Talk:Hypospadias

message: I removed some unsubstantiated insertions that I think are misleading and incorrect, but am willing to reconsider parts or rephrasing if support can be given. I also consider the removal of one of the universally attested facts about hypospadias -- that they are usually sporadic birth defects of unknown cause to be evidence of bad faith and fringe POV by the editor. Furthermore, a lower opening on the shaft created by surgery is called a fistula not a  hypospadias; no one but someone trying to confuse rather than clarify the topic would attempt to conflate the two. But let's hear the support for some of the more obscure claims? alteripse 01:35, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Karada's personal attack aside, one can search for "iatrogenic hypospadias" and all becomes clear.  Cetinkaya describes a clear instance .   In non-circumcising cultures, a urethral catheter can also be a cause of the defect (Andrews ), so that might be added too.  A fistula can also be iatrogenically induced, but it is a separate phenomonon.  The AMA site specifically lists hypospadias .  Why is there a knee-jerk motivation to censor iatrogenic sources? DanP 19:08, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

text: I apologize for careless mistake - my efforts here are in good faith.  Information I deleted was clearly implying that congenital hypospadias is the only variety.  I should have edited more carefully.  The initial response to me was hostile, and you should at least know that I did not throw the first stone.  I am well aware of what a fistula is.  The fact that it is not the term used in cases of iatrogenic hypospadias is remarkable enough of a distinction, and the flow of urine is another distinction.  There are clear cases of iatrogenic hypospadias as I mentioned.  I am not aware of exact percentages, but it is wrong to merely speculate.  If you believe it important to push iatrogenic hypospadias out, I will respect that.  Robert Brookes makes no effort to seek truth or consensus, yet I still respect his perspective no matter how much I am critical of it (I have repeatedly told him this).  I believe that is a valuable distinction to be made before you make your broad claims.  I deny nothing about my disagreement with his view -- I never have denied any such thing.  Any accusations that I make such denials are entirely fabrications.  In the end, the feigned neutrality of some folks leave Wikipedia with the attitude "so be it if the article leaves out facts".  Obviously you have already decided what hypospadias does and does not include.  Yet the circumcision advocates get away with inclusion of material with far less substantiation, whereas iatrogenic hypospadias had been clearly photographed.  While I thank you for explaining my mistake, at the same time I take your accusation of being a "blight" as a personal attack, and as ad hominem by definition.  I have extended the olive branch to the circumcision advocates on several occasions, and there is no need to use name-calling here on either side. DanP 19:36, 10 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  What needs to be established 

message: Epispadias is not related to hypospadias, but rather to bladder exstrophy . I was suprised to find that Epispadias redirects to hypospadias. I propose that epispadias should have its own article. A parent whose child has epispadias (a very rare conditions) is not served by looking it up and  then wading through hypospadias stuff (especially if their child is female!).Tony Makhlouf
: Your wish is our command. See epispadias, but it is only a stub at this point. Feel free to add water and make it grow. alteripse 20:45, 24 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Epispadias 

message: The image was quite large and explicit. Therefore, I have decided to Be Bold and move it below the fold. DrExtreme 01:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: The photo of a near-standard, "stimulated" penus should be treated as pornography, especially when a photo of an unstimulated penus from the same or different subject may be shown. If a problem with photographic positioning in showing any anomally is deemed to be the rationale behind such a submission, the penus may be lifted by finger, hand or other non-sexual-intended instrument. The image title "Enlarge" is also indicative of other-than-educational intentions. The display has been removed. 76.107.46.66 06:31, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not censored. --Coredesat 06:38, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Hi there. What exactly would you like clarified? Is it the concept of the types and how you quantify what type 1,2,3 is? I had it too, and had surgery at 9 years old - I can remember it clearly, too, and the dreadful disinfectant baths I used to have to take after the surgery. Mine would have been type 2 & there's a strong suggestion that my mom took diethylstilbestrol during her pregnancy (I was born in 1967). See here, here and here for more clinical details + images. I also had severe gender identity issues which ultimately became insurmountable & needed .. umm .. "correction". There's usually scarring on the underside of the penis, from the meatus down along the shaft, with stitch marks along - possbly scarring from grafting of the foreskin in severe cases - 24.6.254.162 12:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

text: This article  describes the condition rather well, as well as showing incisions, stitches, etc - Alison ☺ 12:30, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

text: It may not be "pornography", in that it is not particularly arousing. Just because Wiki doesn't censor, and that the picture may be related to the article, doesn't mean it's the right one or the right place for it. Wikipedia is not a medical textbook - and there isn't even agreement on whether this picture fits with the condition. I disagree that there are supposedly "only so many" articles which require pictures of penises, this is not the first one I have seen, nor is it likely to be the last. I happen to read wiki from article to article, going from one topic to another, and I think I should be able to read about various subjects without having to look at somebody's deformed genitals, no offense. If you want to compare yours, find a medical site or a forum for people with your condition. This is a place for study, not consolation. I'm not trying to censor anybody (especially not the producer of the picture in question), and this issue has also been discussed on the masturbation article - but is it so outlandish to suggest that Wikipedia be ONE place on the internet where I'm not confronted with dicks? I just want to read, dammit. MisplacedFate1313 (talk) 01:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you afraid of boohoo "GENITALS", seriously grow up. Sincerally, C6541 (T↔C) at 20:35, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image (again) 

message: http://www.scientificblogging.com/search/node/hypospadias has some new information on cause and prevention.  --213.22.5.71 (talk) 19:31, 21 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  News on the subject 

message: The description seems to indicate that the meatus being on the glans is a mild form of hypospadias, and therefore that all "normal" males have hypospadias! having looked into it i have found that the descriptin is not sufficient.
The urethral meatus opens on the glans penis in about 50–75% of cases; these are categorized as first degree hypospadias. Second degree (when the urethra opens on the shaft), and third degree (when the urethra opens on the perineum) occur in up to 20 and 30% of cases respectively. 
should it be:
The urethral meatus opens on the underside of the glans penis in about 50–75% of cases; these are categorized as first degree hypospadias. Second degree (when the urethra opens on the shaft), and third degree (when the urethra opens on the perineum) occur in up to 20 and 30% of cases respectively.
I based this on:
http://www.lucinafoundation.org/birthdefects-hypospadias.html
Thoughts please.
Wuku (talk) 20:47, 21 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  First degree hypospadias...? 

message: I was reading an article about a political figure, with other people in the room, that said he had this. I had no idea what this was so I clicked it. I do not need a giant deformed penis picture on my screen without a warning, thanks Lemniwinks (talk) 20:11, 7 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: QED. alteripse (talk) 16:50, 5 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: EW

message: The sentence It is the second most common birth abnormality in boys, affecting approximately 1 of every 300. occurs in the introduction, but Hypospadias is among the most common birth defects in the world and is said to be the second most common birth defect in boys, occurring 1 in every 200 births. is the first sentence in the Epidemiology section. How common is this condition? The 1 in 300 reference is a book I don't have access to, so I can't check; the other (http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/1015227-overview#a0199) says approx 1 in 250. UCSF agrees with the emedicine estimate. I'm going to change both to reflect the 1 in 250, so they agree. Wocky (talk) 14:50, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frequency of occurrence 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Hypospadias. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20030402102719/http://ehpnet1.niehs.nih.gov/docs/1999/107p297-302paulozzi/abstract.html to http://ehpnet1.niehs.nih.gov/docs/1999/107p297-302paulozzi/abstract.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:59, 9 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I’ve never edited an article, so I’ll leave it to others, but I am concerned about the lack of language on unnecessary medical intervention on this page. There is no statement anywhere about people deciding not to undergo surgical repair and their quality of life, or the people who had no idea they had this “problem” until much later in life, if ever. 
As one article states: 
“The view of the surgeon about the success of an operation may be totally different from that of the boy or man with hypospadias or his parents. Many urologists and plastic surgeons who perform a large number of these operations appear to take the view that hypospadias surgery should be performed because:
Every man should be able to stand to urinate
Every man should be able to have “normal” sexual intercourse with a woman, with the aim of trying for a pregnancy
A urine stream that sprays is embarrassing
A penis that is bent sideways or downwards is embarrassing
A penis head that is shortened and blunted is “deformed”
This page appears to be written from the perspective of the surgeon who hasn’t  considered NOT conducting surgery that may be medically unecessary due to personal bias about penis aesthetics. I think a statement about surgical repair being common, but not required or attempted in all cases, is important. Thanks for your time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1002:b02c:92dc:a45e:838b:37a8:f2b1 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 23 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Medical Intervention 

message: The article does mention (with what I guess is sufficient referencing) that certain groups regard this abnormality in itself as an intersex condition, and that correcting it before the afflicted person cI must state that an consent is a human rights violation.
Having been born with this condition, and I suspect a rather extremer form of it, and having had it corrected by surgery before I turned five. I must state that I was afterwards fully raised up as a boy, and as it happens, I now am and older man, with neither mental or physical problems relating to this. If my parents had waited for me to be older (or if I had had to wait till I turned 18 to consent), I would very likely have had many more problems than I actually had, and don't feel at all my rights were violated. This may not be the case for actual intersex persons with the condition, but given the rather common status of it, I assume that many more ordinary boys are born with it than intersex people. Ergo, there should be better qualification before corrective surgery is regarded as a wrong. Svartalf (talk) 23:12, 13 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  hypospadial correction and human rights 

message: i think this article should probably have a section on female hypospadias, it's a lot less common than the male version but i think it's worth a mention. not sure how to go about it myself so i'm leaving this here for further discussion and/or inspiration, lol Eatingbugs (talk) 22:50, 5 April 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  female hypospadias