Talk:chirurgie de réassignation sexuelle

@PUC Do you think this one and chirurgie de réattribution sexuelle are SOP? Imetsia (talk) 16:45, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

@Languageseeker Any thoughts on SOPness of these two terms? Imetsia (talk) 16:23, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

@Imetsia I'd keep it. It's a technical term. Languageseeker (talk) 01:01, 5 April 2021 (UTC)

@Imetsia: Delete, SOP. PUC – 18:49, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

@Imetsia, PUC: SOP, but just like English sex reassignment surgery then? Sitaron (talk) 13:30, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@Sitaron: Not necessarily. I've made this argument several times now, but additional markers like an extra preposition, the presence/absence of an article, etc. can be good indicators of whether a term is SOP. So you can simultaneously think the English term is entryworthy while thinking the French translation isn't. Likewise, we could accept sex reassignment surgery but reject surgery of sexual reassignment (which is essentially what this French entry is). Or even compare the English baseball bat with the Italian mazza da baseball, which we decided to delete. Imetsia (talk) 18:26, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

@Imetsia: I see where this argument tries to aim at, but it doesn't hold up. First, English and Germanic languages in general are "lucky" in having a compact way to string words together, but it doesn't necessarily make such terms entry-worthy and doesn't necessarily make them not SoP. For example, "hand surgery" is not entry-worthy. Conversely, just because Romance languages need to resort to prepositions and articles while compounding doesn't necessarily make them SOP. "Coup de foudre", "nerf de la guerre", "jour de l'an" are entry-worthy.

The notion of SOP and entryworthiness goes much beyond a simple syntactic test. I can very well imagine this is a cyclical debate on Wiktionary though :) Sitaron (talk) 18:57, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

RFD discussion: April 2021–July 2023

The following information passed a request for deletion (permalink).

This discussion is no longer live and is left here as an archive. Please do not modify this conversation, but feel free to discuss its conclusions.

---

chirurgie de réassignation sexuelle

chirurgie de réattribution sexuelle

French SOP. Imetsia (talk) 18:55, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Delete both, SOP. PUC – 19:03, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

• Keep both. The English term sex reassignment surgery isn't SOP, so neither are these. —Mahāgaja · talk 22:59, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
• Keep, the crux here is whether réassignation and réattribution make this SOP; the polysemy of sexuelle is certainly not relevant. That these are SOP is neither clear nor explained. The definitions do not have a clear link to sex or gender, nor do the definitions of reassignment or reattribution make clear what is SOP about the nominated phrases. Here's a thought experiment, could a French speaker from one or two centuries ago infer the meanings of these phrases? I strongly doubt she could. As these terms surely look like calques from English, the odds are also real that they are jiffies in French usage relating to sex. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 06:41, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

The answer to the thought experiment is meaningless: we don't write the website for French speakers from 1821. Yellow is the colour (talk) 22:56, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

The point of the thought experiment is that it is a simple heuristic tool that can help one detect jiffies and that it is one safeguard that prevents one from making the "literally translates the English, must be SOP" fallacy. ←₰-→ Lingo ^Bingo _Dingo (talk) 17:08, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

• Keep as long as we have sex reassignment surgery, of which this is essentially a word-for-word translation. If we are going to debate this at all, better to debate it in English where we can all weigh in. This, that and the other (talk) 07:05, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

RFD-kept. Imetsia (talk) 15:21, 27 July 2023 (UTC)