This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Medicine Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

On 7 November 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved to Electrolysis hair removal. The result of the discussion was no consensus.

I have moved this topic to Electrology instead of Electrolysis (cosmetology) for three reasons:

• To distinguish the practice of electrology from other meanings of electrolysis.
• Not all electrical epilation is strictly electrolysis. One method uses diathermy rather than electrolytic reaction.
• Not all electrology is cosmetology: the original ophthalmologist's paper from 1875 described its use as a medical procedure to cure trichiasis. Electrology is still used for both cosmetic and medical purposes to this day.

Jokestress 22:08, 23 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Electrolysis is a practiced world wide trade or profession where operators remove unwanted hair from people or animals permentantly. This whole field of electrolysis(hair removal) was started in 1875 by Charles E. Michel M.D. It is recognized as a trade by the Manitoba government! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.160.202.86 (talk • contribs) 17:56, 29 March 2005, Moved to this article on 03:40, 26 June 2005 bu User:Omegatron

Uncertain as to the relevance of the definition of one canadian province (Manitoba) on a dictionary project for the whole english speaking world. Graldensblud 20:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although I have no opinions on the matter, I was recently contacted by a user claiming that this article is biased. In deference to that statement, I've added a neutrality dispute template to the article. I'd encourage any involved parties to discuss the accuracy and fair coverage of this article. Thanks, Alphachimp 00:47, 16 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Refusing to allow an editor to linkspam her non-notable business website (her only contributions ever to the project) is not an NPOV issue. I've removed the tag. Jokestress 18:21, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited the final paragraph, which was biased and unencyclopedic.Snafflekid 19:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion of side effects, etc. should be added. -- Beland (talk) 18:01, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed; I had understood that electrolysis can cause scarring, while laser hair removal had a far lower probability of such effects. I was surprised to find this article devoid of any such discussions. Ouizardus (talk) 02:33, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the section: "All three methods (galvanic, thermolysis, and blend) have their own merits, and one method is not better than another. The success depends on the skill of the electrologist, the type of hair being removed, the condition of the skin and the pain threshold of the client. All three methods, when properly performed, can be thorough at destroying the hair matrix cells, and leaving follicles incapable of regrowing hair."

As someone who has had all three of these methods done to me personally by the world's foremost expert in electrolysis, I can state unequivocally that this statement is not merely misleading, but also false and dangerous. This expert I know is in such high demand that people still pay her travel expenses including air fair, food, and lodging, plus fee for service, to fly around the world doing electrolysis, even though she has 'retired'.

Thermolysis in any amount causes scarring in every case because it damages a wide area of skin around the follicle with permanent cooking, and leaves white junk mixed with dead follicle and hair remnants embedded in the skin. The energy pattern surrounding the needle tip is cylindrical and deeply penetrates non-follicle tissue.

Galvanic done properly causes zero scarring and leaves behind zero refuse in the skin because it chemically dissolves only the follicle in the vicinity of the needle with the generated lye, which is the original method of electrolysis because the word explicitly evokes electrolyte, not thermal radiation.

The major issue with excessive pain level of galvanic is from 50-60Hz AC ripple on the cheap equipment DC power supply that can be completely eliminated by using low-noise regulated power supply or battery power supply. Once the pain level comes down, the rate of generation of lye can be increased substantially with more current, decreasing the treatment time by up to half. That is a substantial gain in efficacy when the entire process of removing a transperson's facial hair can take between 80 to 120 hours in the best case using this optimal method, or even much longer if there's a substantial amount of body hair too, whereas competing methods not only damage follicles and surrounding skin but also leave embedded hair remnants that cannot be shed naturally.

Claiming that these three methods are all equivalent is bonkers. They aren't even close.

I have evidence in my own face of this radical difference in results. After multiple false starts with thermolysis and then blend that caused permanent scarring while not removing hair permanently, and experiencing discoloration as well as sensory loss and permanent tenderness, I was treated by someone who had already spent years digging 'space junk' out of damaged skin from prior thermolysis and laser treatments by using electrolysis. Clients left her office bloodied and grateful for the removal of the whitish hard lumps of cooked flesh with the permanently embedded itchy blue bumps of hair shadow. Fortunately I only had a couple dozen of such burns in my skin rather than hundreds to thousands, because I only had a couple of treatments from each person before I met someone who knew what she was doing and had built her own equipment.

I have zero evidence of scarring and retain normal sensation in all areas of my face that were never treated with any amount of thermolysis. Thank God I never did laser because that's just as bad if not worse. I also retain a substantial amount of the natural 'fuzz' that never progressed to beard from the influence of testosterone because galvanic done properly involves no treatment of follicles that contain only tiny sebaceous hair.

This article needs attention from an expert who actually has state-of-the-art experience with all methods. The only expert I know of is the person who treated me because nobody else in the world appears to have the skill and equipment necessary to do this job optimally. Nearly everyone else doing galvanic (including her now) has been put out of business by laser. Her web site is now offline because she's been put into involuntary retirement by marketing and laziness of quick-fix laser that doesn't even do permanent hair removal, while scarring and bleaching skin and leaving it full of unsightly refuse. Only a select few have the resources to transport her to their abode globally and she is very choosy about who gets her services now. She no longer digs 'space junk' out of the faces of her clients because the work is tedious and fewer people benefit from her remaining capacity as she ages out of the profession.

There's multiple generations of transwomen walking around with pancake makeup like drag queens hiding their scars. Not me, not anyone that my electrologist worked on, because our skin is flawless (at least in the areas that no one else worked on). I don't need any makeup to look normal, thankfully, because most of the damage from my minimal ignorant treatments is either barely visible or below my chin where it doesn't show. I can't tell you how many walking wounded I saw entering and leaving her practice while getting my work done. All I can tell you is that they walked out relieved and bleeding, and their remedial work seemed to take forever.

I recommend that an NPOV note be added to that quote, or that it be rewritten, if not completely removed, because it's pure bollocks. Also the section on side effects desperately needs to be written. I won't be doing it personally because I don't know of any sources that withstand Wikipedia's non-primary source requirement, my electrologist's web site with its multiple photographs is offline and unavailable even if a primary source were allowed, and I'm not prepared to enter into edit wars with other authors just to make a point about how wrong this statement is.

I checked the Wayback and that's also currently offline. https://x.com/internetarchive/status/1991504182411685955 If I find an archived copy of her web site later I'll leave a link here. It was called hairzapper.com and is internationally famous in the trans community.

The fact is that in some ways nobody in the world cares enough about transpeople to even document properly what our medical treatment entails in peer-reviewed research. We're constantly under attack in the global transgender genocide. The error in this article electrology article is just one more example of how our culture is constantly being ignored if not erased by forces outside of our control. Billions of cisgender women seeking hair removal also suffer from our loss because transphobia hurts everyone.

I didn't want to make this personal, but this personal accounting is the only thing I currently have to offer. Hopefully some day the research catches up with the pioneers in this field. There's now only one younger person using my electrologist's equipment and methods. This newcomer bought most of the business and is making a go of it, but I don't know how well it's going, or how closely she was trained. There may never be another expert like the one that worked on me, and we are all poorer for that loss. CherylJosie (talk) 16:37, 20 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]