This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Vaginoplasty article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically
review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Vaginoplasty.
|
I have been imformed to paste this comment {{Edit protected}}
regarding the image.
Otto Placik (
talk) 21:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I've linked to suporn technique and redirected that to Suporn until it gets defined, and put a stub under his name. It's a bit confusing, because it doesn't mention him having any unique techniques. Does he do something different than the previous two? Tyciol 19:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I have merged the content from these three articles, and made each a redirect to Vaginoplasty. I don't see any need for four separate articles on the different forms of vaginoplasty. There is not enough information on each to constitute their own article. If each section becomes so large as to require its own article, that would be the appropriate time to break it out, not preemptively.
That said, help with cleaning up the References section would be useful. I removed the following sentence from the section now called Techniques for male-to-female transsexual patients:
I'm not sure what is meant by this.
Also, the entire article is choppy and it would greatly benefit from the help of any knowledgeable person. I welcome polite suggestions and input on these changes. Joie de Vivre 17:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Dr Chet in Thailand seems to use a method that is neither Penile inversion or colon vaginoplasty. He quotes from his site ( http://www.chet-plasticsurgery.com) that he uses scrotal skin to line the neo-vagina while using the skin from the penis itself in the construction of labia. Is it just me getting confused here or is this really a different technique to those described? On his FAQ page he does say that it is not penile inversion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.189.66 ( talk) 09:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I will leave it to someone else's expert hands to edit the Labioplasty section. The high point of the bias would have to be this part: "Many women are taught to dislike the large protuberant appearance of their labia minora. This may cause severe embarrassment with a sexual partner if the sexual partner is unused to the female genetalia outside of animated pornography."
Sorry if this sounds stupid, but which panel is the "before" and which one the "after"? To my young male eyes the "left" panel is much more attractive, so if it depicts the situation "before labioplasty" I don't quite see the benefit of the surgical intervention. If on the contrary it's the "after labioplasty" situation, it seems illogical to present it first (based on LRTB writing). MCSmarties ( talk) 20:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Dear Anonymous editor Number 70.142.40.28:
Please contact me, and defend your censorship of a medical image. The weasel words "appears to be" ignore that the image denotes a type of vaginoplasty. Are you a physician? Let's correspond. Otto Placik ( talk) 20:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
The article mentions some cause of trauma to the vagina, including "BBC". I don't think they're referring to the british broadcasting corporation. Not good enough at wikipedia to tell if BBC was added as a prank or not. At a minimum BBC should be clarified if that's a real thing, if this is a black penis joke it should probably be removed.
This article is fuzzy and imprecise. It fails to define its terms. It includes surgical procedures that are not properly part of vaginoplasty. Here is the OED definition [1] of vaginoplasty:
n. Surg. repair, reconstruction, or creation of a vagina by plastic surgery; an instance of this.
According to the OED definition, vaginoplasty, therefore, does not include a
labioplasty. This is because, by analogy to a vaginoplasty, labioplasty is surgery, repair, reconstruction or creation of the
labia majora or
labia minora, and the latter are not parts of the
vagina. The image of the labioplasty, therefore, currently occupying a prominent position in the top right of this article has no place here. It needs to be removed.
1) "vagino-, comb. form." OED Online. Oxford University Press, December 2014. Web. 15 February 2015.
123.211.46.98 (
talk) 04:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Vaginoplasty. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 03:01, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Barbara (WVS), do keep the WP:Preserve policy in mind when editing articles. If the content can be reliably sourced, then reliably source it. Don't simply remove content. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 22:13, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
(Indentation for our convenience and clarity) There is no difference on the need for dilation for trans women or any other person who gets this surgery-dilation is part of the procedure, independent of how you define your sexuality. If you can find the MEDRS reference to support the statement, then by all means put it in. I haven't seen a reference on something that someone 'must do'. I've got one review article open, and two medical textbooks here on my dining room table. It strikes me as odd that you are telling me that unreferenced material must remain in the article even though I have the primo sources right in front of me and can't find what you tell me must exist. If the reference exists, then put it in! While I have your attention-the whole section called 'Criticism' does not follow the MOS for medical articles. Why don't you just help out instead of blessing me with your critiques? There are lots of wikilinks needed in this article and so you could start there-it would be a great example of two editors congenially collaborating on the improvement of the encyclopedia. Best Regards,
With this edit, I changed the "Gender reassignment surgery" heading to "Sex reassignment surgery," along with corresponding text, per that being the WP:Common name of the procedure and the fact that sex characteristics are being altered, not gender. Barbara (WVS) reverted me, stating "my source calls the procedure gender reassignment; you don't have a source to support your edit. I suspect that you may be struggling with a POV." I changed the heading and corresponding text again, stating, "The only POV is that 'sex reassignment surgery' is the WP:Common name. We should be using the more common name, and we are allowed to do so."
Barbara (WVS), what POV do you suspect that I'm struggling with? "Sex reassignment surgery" is the more common name, which is why the title of its Wikipedia article still has that name, and we are therefore allowed to use it. There is no Wikipedia policy or guideline that states that we can't use the alternative, more common name in a case like this. I or you can ask at WP:Med for further input, if you feel we need outside opinions on this. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 21:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
This article defines sex reassignment surgery as an attempt to "create a vagina," while the sex reassignment surgery article defines it as "reshaping the male genitals into a form with the appearance of, and, as far as possible, the function of female genitalia." Does anyone have a source on the specific terminology? The things I can find aren't the best by wiki standards (there's a Dr. Chettawut, for example, who uses the term neo-vagina on his website). Certainly the latter definition is more accurate (the orifice created by SRS is not usually self-lubricating and will gradually close up over time without regular, life-long dialation), but I hesitate to change this without a source other than my own judgement.
Given that the SRS article is better sourced in general on this subject, it would seem best to use that terminology.
Pwoodfor ( talk) 21:06, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Vaginoplasty is reconstruction or construction surgery on the vagina. The correction of prolapse and other gyny problems have other surgical names. The suffix -plasty means reconstructive, not necessarily curative. Of course, during the course of a surgical procedure to treat a major problem like uterine prolapse or prolapse of the bladder, vaginoplasty can be the last step in more complicated operations. But vaginoplasty is not a treatment for pelvic organ prolapse. It doesn't matter how pretty you can make a vagina if your bladder is hanging out of it. Best Regards,
I just changed the following text, inserted by @ Barbara (WVS): in March 2016 in edit [1]:
The success of vaginoplasty to treat the virilization associated with congenital adrenal hyperplasiahas been investigated in Hong Kong. Those participating in the study evaluated the surgery as either good or satisfactory.
I have changed the text in edits [2] following a review of this primary research:
The success of vaginoplasty and other surgical measures to treat the virilization associated with congenital adrenal hyperplasia has been investigated in Hong Kong. A survey scored clitoral, labia and vaginal appearance, and necessity for surgical revision. The unnamed persons scoring the survey identified good outcomes in 12 of 23 patients, and satisfactory outcomes in 5.
The original text misrepresented the measures of success, and the survey participants. Framing the research as having participants implied that the persons treated evaluated outcomes. The persons who made the evaluation are not named but a structured evaluation of genital appearance and necessity for revision would imply that the research team conducted the evaluation. I am concerned that this research was presented in the original way by a visiting scholar. A related discussion of some inappropriate ways of measuring surgical outcomes can be found in Intersex medical interventions#Outcomes and evidence.
The research does not meet the standards WP:MEDRS and will probably merit removal, following discussion. Trankuility ( talk) 00:48, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
I could have sworn I posted this earlier, but I must have typed it, and it got swallowed.
Please could someone with a track record on this article look at the section in question. There are multiple errors: the image, the sentence about vaginoplasty; the mention of menstruation. Carbon Caryatid ( talk) 23:11, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
The article states that "vaginoplasty is any surgical procedure that results in the construction or reconstruction of the vagina."
But "reconstruction" and "construction" are two totally different things, so that a "reconstructed vagina" and a "constructed vagina" are understood to be fundamentally different. A "reconstruction" requires an existent vagina, while a "construction" starts where there is no vagina, and so the surgeon is "constructing" one.
Another problem is that the term "vagina" is a misnomer, since it is not medically a vagina and has none of the physiology of an actual working vagina, and a more accurate name is needed, perhaps "trans vagina." For simple reference, a "reconstructed vagina" is understood to be an actual vagina that has undergone helpful surgery.
A "constructed vagina" is understood to be a surgeon's craft, and unable to menstruate and unable to facilitate fertilization and reproduction. The orgasm may somehow be a part of the fabrication, but is only part of what a real vagina does.
And God is said to make good vaginas, such that the surgeon's best attempts surely must fall short. He is either "creating" a vagina, or creating a "vagina." All of these things being given vague or unclear terminology and purpose makes the whole field out to be more pseudoscience than science.-
ApexUnderground (
talk) 06:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Back to the merits...@ ApexUnderground:, words are defined basically by consensus agreement on what they mean. Apparently, most people are OK with using the designation "vagina" for what you would (I guess) call an "artificially constructed vagina-like structure" or something. You personally not agreeing with most people doesn't really have anything to do with anything, sorry. There's no "right" or "wrong" about what a word means, generally. It means what people say it means.
The rest of the stuff regarding "construction" versus "reconstruction" and so on is, again, your own idiosyncratic personal take, I guess. What you would need it valid sources saying these things. Show some, and then we can talk. Herostratus ( talk) 03:46, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 January 2024 and 14 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): SidaChu ( article contribs). Peer reviewers: Lcortez26.
— Assignment last updated by FeliceRCLi ( talk) 23:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi folks! I evaluated this article for a class project in college. Below are some of my comments for the original article. I also had a shot at revamping the article's structure and improving its content with fresher insights and clearer articulations. You may take a look here: User:SidaChu/Vaginoplasty.
Lead section:
+ The lead has a clear and concise introductory sentence.
– However, it does not correspond well with the various sections of the article and includes information that is not present in the main article.
– It is excessively detailed on why vaginoplasty is needed, which I think could be put into a separate section on its own.
Content:
– The article glosses over vaginoplasty for gender-affirming purposes in the lead section and relegates it under "techniques," without contextual explanation for the need and usage of gender-affirming vaginoplasty in a coherent manner, hence leaving an equity gap in representation. It appears as if the writers have been consciously avoiding in-depth discussions of transgender patients: the history section makes no mention of trans identity even though all the figures it has listed are trans.
– The content is not quite up-to-date and does not reflect recent research and technical breakthroughs in vaginoplasty.
– There is no mention of the psychological reasons in seeking such surgery as well as the psychological effect of receiving the surgery. This is particularly striking in the sub-section about elective vaginoplasty, where it fails to adequately acknowledge the oppressive role of patriarchal norms and pornography in driving women to seek such risky procedures.
– The article does not talk about the benefits of vaginoplasty, which I believe is crucial especially for gender-diverse patients, but even for candidates in general there is only mention of risks and complications but not of the procedure's positive outcomes.
Tone and Balance:
+ The article generally maintains a matter-of-fact tone.
– However, it appears biased against people who do elective vaginoplasty without recognizing the root cause of their demand––women's body dysmorphia due to unrealistic social expectations.
Sources and References:
+ The article is generally backed up by peer-reviewed research.
– The references, however, can be quite dated, and the quality of sources on transgender people could be improved from the perspective of someone who has studied gender and sexuality more extensively in an academic setting.
Organization and Writing Quality:
– It is extremely poorly organized; information does not flow well from one section to another and is not ordered according to intuition, logic, or relative importance, which can confuse the reader.
– It's also full of grammatical and expression errors, resulting in a bumpy read.
Image and Media:
+ Relevant media is included.
– Images are not laid out in a visually appealing way, squeezing the words into narrow columns that are hard to read given the density of links and medical information.
Talk Page:
The talk page is sparsely populated and has not been active since 2019. Looking at the history bar, trans identity proves to be a point of controversy multiple times, as different editors go back and forth on terminology, inclusion of new material, and source eligibility.
Overall Impression:
The article does not appear well-developed and up-to-date on reflecting the state of vaginoplasty today. More information is needed to contextualize the procedure's usage, present its outcomes, and highlight its interplay with social, biological, and psychological factors.
Would love to hear your thoughts! So happy to contribute to this vibrant community.
SidaChu ( talk) 07:57, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Vaginoplasty article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline
Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically
review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Vaginoplasty.
|
I have been imformed to paste this comment {{Edit protected}}
regarding the image.
Otto Placik (
talk) 21:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
I've linked to suporn technique and redirected that to Suporn until it gets defined, and put a stub under his name. It's a bit confusing, because it doesn't mention him having any unique techniques. Does he do something different than the previous two? Tyciol 19:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
I have merged the content from these three articles, and made each a redirect to Vaginoplasty. I don't see any need for four separate articles on the different forms of vaginoplasty. There is not enough information on each to constitute their own article. If each section becomes so large as to require its own article, that would be the appropriate time to break it out, not preemptively.
That said, help with cleaning up the References section would be useful. I removed the following sentence from the section now called Techniques for male-to-female transsexual patients:
I'm not sure what is meant by this.
Also, the entire article is choppy and it would greatly benefit from the help of any knowledgeable person. I welcome polite suggestions and input on these changes. Joie de Vivre 17:36, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
Dr Chet in Thailand seems to use a method that is neither Penile inversion or colon vaginoplasty. He quotes from his site ( http://www.chet-plasticsurgery.com) that he uses scrotal skin to line the neo-vagina while using the skin from the penis itself in the construction of labia. Is it just me getting confused here or is this really a different technique to those described? On his FAQ page he does say that it is not penile inversion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.130.189.66 ( talk) 09:54, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:32, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
I will leave it to someone else's expert hands to edit the Labioplasty section. The high point of the bias would have to be this part: "Many women are taught to dislike the large protuberant appearance of their labia minora. This may cause severe embarrassment with a sexual partner if the sexual partner is unused to the female genetalia outside of animated pornography."
Sorry if this sounds stupid, but which panel is the "before" and which one the "after"? To my young male eyes the "left" panel is much more attractive, so if it depicts the situation "before labioplasty" I don't quite see the benefit of the surgical intervention. If on the contrary it's the "after labioplasty" situation, it seems illogical to present it first (based on LRTB writing). MCSmarties ( talk) 20:30, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
Dear Anonymous editor Number 70.142.40.28:
Please contact me, and defend your censorship of a medical image. The weasel words "appears to be" ignore that the image denotes a type of vaginoplasty. Are you a physician? Let's correspond. Otto Placik ( talk) 20:16, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
The article mentions some cause of trauma to the vagina, including "BBC". I don't think they're referring to the british broadcasting corporation. Not good enough at wikipedia to tell if BBC was added as a prank or not. At a minimum BBC should be clarified if that's a real thing, if this is a black penis joke it should probably be removed.
This article is fuzzy and imprecise. It fails to define its terms. It includes surgical procedures that are not properly part of vaginoplasty. Here is the OED definition [1] of vaginoplasty:
n. Surg. repair, reconstruction, or creation of a vagina by plastic surgery; an instance of this.
According to the OED definition, vaginoplasty, therefore, does not include a
labioplasty. This is because, by analogy to a vaginoplasty, labioplasty is surgery, repair, reconstruction or creation of the
labia majora or
labia minora, and the latter are not parts of the
vagina. The image of the labioplasty, therefore, currently occupying a prominent position in the top right of this article has no place here. It needs to be removed.
1) "vagino-, comb. form." OED Online. Oxford University Press, December 2014. Web. 15 February 2015.
123.211.46.98 (
talk) 04:44, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Vaginoplasty. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 03:01, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
Barbara (WVS), do keep the WP:Preserve policy in mind when editing articles. If the content can be reliably sourced, then reliably source it. Don't simply remove content. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 22:13, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
(Indentation for our convenience and clarity) There is no difference on the need for dilation for trans women or any other person who gets this surgery-dilation is part of the procedure, independent of how you define your sexuality. If you can find the MEDRS reference to support the statement, then by all means put it in. I haven't seen a reference on something that someone 'must do'. I've got one review article open, and two medical textbooks here on my dining room table. It strikes me as odd that you are telling me that unreferenced material must remain in the article even though I have the primo sources right in front of me and can't find what you tell me must exist. If the reference exists, then put it in! While I have your attention-the whole section called 'Criticism' does not follow the MOS for medical articles. Why don't you just help out instead of blessing me with your critiques? There are lots of wikilinks needed in this article and so you could start there-it would be a great example of two editors congenially collaborating on the improvement of the encyclopedia. Best Regards,
With this edit, I changed the "Gender reassignment surgery" heading to "Sex reassignment surgery," along with corresponding text, per that being the WP:Common name of the procedure and the fact that sex characteristics are being altered, not gender. Barbara (WVS) reverted me, stating "my source calls the procedure gender reassignment; you don't have a source to support your edit. I suspect that you may be struggling with a POV." I changed the heading and corresponding text again, stating, "The only POV is that 'sex reassignment surgery' is the WP:Common name. We should be using the more common name, and we are allowed to do so."
Barbara (WVS), what POV do you suspect that I'm struggling with? "Sex reassignment surgery" is the more common name, which is why the title of its Wikipedia article still has that name, and we are therefore allowed to use it. There is no Wikipedia policy or guideline that states that we can't use the alternative, more common name in a case like this. I or you can ask at WP:Med for further input, if you feel we need outside opinions on this. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 21:59, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
This article defines sex reassignment surgery as an attempt to "create a vagina," while the sex reassignment surgery article defines it as "reshaping the male genitals into a form with the appearance of, and, as far as possible, the function of female genitalia." Does anyone have a source on the specific terminology? The things I can find aren't the best by wiki standards (there's a Dr. Chettawut, for example, who uses the term neo-vagina on his website). Certainly the latter definition is more accurate (the orifice created by SRS is not usually self-lubricating and will gradually close up over time without regular, life-long dialation), but I hesitate to change this without a source other than my own judgement.
Given that the SRS article is better sourced in general on this subject, it would seem best to use that terminology.
Pwoodfor ( talk) 21:06, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Vaginoplasty is reconstruction or construction surgery on the vagina. The correction of prolapse and other gyny problems have other surgical names. The suffix -plasty means reconstructive, not necessarily curative. Of course, during the course of a surgical procedure to treat a major problem like uterine prolapse or prolapse of the bladder, vaginoplasty can be the last step in more complicated operations. But vaginoplasty is not a treatment for pelvic organ prolapse. It doesn't matter how pretty you can make a vagina if your bladder is hanging out of it. Best Regards,
I just changed the following text, inserted by @ Barbara (WVS): in March 2016 in edit [1]:
The success of vaginoplasty to treat the virilization associated with congenital adrenal hyperplasiahas been investigated in Hong Kong. Those participating in the study evaluated the surgery as either good or satisfactory.
I have changed the text in edits [2] following a review of this primary research:
The success of vaginoplasty and other surgical measures to treat the virilization associated with congenital adrenal hyperplasia has been investigated in Hong Kong. A survey scored clitoral, labia and vaginal appearance, and necessity for surgical revision. The unnamed persons scoring the survey identified good outcomes in 12 of 23 patients, and satisfactory outcomes in 5.
The original text misrepresented the measures of success, and the survey participants. Framing the research as having participants implied that the persons treated evaluated outcomes. The persons who made the evaluation are not named but a structured evaluation of genital appearance and necessity for revision would imply that the research team conducted the evaluation. I am concerned that this research was presented in the original way by a visiting scholar. A related discussion of some inappropriate ways of measuring surgical outcomes can be found in Intersex medical interventions#Outcomes and evidence.
The research does not meet the standards WP:MEDRS and will probably merit removal, following discussion. Trankuility ( talk) 00:48, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
I could have sworn I posted this earlier, but I must have typed it, and it got swallowed.
Please could someone with a track record on this article look at the section in question. There are multiple errors: the image, the sentence about vaginoplasty; the mention of menstruation. Carbon Caryatid ( talk) 23:11, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
The article states that "vaginoplasty is any surgical procedure that results in the construction or reconstruction of the vagina."
But "reconstruction" and "construction" are two totally different things, so that a "reconstructed vagina" and a "constructed vagina" are understood to be fundamentally different. A "reconstruction" requires an existent vagina, while a "construction" starts where there is no vagina, and so the surgeon is "constructing" one.
Another problem is that the term "vagina" is a misnomer, since it is not medically a vagina and has none of the physiology of an actual working vagina, and a more accurate name is needed, perhaps "trans vagina." For simple reference, a "reconstructed vagina" is understood to be an actual vagina that has undergone helpful surgery.
A "constructed vagina" is understood to be a surgeon's craft, and unable to menstruate and unable to facilitate fertilization and reproduction. The orgasm may somehow be a part of the fabrication, but is only part of what a real vagina does.
And God is said to make good vaginas, such that the surgeon's best attempts surely must fall short. He is either "creating" a vagina, or creating a "vagina." All of these things being given vague or unclear terminology and purpose makes the whole field out to be more pseudoscience than science.-
ApexUnderground (
talk) 06:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
Back to the merits...@ ApexUnderground:, words are defined basically by consensus agreement on what they mean. Apparently, most people are OK with using the designation "vagina" for what you would (I guess) call an "artificially constructed vagina-like structure" or something. You personally not agreeing with most people doesn't really have anything to do with anything, sorry. There's no "right" or "wrong" about what a word means, generally. It means what people say it means.
The rest of the stuff regarding "construction" versus "reconstruction" and so on is, again, your own idiosyncratic personal take, I guess. What you would need it valid sources saying these things. Show some, and then we can talk. Herostratus ( talk) 03:46, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 January 2024 and 14 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): SidaChu ( article contribs). Peer reviewers: Lcortez26.
— Assignment last updated by FeliceRCLi ( talk) 23:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Hi folks! I evaluated this article for a class project in college. Below are some of my comments for the original article. I also had a shot at revamping the article's structure and improving its content with fresher insights and clearer articulations. You may take a look here: User:SidaChu/Vaginoplasty.
Lead section:
+ The lead has a clear and concise introductory sentence.
– However, it does not correspond well with the various sections of the article and includes information that is not present in the main article.
– It is excessively detailed on why vaginoplasty is needed, which I think could be put into a separate section on its own.
Content:
– The article glosses over vaginoplasty for gender-affirming purposes in the lead section and relegates it under "techniques," without contextual explanation for the need and usage of gender-affirming vaginoplasty in a coherent manner, hence leaving an equity gap in representation. It appears as if the writers have been consciously avoiding in-depth discussions of transgender patients: the history section makes no mention of trans identity even though all the figures it has listed are trans.
– The content is not quite up-to-date and does not reflect recent research and technical breakthroughs in vaginoplasty.
– There is no mention of the psychological reasons in seeking such surgery as well as the psychological effect of receiving the surgery. This is particularly striking in the sub-section about elective vaginoplasty, where it fails to adequately acknowledge the oppressive role of patriarchal norms and pornography in driving women to seek such risky procedures.
– The article does not talk about the benefits of vaginoplasty, which I believe is crucial especially for gender-diverse patients, but even for candidates in general there is only mention of risks and complications but not of the procedure's positive outcomes.
Tone and Balance:
+ The article generally maintains a matter-of-fact tone.
– However, it appears biased against people who do elective vaginoplasty without recognizing the root cause of their demand––women's body dysmorphia due to unrealistic social expectations.
Sources and References:
+ The article is generally backed up by peer-reviewed research.
– The references, however, can be quite dated, and the quality of sources on transgender people could be improved from the perspective of someone who has studied gender and sexuality more extensively in an academic setting.
Organization and Writing Quality:
– It is extremely poorly organized; information does not flow well from one section to another and is not ordered according to intuition, logic, or relative importance, which can confuse the reader.
– It's also full of grammatical and expression errors, resulting in a bumpy read.
Image and Media:
+ Relevant media is included.
– Images are not laid out in a visually appealing way, squeezing the words into narrow columns that are hard to read given the density of links and medical information.
Talk Page:
The talk page is sparsely populated and has not been active since 2019. Looking at the history bar, trans identity proves to be a point of controversy multiple times, as different editors go back and forth on terminology, inclusion of new material, and source eligibility.
Overall Impression:
The article does not appear well-developed and up-to-date on reflecting the state of vaginoplasty today. More information is needed to contextualize the procedure's usage, present its outcomes, and highlight its interplay with social, biological, and psychological factors.
Would love to hear your thoughts! So happy to contribute to this vibrant community.
SidaChu ( talk) 07:57, 1 May 2024 (UTC)