"
First, trying to pull ""rank"" with me, is not an effective way to be persusive with me or to appear as an ally or friendly. Second, you have misread my statement and missed my major point about vagina and penis. The point is that the article itself explans that a vaginoplasty is surgery to create a vagina. It is therefore obvious that any photographs of surgery in and around a penis or vagina will contain such things in the photograph. I believe that is is entirely appropriate to set the example that photographs of genitalia in medical and educational contexts are appropriate for all audiences. I believe that the precedent should be set that the penis and the vagina or more accurately in most cases the vulva should not be given special attention in medical contexts. To do so, gives the misimpression that there is something ""wrong"" with human genitalia, which is a falsehood, and an antedeluvian cultural bias whose primitive nature should be abolished. In this century and millenium, is it time for such puritanical prudishness to end. One of the best ironies of discussions about such ""warnings"" around medical photos is that they primarily serve to heighten the existence and nature of the photographs, and probably invite more study of them than might otherwise occur. In other words, they have the opposite of their intended purpose. The tend to draw more attention to such material, than might otherwise occur, while the tacit intention of people who want to put similarly silly warnings about such material is to ""hide"" them and be bashful around them. It is high time that humans grow up and get over this silly aversions to the site of human genitalia. The wikipedia should be a place that sets an appropriate standard that medical information should be free from the psuedo censorship that such ""warnings"" represent. On another note, on the basis of WP:V, a large portion of the wikipedia would be candidate for deletion. I believe such mention constitutes evidence that this article is being given unfair over-attention by a tacit faction whose true purpose is to censor subjects like the sort to which Toby Meltzer and its ""Good Article"" subject matter relates. First and foremost, such good articles serve to refute the rampant misinformation in the minds of the average populace.  21:17, 17 September 2006."