Talk:Gender-affirming surgery

Ostow 1953

“The use of surgery to minimize the difference between a patient's appearance and the appearance for which he has a neurotic craving is a novel suggestion” (Ostow 1953). ~2026-37639-53 (talk) 13:28, 9 July 2026 (UTC)

Nullification of Non Binary individuals with sources in a Body Modification article

Hello. I unfortunately don't have access to the source material mentioned related to Nullification surgery for Non Binary individuals (born with penis or clitoris, both are mentioned), but I did find it quite offensive that this information is mixed in an article about "Body Modification", as broad as genital piercings to FGM, yet not here. So I brought you the direct link (I know it says "emasculation" but it does have a little information of what the article refers as "nullo"(?).) I hope it helps to increase the very little information regarding gender affirming surgeries for Non Binary individuals. Thank you very much! 186.34.109.70 (talk) 04:40, 31 July 2024 (UTC)

indeed this has to be moved to Genital Mutilation section, 'body modification' is too vague of a term and implies these procedures are harmless as tattoo or piercings. 98.37.197.117 (talk) 10:20, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

I assume the section being discussed is Genital modification and mutilation § Emasculation, as Body modification does not currently mention this topic (though maybe it was moved in the last year).

In this context, nullification or "non-binary bottom surgery" (per Vox) refers to a simultaneous penectomy and orchidectomy. Presumably this would carry the same level of risk (if not lower) as a typical feminizing bottom surgery, just without the vaginoplasty. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 12:02, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

I agree that it's harmful to refer to trans care (medical, consensual) and alongside "mutilation" is harmful, given that this is often used as anti-trans rhetoric. In general the article Genital modification and mutilation has a tone issue, as mutilation is a highly value-laden term for procedures in some circumstances may be performed consensually and with little risk under the care of a licensed surgeon. –RoxySaunders 🏳️‍⚧️ (talk • stalk) 11:57, 17 July 2025 (UTC)

Aesthetic surgery for unisex Vs Functional reproductive for intersex

The page leads with aesthetic, appearance and resemblance, which only applies to non-intersex people, very rarely referred to as unisex, monosex?

It could be sensitivly written for distinction and clarity, as some intersex people may retain their new gender type of fully "functional" genitalia after surgery, in that egg, sperm production or childbearing is possible, where as for monosex often choose sterility, "non functional" gonads and lose all possibility of reproduction. As of 2024, the technology for functional transition simply doesn't exist yet. Can this be written carefully using the right terminology by someone more sensitive?

82.3.189.176 (talk) 14:33, 9 November 2024 (UTC)

Restructuring of Surgical procedures Tab

The tab under 'Surgical procedures' has a bit of an odd structure. What is supposed to be the difference between subsections Other surgeries and Scope and procedures? The first two paragraphs from Scope and procedures seem like they should be in the intro of the entire section, while the rest can be folded in with Other surgeries.

I would also argue that rather than having subsections for 'trans men', 'trans women' and 'non-binary people', they should be titled around 'transmasculine/transfeminine' or 'AMAB/AFAB' written out fully, of ocurse), with perhaps a section that specifically names bigenital and gender nullification procedures separately. This would more accurately categorize the procedures discussed. The current organization subtly reinforces the misconception that only/all binary trans people get gender affirming surgeries. A new structure would be more neutral. SlipknotRlZZ (talk) 02:06, 14 November 2024 (UTC)

"Post-procedural considerations" section requires heavy revision

Having psychological impacts and QoL as seperate sub-sections when they practically refer to the same thing in this article (that being, mental well-being) is quite dubious. The first half of the "Psychological and social consequences" section is also of very low standard. It includes archaic research, a review that is not even on gender-affirming surgery, and an entire paragraph needlessly going over primary studies when it could simply cite systematic reviews. I think the entire first half of "Psychological and social consequences" should be cut, and have what remains merged with the QoL sub-section, since the latter pretty much already covers psychological impacts accurately and with proper sources. Amateur Truther (talk) 19:23, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

To avoid confusion, I might as well say that I went ahead with the above edits. Amateur Truther (talk) 19:45, 14 October 2025 (UTC)

male mastectomy

I just saw someone on reddit claim that the vast majority of GAS in the US are mastectomies on cisgender boys and men who have grown boobs due to obesity or endocrine dysfunction, but this results in high GAS numbers which freak out some people who confuse it with gender transition. If that's true it would be great if the article had some data about that. I didn't know there was even an official classification. ~2026-35183-58 (talk) 21:14, 16 June 2026 (UTC)

It's true. Here's a comparative analysis:

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2820437

"Of the 151 breast reductions among cisgender male minors and TGD minors, 146 (97%) were performed on cisgender male minors (Figure 2)."

HenrikHolen (talk) 01:03, 17 June 2026 (UTC)