Talk:Vaginoplasty

message: I have been imformed to paste this comment  regarding the image. Otto Placik (talk) 21:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: is for requesting edits to protected pages, which this is not. Algebraist 21:05, 16 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attn: Admin RE: image license duplication

message: 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)
thread_title: Suporn technique

message: 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:
: (need ref. to Journal Urology articles from pubmed)
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)
thread_title: Merges of content from Neovaginoplasty, Coloplasty and Penile inversion

message: 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)
thread_title: Dr.Chettawut Tulayaphanich and use of scrotal skin

message: 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)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: 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)
replies: text: The right is the after and I agree with you, the left is the more aesthetically pleasing.--Lakkasuo (talk) 20:05, 2 December 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah. I was pondering the "before" picture and thinking, "Um, what's wrong with it, again??"Codenamemary (talk) 01:02, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unclear picture 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Anonymous editor 70.142.40.28 

message: 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)
replies: text: We should be using Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) (WP:MEDRS)-compliant sources for this article, not dictionary sources (unless the dictionary sources are for an etymology section). Flyer22 (talk) 05:30, 16 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Definition of vaginoplasty 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Vaginoplasty. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120609092150/http://www.centerforvaginalsurgery.com:80/nyclabiaplasty/vaginalrejuvenationnyc.htm to http://www.centerforvaginalsurgery.com/nyclabiaplasty/vaginalrejuvenationnyc.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:01, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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,
:Barbara (WVS) (talk) 12:15, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Editing comments

message: 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)
replies: text: I have modified this section, amongst others, because of my concerns about WP:UNDUE and WP:MEDRS. Trankuility (talk) 00:32, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you. Carbon Caryatid (talk) 21:48, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Errors in labiaplasty section 

message: 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)
replies: text: Collapsed per WP:TPO and Wikipedia is not a forum. Mathglot (talk) 10:07, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: My comments were clear and editorial, having to do with the titles of linked articles used in the article. To collapse my text and call it a rant in violation of WINAF is a kind of censorship, and a pov way to handle someones valid use of talk pages in dealing with clarifies imprecise terminology in an article. -ApexUnderground (talk) 20:33, 1 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: There's no call to express one's opinion of an editor's talk page contribution by collapsing it. Your opinion is noted. Two valid reasons for collapsing are if the comment is very long, or if it's an off-topic digression from the main thrust of a thread. Neither apply here. Comments which are vandalism, trolling, unrelated to the article subject, unintelligable, etc. are not collapsed but removed; that also doesn't apply here. Since the editor has objected, I undid the collapsing and recommend either addressing the editors points on the merits, or just ignoring them. Herostratus (talk) 03:20, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
replies: text:   I reject your comments regarding the reasons for the original collapse and whether it was proper or not, but I edit-conflicted with you uncollapsing it, per the "objections" clause of TPO. Full details at your Talk page.  Cheers, Mathglot (talk) 04:44, 2 July 2019 (UTC)

text:  Never mind, it's moot now.  Struck comments by indef-blocked sock per WP:TPO. Mathglot (talk) 04:45, 2 July 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clarification 

message: — Assignment last updated by FeliceRCLi (talk) 23:17, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Health Psychology

message: 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)
replies: text: Hello , I'm glad you're giving this article so much attention! I've been putting off trying to improve this article for a while, and I think your list here is an accurate and comprehensive list of the current version's weaknesses. I took a look at the draft you linked and it looks like a big, big improvement on the current version. I am especially impressed how "whole" your draft feels, as all the parts feel well fleshed out and connected. I haven't looked closely at the sources, but if you're sure you're following WP:MEDRES I think you should put your new version in the "mainspace" article, where other editors can continue to refine the details. Thanks for your serious efforts here! ~ L 🌸 (talk) 03:18, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiEdu Evaluation & Edits