Talk:Sex reassignment therapy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

• Perhaps this page should reflect something about that Dr John Money that was in the news several years ago. As far as I can remember, there were two identical twins and one had surgery and was raised as a girl, only to be changed back later. The doctor engaged in some rather questionable practices also... I could not write an article about this, but if anyone is willing, there is already an article on him to get anyone started. Seems like it could use a bit more information though. And it seems that these two articles should be linked in some way, as the subject matter definitely overlaps... see also perhaps?

First, thanks, Dysprosia, for cleaning up after me. I put back mtf and ftm before the respective procedures, though, because it makes a lot of sense to keep it that way. After all, mtfs don't have mastectomy, and ftms do not require or desire breast augmentation. However, these surgeries are often understood to be SRS too. Or probably even better, I'll put them under appropriate headers. -- AlexR 09:23, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

Is it true that "few post-operative transsexuals believe that sexual reassignment surgery was a mistake for them"? IIRC, about 30 % were not happy with the decision or the outcome, and that was why it is debatable if that form of treatment is at all suitable. (I'll look up the source when I have time.) 82.154.18.15 02:08, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

See Transsexual#Retransitions. Dysprosia 03:13, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

And do have a look at that [1]. It should answer that question very thoroughly. This [2] might be the study which gives those 30%, but note that it is the only one with such a rate, and in most "unsuccessful" cases, it is the author of the study who thinks that a transition was unsucessful, not the people themselfes reporting that. If you have yet another source with a similar result, please let us know.

Today, the rate of people who feel that they were fundamentally wrong in their decision to transition (regardless of medical procedure) is usually given as "about 1% or less". Of course, the rate of those who are not satisfied with the outcome of a particular medical treatment is far larger, but that is the case for almost every medical treatment. For example, the result of my mastectomy is unsatisfactory, but I neither regret transitioning, nor the decision to have it. I do very much regret though that the doctor, who usually produces very good results, obviously had a bad day when he operated on me, but the very same problem might have appeared with any surgery.

There is BTW not much of a debate at all whether gender reassignment treatment is suitable - it is the only treatment that does work at all, and with a very good overall success rate, too. The only people who debate that are those who insist that such treatments or in fact transitioning is somehow "moraly wrong" and/or that there are other treatments that work. The later has however been sufficiently disprooven.Its against the law of nature to change the gender.

And one last thing: Do get yourself a username, IP numbers are always viewed with lots of suspicion - plain experience, nothing personal. -- AlexR 04:29, 28 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] this is terrible

this article is about sex reassignment, not gender reassignment. it certainly needs to be renamed.

The more I think about it, the more I agree. I have gone ahead and renamed the page. To the person who posted the previous comment: if you happen to read this, please know to always sign your posts on talk pages by typing four tildes. Andrea Parton 06:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Data on follow through

Is there any data on the percentage of people that follow through after beginning the trial of living as the opposite gender before the operation? It seems that it would be an interesting addition to this article. Vicarious 15:03, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

• This page needs a major re-write. Its contents are controversial, yet the discussion of the controversial aspects does not cite references. Some of the the sub topics fail to justify how they help explain the primary topic, instead they mention tangential controversy wihout satisfactorily connecting that controversy with the subject matter. For example, mention of the Reimer case does not contribute to the sub matter here. Another example would be failure to cite the actual Johns Hopkins articles, the evidence of their bias and lack of scientif rigor, or the various subsequent studies that refute the Johns Hopkins article, which is over 25 years old and out dated at best. Also few other topics on medical procedures spend so much time discussing external opinions about them made by religious extremists, who lack medication education. Those few might only be abortion and invitro fertilization.

janniejdoe 21:43, 14 September 2006