Talk:chirurgie de réassignation sexuelle

Do you think this one and are SOP? Imetsia (talk) 16:45, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Any thoughts on SOPness of these two terms? Imetsia (talk) 16:23, 20 March 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd keep it. It's a technical term. Languageseeker (talk) 01:01, 5 April 2021 (UTC)
 * Delete, SOP. PUC – 18:49, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
 * SOP, but just like English sex reassignment surgery then? Sitaron (talk) 13:30, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 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 but reject  (which is essentially what this French entry is). Or even compare the English  with the Italian, which we decided to delete. Imetsia (talk) 18:26, 6 August 2021 (UTC)
 * 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)

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, 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)