Collective article record

Phalloplasty

Collective Archive Number CAN-0000-0076-F3BB Permanent resolver

Source Summary

The topic engenders polarized debate within the transgender community. Nowhere more than on internet support groups where, in the same thread, you will see some regard it as lifesaving and others as “frankendicks” that lack sensation and are “never good enough.” This body shaming would be unacceptable in any other context, yet it is routine with phalloplasty. There are several possible reasons for this. The scarcity of surgeons and funds to pay for surgery can cause some to decry these procedures as something they wouldn’t want even if they could access them. The scientific evidence, however, reveals that, despite complications, phalloplasty satisfaction rates reach 100% and, overall, 97% in one review of several different studies. On the other side, there is tremendous pressure placed on transmen who’ve had phalloplasty to portray their experiences as universally positive for fear of negatively impacting its availability or contributing to stereotypes about their genitals.

The Source Summary reproduces the first 150 words of the source article unless a Collective editor has explicitly locked a replacement.

Read the original article View inbound sources

Interpretive context

Why this article may matter

Community significance

“Phalloplasty” may matter to community readers because it preserves a first-person or testimonial account connected to healthcare and medicine, while also engaging transgender identity and history. Such accounts can document how an issue was understood and experienced from within the period or community being discussed.

Historical significance

The article may have historical value because it explicitly interprets or preserves material concerning healthcare and medicine. Published in 2019 by Transadvocate.com, it can be read both for the history it describes and as evidence of how transgender identity and history was framed at that moment.

Policy significance

“Phalloplasty” discusses institutions, law, or governance in connection with healthcare and medicine. Even without a dominant policy classification, the article may help researchers identify practical consequences for transgender identity and history.

Content analysis

Ranked themes and framings

Rank 1 is the dominant inferred theme or framing. Parent labels identify broader theme families; the relationship key beneath the diagram explains the line styles used for hierarchy, same-family relationships, overlap, and separate-but-related themes.

Themes

1
Healthcare and medicineTheme family: Institutions, law, and public life
100%
2
Transgender identity and historyTheme family: Identity, culture, and community
88%
3
Science, evidence, and expertiseTheme family: Knowledge, history, and communication
65%
4
Community and organizingTheme family: Identity, culture, and community
30%
5
Technology, data, and platformsTheme family: Knowledge, history, and communication
28%
6
Media, rhetoric, and discourseTheme family: Knowledge, history, and communication
18%

Academic framing

1
Public-health analysis
100%
2
Interpretive analysis
67%
3
Qualitative and interview research
42%
4
Clinical and medical analysis
33%

Editorial function

Source topics

Relationship key

Overlapping themes
Separate but related themes

The diagram distinguishes hierarchy, same-family relationships, overlap, and separate-but-related themes inferred within this article. It does not assert that all themes are mutually exclusive.

These classifications are inferred from article text and source metadata and remain directly editable. Relationship labels express corpus-analysis judgments, not immutable facts.

Granular comparative context

How “Healthcare and medicine” appears across the Collective corpus

This article appeared 6 year(s) after the theme’s highest annual presence in the registered corpus in 2013.

Relative presence by year

Peak year indexed to 100

3 2005

3 2006

23 2007

16 2008

6 2009

4 2010

36 2011

52 2012

55 2013

28 2014

10 2015

8 2016

18 2017

17 2018

3 2019

1 2020

1 2022

1 2024

1 2025

Presence by member publication

Frequently co-occurring concepts

Academic framings in this topic

Policy framings in this topic

Values measure relative presence in the registered Collective corpus, not public search interest or public opinion.

Inbound-link and citation evidence

Documented circulation and reception

The documented sources span 1 domain; the strongest available scholarly index reports 311 citing works. The dated evidence currently spans 2006–2025. These observations describe circulation and reuse; they do not assign cultural worth or evaluate the communities, arguments, or people discussed.

100distinct source records documented

1distinct referring domains

311best available scholarly cited-by count

0books or volumes documented

0references retained by the source publication

2006–2025observed years in dated evidence

Evidence by channel

Independent counts; bars are not additive

Scholarly citing works311

Coverage of the evidence search

Shows what has actually been checked

Publisher-held referencesChecked · August 31, 2026

Scholarly indexesChecked · August 31, 2026

311

Book and volume searchNotchecked

Public-web searchNotconfigured

Collective corpus linksIndexed · August 31, 2026

303 Crossref311 OpenCitations

Review scholarly results Review book results Review public-web results

Documented references over time

Yearly scholarly series: OpenCitations, combined with dated non-scholarly evidence

1 2006

2 2007

1 2008

3 2009

2 2010

4 2011

2 2012

1 2013

4 2014

4 2015

7 2016

6 2017

5 2018

13 2019

9 2020

7 2021

6 2022

12 2023

6 2024

4 2025