Talk:Feminizing surgery

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 Feminizing surgery and Masculinizing surgery, 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.

Addition of new image; possible replacement of one currently present if needed.

Currently, the only images present in this article are unlabeled, and depict either non-standard vaginoplastic techniques, or now-outdated surgical aesthetic results. In an attempt to aid in this situation, I have made the following image and uploaded it to Wikimedia Commons. It is fully labeled and depicts a healed Penile-Inversion technique vaginoplasty with complete vulvoplasty in front view:

Link Here

I would like to include this image in section "Vaginoplasty."

As the article is medical in nature and due to the precarious population covered within, I believe it is important to have modern, informative inclusions.

Open to any and all dialogue, my only interest is in strengthening the article.

-Mary Botanicachan (talk) 21:22, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

I do like the idea of having a standing comparison image, however I think the image labeling needs workshopped a bit. Regardless, I don't think it's completely proper to replace a proper anatomic example with legs spread as well. Spread legs show complete anatomy of these type of genitals more comprehensively. Using the page for vulva as a starting point, I think both presentations would be helpful.

Ideally, I think it would be helpful to show healed examples of each major technique. Perhaps a gallery with a legend if it gets too cluttered. (Provided we can find high-quality examples). ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 23:30, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

"Using the page for vulva as a starting point, I think both presentations would be helpful."

This was actually my first idea, I will work on sourcing material for this. I was a bit rushed to get this out there, but hopefully within the next week or two I will have more complete and well made diagrams uploaded on Wikimedia. Thanks for the feedback. Will update this thread when new images are uploaded, they will all have open creative commons licensing. Botanicachan (talk) 23:49, 15 October 2025 (UTC)

Ah, are these images of yourself? ~Gwennie🐈｟💬 📋｠ 00:13, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Well, nobody else is gonna do it lol. I have a BS in the biological sciences so i'm used to making diagrams like this but it does feel a bit strange. I'm passionate about it so i'm willing to, there are little to no images online depicting what you were describing. Botanicachan (talk) 04:31, 16 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much for bringing more images to this article! It's a hard topic to get photos for, and therefore extremely valuable. I'd second the suggestion that a legs-spread view would be particularly useful. I'd also add that it's good to have versions both with and without labels, if possible, since then people can re-label the images with different languages, etc. Personally, as the one who asked a friend for photos of their penile inversion four years ago, I'd like to add more images to the article without necessarily replacing the existing ones, but a more up-to-date and common example should be the first one pictured in the article.

In the principle that Wikipedia is a work in progress, I'm going to add your front view image to the article now, and when new images are ready we can make further additions/replacements. Thank you again! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 18:57, 16 October 2025 (UTC)