'll move most of it, but this still needs to be worked out first) Thanks, Paige 12:20 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)
You could use protocol (as I did above) to describe other standards than the HBIGDA SOCs. At least, that's what it is called in the Netherlands. Protocol can also refer to anything, just like standards of care (no caps). -- Kimiko 13:54 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Alex, would you agree with this solution? It sure seems like a good one to me. Please let us know what you think so I can set up the HBIGDA article and move some of this there, okay? Thanks, Paige 14:30 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)
The German Standards of Care are explicitly called "Standards of Care", and as far as I know, other some other European SOCs are also called SOCs. So I'd stick to SOC and call the HBIGDA-SOCs explicitly so. Also, I have encountered the term "Standards of Care" many times when other illnesses were the subject, hearth attacks, for example, or diabetes.
Do you want to set up an article specifically about the HBIGDA-SOCs? I'd call it "SOCs for transgender/transsexuals", leaving room for both SOCs about other illnesses in other articles and other SOCs than the HBIGDA for transgender/transsexuals in the same article. Since the Misplaced Pages is an international project, I think those other Standards would be best put together with the most influential ones.
AlexR 15:58 5 Jun 2003 (UTC)


Alex and Kimiko, if you have a chance, please check out the changes I made and the new Harry Benjamin International Gender Dysphoria Association article. Thanks, Paige 14:37 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Hm, I would have put the standards in a seperate article, not under the heading of the HBIGDA. The HBIGDA should explain only the HBIGDA; after all, the standards are not the only thing they do. And, on the other hand, an article about SOCs under that heading would have provided the opportunity saying something about other SOCs. Plus, the information that SOCs for other illnesses exist have nothing whatever to do with the HBIGDA.
Also, I am getting fairly annoyed that the paragraph about transgender people who opt for SRS is constantly edited out. Not only transsexuals have surgery, and not all those who have surgery are transsexuals. Editing this information out invaldidates other people's life -- mine, for example -- and is definitely a violation of the NPOV! -- AlexR 17:12 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)
No harm was meant. That line simply makes the article confusing. If on Misplaced Pages, "A transsexual is a person who establishes a permanent identity with the opposite gender to his or her birth sex," and SRS is "the surgical procedure by which a person's physical appearance and function is changed to that of the opposite sex," then how are non-TG readers supposed to understand a person seeking SRS who isn't a transsexual? It's confusing. Either one of those definitions needs to be changed or some explanation should be given. Your life and your TG-identification is a very specific circumstance which places you as a minority (post-op TG) within a minority (TG), which probably warrants an in-depth discussion, right? Personally, I would find it much more apealing if you wrote a full paragraph explaining that under whichever article you choose, SRS, TG or TS. Readers will probably be interested in hearing WHY some choose the indentifiers they choose, don't you think? However, as it stands now, it only reduces the clarity of the definitions. My revision wasn't intended to be POV, it was purely 100% editorial.
Can you please expound upon that line so it becomes clear to non-TG readers at least? (Please double check the grammar as well. Themself needs to be plural to match the number of persons and it would be preferable if the independent clause did not begin with also.)
As for the HBIGDA-SOC being placed under the HBIGDA article, it was simply for organization. The two terms a very much linked, and since no one has actually provided any facts on the other SOCs, there isn't enough detail for two separate articles yet. If you could please flesh out your criticism of my "US-centric" focus on the HBIGDA-SOC with some details about other guidlines, protocols or SOC's, instead of just knocking what I wrote, it would solve the problem.
I think the line about SRS patients calling themselves TG instead of TS as well as the edits you want about other SOC's are only modifiers of the existing information. Isn't it kind of counterproductive to add modifiers without explaining them or adding any new facts. We should be expanding these articles, not just watering them down. By adding the info you keep referring to, you'd be increasing the level of detail, which is the exact opposite of what's happening right now, I think. Either way, I'm done editing this one because I don't want to make people mad. Sorry. Paige 20:04 6 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Hi Paige! I don't think the line is confusing, and the difference between transsexuals and transgenders can easily be examined from the corrospondung articles. (Although the TS article could, IMO, use a bit of clean-up; maybe I'll do that sometime.) Anyway, my life and being post-op transgender is by no means a special case. Transmen who do not identify as transsexual and who had upper surgery are quite common, not only in Germany (and being a founder of the only German association of transmen, I know many), but also, from what I hear, in other countries, including the US. It is therefore extremely annoying if one keeps reading that surgery=transsexual equation, which simply isn't one. I also know it's more common among transwomen to make that equation, although, from what I can observe, it is by no means as widespread as it used to be. This is not just a modifier, either, but an essential information. And it needs not much further explanation, because, as I said, if people want to know the difference, the articles about TS and TG are only one click away.
As for the HBIGDA article, I think it was quite clear from the information already present in the debate that other SOCs exist. Therefore to write an article that makes it impossible to add this information where it belongs looks quite US-centric to me. And no other information about other SOCs were provided yet because it makes sense to write about the HBIGDA-SOCs first, since they are the most widespread ones, and they can very well be used as reference. And I have to admitt that I did not see the need to hurry with information about the German SOCs (which are the ones I know best) because the information is probably not all that relevant to English speaking users, mur merely interesting. The other reason why I only wanted to point out the differences, and for that the HBIGDA-SOCs needed to be written about first. Also, other standards are not only used in Germany, not even predominantly. In fact, the only country I know where the pure and plain HBIGDA-SOCs are used regulary are the USA, in all other countries I know the guidelines or local SOCs differ.
As for any grammar or spelling mistakes, I apologise. Not only is English not my first language, for some reason I usually write in the middle of the night.
-- AlexR 20:31 6 Jun 2003 (UTC) I forgot to add: It was not my intention to keep you or anybody from working at this articles. It is just that I have had the transsexual vs. transgender debate far, far too many times - without ever having seen the point in it in the first place. By now, that may make my reactions more brusque that necessary in that particular stuation. No offense was indented. AlexR 07:42 7 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I copied the discussion re: HBIGDA and SOCs to Talk:Harry Benjamin International Gender Dysphoria Association, which seemed to me a more appropriate place. Please continue over there. -- Kimiko 20:41 7 Jun 2003 (UTC)

I cleaned up the article a bit and removed several bits and pieces that have nothing to do with SRS, like style guides for pronouns, adopting or fostering children after changing gender, and the rather astonishing idea that harassment of trans-people is limited to those without proper paper and changed genitals. I will try to work the first two bits into the TS-article. AlexR 14:45 8 Jun 2003 (UTC)

Am I the only one who finds the term "Sexual Reassignment Surgery" to be odd? I'd always heard "SRS" rendered as "Sex Reassignment Surgery". After all, one does not have one's "sexual" reassigned (although I must admit that "gastric resection" and "arterial graft" follow the same grammatical pattern). And then there's the folks in Montreal who prefer "GRS".

Go figure. MaggieL 00:09 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)

That's the way I heard it too. For now, I've made a redirect from "Sex reassignment surgery" to here. -- Kimiko 07:41 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)
I think the adjectival form is used simply to avoid any confusion between a person's sex and sex the activity. Some people explain the use of GRS as being more inclusive (eg it would be applicable to intersexed people who were transitioning). However, I always felt like it was saying that while you're making the body match the gender, you'll never actually be that sex since you cannot reproduce. I don't really like the term GRS for that reason. Paige 13:50 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)
To me GRS means literally reassignment of gender. Since gender is in one's mind, personality and behavior, it can not be reassigned by surgery and GRS is an incorrect term. SRS is the correct term since it is actually one's sex (ie. genitals and/or other body parts) that is reassigned. -- Kimiko 22:38 22 Jun 2003 (UTC)

What about intersex surgery?

The articles about intersex persons, such as myself, only talk about what has been typically done to us, but it doesn't say a word about surgeries to help reverse prior surgeries. I'm mostly interested in how they would be able to turn the surgeries I have had into something managable for surgeries to do the opposite. For example, I was given surgeries to force me to be female, but I want to live as a man. I would also like to know if it's possible to get transplants for things like erectile tissue, from a donor, and whether or not it would function more naturally than the prosthetics. (by User:Stef M)

Well, basically, there is no difference there to any other SRS, the options are exactly the same, so I am not sure whether there is any need to mention that seperately. When it comes to bottom surgery, you have exactly the same options (if what was done to you produced basically a "normal" female anatomy, at least) as exists for every transman and in fact every cisman who lost his crown jewels. Those do not include any donor tissues, as there are far too many complications involved, particularly with tissue rejections. Check with the nearest transmen group, they will know what kind of surgery is available in your country and what to expect as a result.
PS, and do sign your edits on any discussion page, please. Just type -- ~~~~ at the end of a posting. -- AlexR 05:07, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
That may help some, but what was done to me rearranged things enough that typical trans surgery is not able to be performed without severing every single nerve I still have that's able to feel anything at all. I've been recently tranferred to UC San Fancisco for endocrinology, and my new endocrinologist wants me to do some research into what centers may be be able to help me. I also recently sent a letter to the Intersex Society of North America in search of information, but have not yet received any. Would you happen to know of any centers in the US that may be able to help me? And thank you, by the way. -- Stef M
Sorry, but I can't help you with US adresses, because I am from Germany. Regarding surgery, those are the basic procedures, and as far as I know, there are no others, or they are highly experimental, and therefore probably just as likely to damage nerve endings. I'd just try to talk to people doing that surgery, they are probably the only ones who can tell you what is possible in your particular case. Of course, if you are really messed up, there might currently be no option for any bottom surgery. I know that sounds tough, but a lot of transmen also do not opt for bottom surgery because they do not like the results. We might not have what we want, but those of us who do not opt for surgery at least right now do consider what we have better or at least safer than anything surgery might produce. I really do recomment vontacting a transmen group near you. Many have already seen intersex people, too. -- AlexR 09:45, 23 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Needing Info.

Hi everyone,

I am a college student at South Dakota State U., and I am doing a research/huamn anatomy/awareness paper on sexual reassignment. I ws wondering if anyone could lend me a helping hand. I am looking for reliable sources of information. I haven't found too much,yet, and I have sent out about 50+ emials with just a few responses. I am looking for surgical procedures with pictures along with any pathological porblems that may occur with these types of reassignments. I would really appreciate any help that any of you have to give. Thanks.

Matt Anderson

Name change to 'Gender confirmation surgery'

It might be relevant to consider changing the title of this article to 'Gender confirmation surgery' and changing 'Sex reassignment surgery' to redirect to this page.

There are several reasons for this, but the chief of these is that gender confirmation surgery can be more accurately described to be a collection of surgeries related to gender dysphoria, and not specifically the changing of primary sex characteristics such as genitalia. This article should encompass these surgeries more broadly, with more specific descriptions either contained within or linked out to other pages as necessary.

Thoughts?

Wispinn (talk) 04:14, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I totally agree. I actually searched today for 'Gender confirmation surgery', since I wanted to check on some details on colovaginoplasty, and was a bit surprised to see that the search term did not exist. Then I remembered that the page was very likely still under 'Sex reassignment surgery'. It makes at least some sense to redirect one term to the other. Note that the list of other surgeries (besides genitalia) is present on the two subpages, Sex_reassignment_surgery_(male-to-female) (under 'Other related procedures') and Sex_reassignment_surgery_(female-to-male). Sandra M. Lopes (talk) 02:22, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
Oh I see that the proposal was formally rejected. Bummer. At least it would make sense to redirect it the other way, i.e. Gender confirmation surgery → Sex reassignment surgery. Sandra M. Lopes (talk) 02:26, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Bibliography

List of relevant studies that may be added to the article

1. Physical consequences of sex reassignment surgery

De Cuypere, G., T'Sjoen, G., Beerten, R., Selvaggi, G., De Sutter, P., Hoebeke, P., et al. (2005). Sexual and physical health after sex reassignment surgery. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 34(6), 679-690. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10508-005-7926-5

Wierckx, K., Van Caenegem, E., Elaut, E., Dedecker, D., Van, d. P., Toye, K., et al. (2011). Quality of life and sexual health after sex reassignment surgery in transsexual men. Journal of Sexual Medicine, 8(12), 3379-3388. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1743-6109.2011.02348.x

2. Psychological consequences of sex reassignment surgery

Olsson, S., & Möller, A. (2006). Regret after sex reassignment surgery in a male-to-female transsexual: A long-term follow-up. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 35(4), 501-6. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10508-006-9040-8

Masumori, N. (2012). Status of sex reassignment surgery for gender identity disorder in japan. International Journal of Urology : Official Journal of the Japanese Urological Association, 19(5), 402-414. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1442-2042.2012.02975.x

(W62043 (talk) 16:04, 18 February 2016 (UTC))

Bibliolography

Follow up study

1) Dhejne, C., Lichtenstein, P., Boman, M., Johansson, A. L., Långström, N., & Landén, M. (2011). Long-term follow-up of transsexual persons undergoing sex reassignment surgery: cohort study in Sweden. PloS one, 6(2), e16885.

2) Hunt, D. D., & Hampson, J. L. (1980). Follow-up of 17 biologic male transsexuals after sex-reassignment surgery. The American journal of psychiatry.

Psunbf (talk) 00:53, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 1 March 2016

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. (non-admin closure)  — Amakuru (talk) 13:23, 9 March 2016 (UTC)


– The medical terminology has changed from "Sex Reassignment Surgery to Gender Confirmation Surgery Travis H. O. (talk) 14:59, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

References

  1. Schechter, M.D., F.A.C.S., Loren S. "'Gender Confirmation Surgery': What's in a Name?". Huffington Post. Huffington Post. Retrieved 1 March 2016.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
Also, The Huffington Post is not a WP:MEDRS-compliant source, and one surgeon's views do not trump what is prevalent in the medical literature. As for over-capitalization, editors can simply ignore that since it's against WP:Article titles. The closer of this discussion will most likely be aware of the inappropriateness of the capitalization. If not, they would be aware of it by statements in this section regarding it. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:33, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Barbara (WVS), I don't know where you are getting the idea that "gender reassignment surgery" is the more accepted term in the medical literature and that "sex reassignment surgery" is more so a matter of "popular literature," but I noted before that you are incorrect. It is incorrect to state that clinicians do not use the term sex reassignment surgery. WhatamIdoing also told you, "At PubMed, I get 389 hits on the quoted phrase 'sex reassignment surgery' and only 79 on 'gender reassignment surgery'. The MeSH term is 'sex reassignment surgery'. The WHO's website is similarly split in favor of 'sex reassignment surgery'. Some advocates prefer the label 'gender confirmation surgery' because their goal is the opposite of reassigning the gender." We were also clear about the sex and gender distinction. When sex is used in the case of "sex reassignment surgery," people know what it means; the sexual characteristics are being changed, not the gender, which is why sex is more accurate than gender when it comes to the "reassignment" aspect. And as the Gender article shows, gender means a lot of things as well. I really don't see what is left for me to state you on this topic. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 16:46, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
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.


Peer Review and Copy Edit

  1. The introduction to this article is clear and informative. It is easy to read and simple to understand which are both essential for Wiki introductions
  2. It may be wise to note that in the Differences between males and females section - that there are a few tagged articles that try to lead to pages that haven't been written yet e.g. Sigmoid Colon Neo Vagina and hair implants. I have removed the links and they are just words now. I would suggest that as there are not Wiki pages for these two topics that your article should provide a brief explanation of each.
  3. I like the fact that each topic is equally weighted on this article in comparison to its importance in the world. I would suggest however, that you expand the Future Advancements section to include a section of how this treatment can become more available to these individuals - and therefore improving the populations psychological well being.
  4. I would also suggest that the History of sex reassignment surgery should be at the beginning of the article and not at the end?? It makes more sense for this paragraph to 'set the scene' of the topic in general. By making the structure chronological we, the reader, would consider the article as having a strong structural flow making it easier to read.
  5. This is a really interesting topic - I think that when writing my own page I will definitely consider including a history section as your article has pointed out to me how important it is to consider the past research!

I have also done some minor editing regarding grammar and sentence structure - Lupet123 (talk) 11:42, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Peer review and copy edit for Physical consequences

Hi, this is a really interesting section to read, this section has a great potential in providing lots of intriguing information. I have copyedited this for you as I have found some minor mistakes. Below are some points that you may consider:

1. This section could have more internal wiki pages or external websites to other pages for the terms such as the face feminization surgery, this will save people's time if they want to look up these terms. (I have linked some of the pages for you already.)

2. It may be clearer if you separate transmen and transwomen into two subtopics.

3. More detail (studies) and references could be added, it might be useful to add more references just to demonstrate a wider range of evidence and research to provide a better understanding for lay readers. For physical health, you only include self-perceived health ratings, other measures are needed.

4. Might be better to separate the paragraph into two subheadings : Physical Health and Sexual Health.

5. Last two sentences of the last paragraph could be moved to Sexual Satisfaction." Comparing transsexual and biological individuals of the same gender, trans women had a similar sexual satisfaction with biological women, while trans men had a lower level of sexual satisfaction with biological men. For the sex satisfaction differences between trans men and trans women, trans men had a lower satisfaction in their sexual life than that of trans women." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suellen Kong (talk • contribs) 21:33, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review

Overall a well-written piece, I focused primarily on the Physical and Psychological Consequences sections, of which were informative and concise.

  • Not wanting to repeat, I do agree with previous reviews suggesting a separation between physical and sexual health for clarity - this would definitely allow readers to follow the information with ease and without confusion.
  • Further to the point above, may also consider implementing a further divide consisting of Gender Differences, again for clarity and structural flow.
  • It may be helpful to provide an introductory sentence under the Physical Consequences heading. Currently a description of a cross-sectional study introduces the concept. To do this, could perhaps give a brief description followed by examples of physical consequences that may occur.
  • In regards to references, I thought that the information provided was relevant and interesting, however more supporting references may be beneficial for readers.
  • The section titled At Birth could be taken further in terms of providing an example, or case study, and the result of a sex reassignment surgery taking place at birth.
  • I would also suggest linking other Wiki pages using key words, for readers wishing to delve deeper into the subject - I have made this edit when discussing Gender Dysphoria.

This is a really interesting topic, I have made a few minor edits, but definitely enjoyed reading the article. I hope my suggestions are helpful! Rtillman04 (talk) 14:06, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Peer Review - Human Sexuality Assignment

Overall, I think this article is a very interesting read, however I have a few comments to make:

1) In some paragraphs the sentences aren't always grammatically correct and having spelling mistakes, therefore it feels possibly a bit rushed in areas. (In terms of editing, I made some changes to grammar and spelling within the Physical & Psychological consequences, in an attempt to make them flow slightly better.)

2) The History section is really interesting, as it gives people a background context for the rest of the information, however it may be better if the history section was placed near the start so that the article was read in a kind of chronological order.

3) The 'At Birth' section is very short and lacking information. Therefore this would be a good area to expand on, and maybe even expand on what 'intersex' at birth means.

4) It may also be interesting to include a section about the other things that go on alongside sex reassignment surgery, such as the hormone therapy that is undergone by a lot of people who have sexual reassignment.

Belieber1995 (talk) 20:04, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Categories:
Talk:Gender-affirming surgery Add topic