Medicine Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Index Archive 1

I have some issues with a structure that equates Female genital cutting with circumcision and "designer vaginas". If you visit Female genital cutting#History of terminology you can review a number of sources that explain the reasoning behind 30 year trend of extricating FGC from the non-analogous and euphemistic language of circumcision. Equating FGC with cosmetic surgery trivializes the cultural significance of such rituals. However, because FGC is cultural, there are some sound arguments for giving it its own category distinctly separate from circumcision and "designer vaginas", as long as it is given a NPOV treatment covering cultural and medicalization aspects. Also, the consensus on the FGC page is to use "FGC" and try and avoid "mutilation" and "circumcision" per cited sources. As FGC is the main page (for FGC), language on this page should reflect that. Phyesalis (talk) 05:44, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to agree. The present structure (and indeed the article) is a bit of a mess. What structure would you propose? Jakew (talk) 12:32, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Kind of a mess" is exactly the phrase that went through my head. See below. Photouploaded (talk) 17:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Your comment indicating that the consensus on the FGC page is to use "FGC" and try and avoid "mutilation" and "circumcision" per cited sources is completely untrue. There is no such consensus.

The many recent changes to this article, removing information on types of female genital modification, and removing the table of procedures, seem to serve a POV purpose, expressed by Phyesalis' POV above that one cannot "equate" FGC and cosmetic surgery. Is there a reason for these changes that serves the neutral point of view? Blackworm (talk) 15:59, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm just going to separate this thread. I see this as a parent page for all these subjects, ja? So, I would separate aesthetic/individual choices of modifications (btw - no piercing or penile bifurcation?) from cultural(FGC), from circumcision (or religious/health - not offering an opinion, just sticking with the two dominant frames of ref.) and from sexual reassignment surgery (lumping this in with aesthetic may be seen as trivializing it, too). So, I see 4 distinct categories. I don't have any firm ideas on ordering these, except maybe to put them in order of section length (makes for an easier read). Thoughts? Phyesalis (talk) 18:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, historically the "reason" for this page was to have a page called "genital mutilation" (the original name) and then to express the viewpoint that circumcision was a form of this. An attempt was made to make the title conform to NPOV, and the content really just grew from there. I don't personally see it as a 'parent article' - rather, it's an attempt to group a bunch of procedures as seen from the viewpoint that they are all modifications/mutilations of the genitals.

I think that imposing structure or narrative tends to inherently advance a POV, and would therefore suggest a simple, flat structure. I would be inclined to restructure the page as either a) a list, or b) a category. Any thoughts? Jakew (talk) 12:21, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Got it (and saw that there is indeed piercing and bisection - ack!). Either would be an improvement. Making it a category seems to mitigate all sorts of issues. But if we do a list, I would support maintaining the order/organization of(A or B)male and (A or B)female and (C) sexual reassignment. Thoughts? Phyesalis (talk) 19:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am in total agreement with the idea of moving towards a list/category structure. The previous version was really a mess. The lede was badly written, the structuring of "male circumcision" / "female circumcision" / "female genital modification surgery" didn't make sense (seeing as those aren't the main categories), and then the table was filled with redirect links, and organized badly (genital tattooing was listed under "additions to tissue", alongside phalloplasty). I removed all the redirects and left only the individual articles. I also removed the bloated EL section. Let me know what you think, whether this can stay this way, where we ought to take it from here. Photouploaded (talk) 17:11, 22 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bravo! I think that's a huge improvement. Jakew (talk) 11:56, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have now expanded the list version, which I created, into an actual, written article. I welcome feedback. Photouploaded (talk) 17:59, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well-done. Your efforts have brought about a more concise and neutral article. I thought you did a great job on the headers and and the wording of the "sex assignment" section. Phyesalis (talk) 03:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

After reading this article, it seems to me that the text within sections "Involuntary sex assignment" and "Female genitals" is very POV. Likewise, the list within "See also" may be biased, considering which articles are mentioned. I don't have the time right now but I may elaborate on this later. What does everyone else think? ~ Homologeo (talk) 08:19, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Is it a POV issue, or more of a need for some choice rewording for clarity? I think the phrase "it may not be clear whether the child is female or male" could be reworded, maybe "botched" could be changed-the Reimer article states he "was sexually reassigned and raised as female after his penis was inadvertently destroyed during circumcision." Is that better? As for Female genitals, I think the "forced" is a bit strong. Were there other issues you saw that I haven't mentioned? Phyesalis (talk) 08:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I removed the see also links - they were a bit odd. Any issues? Phyesalis (talk) 09:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]