WhatamIdoing (talk | contribs) Tag: Reply |
Crossroads (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
Line 166: | Line 166: | ||
:::But if you saw a box at the top that said something like "In this article, ''pregnant woman'' refers to anyone who's pregnant, including trans men", then you would probably not think it was just accidentally overlooked. You would stop assuming that other editors would be grateful for your corrections. You might disagree, but you would have a somewhat more accurate picture of the situation. |
:::But if you saw a box at the top that said something like "In this article, ''pregnant woman'' refers to anyone who's pregnant, including trans men", then you would probably not think it was just accidentally overlooked. You would stop assuming that other editors would be grateful for your corrections. You might disagree, but you would have a somewhat more accurate picture of the situation. |
||
:::I do not think that this is like saying that the human body has four limbs. We're talking about a word that has historically had multiple definitions, except one (sub)culture now declares only one definition to be truly valid. We don't have people telling us that there are multiple definitions of "human body" but only one can be used from here out. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 00:04, 20 September 2022 (UTC) |
:::I do not think that this is like saying that the human body has four limbs. We're talking about a word that has historically had multiple definitions, except one (sub)culture now declares only one definition to be truly valid. We don't have people telling us that there are multiple definitions of "human body" but only one can be used from here out. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 00:04, 20 September 2022 (UTC) |
||
::::I diverged from your thought experiment at the 3rd sentence. If that was my belief and I read this article, my conclusion would be informed by the fact that texts which cut "women" out of female reproduction tend to be unpopular and controversial, and that most texts on the matter still use "woman" as a sex term, so that is probably what they did here. With a footnote, particularly zealous individuals of that sort would see that we've already made terminological concessions in that way, see an opening to push further, and could say, "they acknowledge trans men and enbies but still call them "biological female" and still use the word woman!? That is super problematic; they need to make it entirely degendered." |
|||
::::I've seen this time and time and time again with people who try to please such activists without fully submitting - activists are inflamed, not placated, by such moves, because doing even a little signals agreement with their premises and worldview that language must follow certain new rules, and hence vulnerability to further pressing on this point. And in general, it sets a bad precedent. Sources typically just use their terms without comment and so should we. If rando newbies or [[WP:Student editors]] make a fuss, we revert if necessary and inform them of how we do things around here. <span style="font-family:Palatino">[[User:Crossroads|'''Crossroads''']]</span> <sup>[[User talk:Crossroads|-talk-]]</sup> 17:25, 20 September 2022 (UTC) |
Revision as of 17:25, 20 September 2022
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This page has archives. Sections older than 180 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
Dates
There are three different sets of dates for when pregnancy "begins". They are:
- Last menstrual period (pregnancy begins two weeks before ovulation and fertilization)
- Conception (pregnancy begins at fertilization, which is usually ≤24 hours after ovulation)
- Implantation (pregnancy begins 5–10 days after ovulation and fertilization)
The last item is especially salient for abortion, because the pre-implantation definition means that Emergency contraception cannot be abortifacient. (There is no implanted blastocyst at that time; therefore there is no pregnancy, and you can't terminate a pregnancy that doesn't exist.) This approach is not especially common outside of abortion discussions.
I think this article would benefit from standardizing on the middle one, as it is the system most closely related to biology. What do you think? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:07, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2022
change woman to person and use more genderless language to be more accurate to the reality that it is not only people who identify as women who experience pregnancies (trans men, transmasculine people, intersex people with uteruses, nonbinary and genderqueer people with uteruses, ect.) Coochied (talk) 03:01, 23 April 2022 (UTC)
- Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the
{{edit semi-protected}}
template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:31, 23 April 2022 (UTC)- @Coochied, it sounds like you would like to have this Wikipedia article not use the word women to refer to the group of people who are physically capable of being pregnant. Keeping in mind that the "bodies with body parts" model is frequently considered an offensively reductionist approach because it reduces the whole of a human experience to something like a mindless machine made of parts,[1][2] what language would you suggest? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:46, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Coochied talk maybe a compromise could be explicitly saying people with uteruses but then adding a non-exhaustive list of those kinds of people or saying that historically it has been people identifying as women? I still think the language of people with uteruses though potentially reductive is more inclusive in general than "women." Beatswithbea (talk) 17:27, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
- @Coochied, it sounds like you would like to have this Wikipedia article not use the word women to refer to the group of people who are physically capable of being pregnant. Keeping in mind that the "bodies with body parts" model is frequently considered an offensively reductionist approach because it reduces the whole of a human experience to something like a mindless machine made of parts,[1][2] what language would you suggest? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:46, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
Added about Trimester origin
I saw the page didn’t mention the actual source of trimesters and I added the sentence in. It could move to Terminology. Did not put in leade as not concise. Thoughts?Manabimasu (talk) 17:57, 3 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Manabimasu, here's what you wrote, which I just removed:
- The origin of the trimester framework for pregnancy is in U.S. Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade. [1][2][3]
- That court decision was in 1973. Here is a link to a 19th century obstetrics textbook. It also talks about the trimesters of pregnancy. The idea of pregnancy being divided into trimesters did not originate in a 1973 court case. It originated either in this 1888 book (an idea suggested by this book review: "The author's classification of the signs of pregnancy is especially good. Dividing this period into trimesters...") or before it. At any rate, there is no possibility of the trimester framework having been invented by the Supreme Court some 85 years after the publication of this book. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:00, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- To perhaps be a little clearer: The SCOTUS in 1973 took the long-existing concept of trimesters from medicine, and declare that this system should be used to determine when abortions would be legal in the US. "You can apply this long-existing medical idea to law" is not the same as "We're inventing a new idea about how to talk about the different stages of pregnancy in this court decision". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:02, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Replace what I wrote with your source on the earliest mention of trimester system since origin seems to be unknown.Manabimasu (talk) 19:06, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Does this article really need to include information about when someone decided that pregnancy could be measured in thirds instead of, say, halves or quarters? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:42, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- Pertaining to trimester system, add as a footnote as it could take space.Manabimasu (talk) 20:00, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- Why add it at all? It's kind of WP:TRIVIA. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:38, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- Pertaining to trimester system, add as a footnote as it could take space.Manabimasu (talk) 20:00, 6 May 2022 (UTC)
- Does this article really need to include information about when someone decided that pregnancy could be measured in thirds instead of, say, halves or quarters? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:42, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- To perhaps be a little clearer: The SCOTUS in 1973 took the long-existing concept of trimesters from medicine, and declare that this system should be used to determine when abortions would be legal in the US. "You can apply this long-existing medical idea to law" is not the same as "We're inventing a new idea about how to talk about the different stages of pregnancy in this court decision". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:02, 5 May 2022 (UTC)
- ^ "Roe v. Wade (1973)". LII / Legal Information Institute.
- ^ Beck, Randy (2011). "Self-Conscious "Dicta": The Origins of Roe v. "Wade's" Trimester Framework". The American Journal of Legal History. 51 (3): 505–529 – via JSTOR.
- ^ Rhoden, Nancy K. (1986). "Trimesters and Technology: Revamping Roe v. Wade". The Yale Law Journal. 95 (4): 639–697. doi:10.2307/796449 – via JSTOR.
Timeline section
I'm glad to see this added because it is so confusing for most people. And certainly right now with the new legislation re early "heartbeat", etc., legislation in the U.S. I made a couple of changes. I'm a retired RN and saw plenty of very early babies born. We used to let them peacefully pass when they were horribly deformed, etc., but more recently nurses and doctors are afraid of losing their licenses. Sectionworker (talk) 01:48, 16 May 2022 (UTC) I will list some sources. [3] [4] Sectionworker (talk) 04:22, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
- @Sectionworker, I'd love it if you could add some sources, and also double-check the numbers. I'm pretty sure that the math is off in the middle of the last column. Please Wikipedia:Be bold in fixing it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:00, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- User:WhatamIdoing I looked for anything that would be useable when I first read your note here and as usual for that sort of info could find nothing. Then I looked at the math until my eyes started to cross and then I put it aside. Thinking about it today I found the the chart is from a gynecology journal from that month's online feature articles. I have no interest in trying to hunt that down. Exactly what do you think might be wrong and what math are you referring to also? Sectionworker (talk) 17:16, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
- I created the chart, mostly pulling numbers from existing Wikipedia articles but not grabbing their sources. The sourcing seemed a bit chaotic and I would not be surprised to discover that some articles contradict each other. I should probably look for a textbook on embryology or fetal development.
- The last two columns align with each other, but the LMP numbers have three weeks between implantation and heart function, and the others have two weeks. There may be similar discrepancies. The columns should align in lockstep: LMP minus two weeks is Fertilization age; Fertilization age minus six or seven days is Implantation age. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:28, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- As an example: Primitive streak says that it appears at day 17 in the text and day 15 in the infobox. Which is correct? I don't know. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:35, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- Oh yeah, I know what you are getting at here. I spent quite some time looking for the one true answer and never did find it. Hmmm, so youput it together. Well, in that case I'm going to figure it's as good as we've got till more info comes along. The thing is, it's so important and I do know that people do come here for facts about the situation. Let's keep it on our radar and discuss snything new that may come up, OK? Sectionworker (talk) 02:21, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- Here's part of a caption from Langman's Medical Embryology (isbn 9789388696531, page 48, figure 3.12):
- "Events during the first week of human development. 1, oocyte immediately after ovulation; 2, fertilization, approximately 12 to 24 hours after ovulation; 3, stage of the male and female pronuclei; 4, spindle of the first mitotic division; 5, two-cell stage [approximately 30 hours of age]; 6, morula containing 12 to 16 blastomeres [approximately 3 days of age]; 7, advanced morula stage reaching the uterine lumen [approximately 4 days of age]; 8, early blastocyst stage [approximately 4.5 days of age; the zona pellucida has disappeared]; 9, early phase of implantation [blastocyst approximately 6 days of age]."
- Except: Implantation seems to be a bit of a process, rather than a specific moment. So it typically starts 6 days after fertilization (or 7 days after having sex), but it doesn't really finish for several days:
- "Day 8 At the eighth day of development, the blastocyst is partially embedded in the endometrial stroma" (p. 51)
- "Day 9 The blastocyst is more deeply embedded in the endometrium, and the penetration defect in the surface epithelium is closed by a fibrin coagulum" (p. 52)
- "Days 11 and 12 By the 11th to the 12th day of development, the blastocyst is completely embedded in the endometrial stroma, and the surface epithelium almost entirely covers the original defect in the uterine wall.... maternal blood begins to flow through the trophoblastic system, establishing the uteroplacental circulation" (p. 53)
- "Fully implanted 12-day human blastocyst..." (p. 54, Figure 4.5)
- "Day 13 By the 13th day of development, the surface defect in the endometrium has usually healed" [but you could still see implantation bleeding, which can be mistaken menstrual bleeding] (p. 54)
- "At the beginning of the second week, the blastocyst is partially embedded....By the end of the second week, the blastocyst is completely embedded" (p. 58)
- If you look at the three-vs-four stages named at Implantation (embryology), then Langman's is in the three-stage camp (i.e., hatching is a necessary precondition rather than part of implantation itself).
- This seems to be a general theme. Consider the primitive streak:
- The primitive streak first appears at about the same time as implantation (begins), day 6 (p 46).
- "Initially, the streak is vaguely defined, but in a 15- to 16-day embryo, it is clearly visible as a narrow groove" (p. 60)
- This makes it a bit difficult to say "____ happens exactly on Day 7", even if you ignore the normal variations (e.g., someone having sex right after ovulation instead of in the days before it, which will slow down fertilization by a day or so). WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:59, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- I should make a note here: I think they're on a "counting from zero" system, so what I've written as "Day 7" in the article is "Day 6" in these quotations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:13, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- The next textbook was clearer about their counting system, and they were counting from 1, so ignore what I wrote here about counting from zero. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:45, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- I should make a note here: I think they're on a "counting from zero" system, so what I've written as "Day 7" in the article is "Day 6" in these quotations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:13, 21 July 2022 (UTC)
- Oh yeah, I know what you are getting at here. I spent quite some time looking for the one true answer and never did find it. Hmmm, so youput it together. Well, in that case I'm going to figure it's as good as we've got till more info comes along. The thing is, it's so important and I do know that people do come here for facts about the situation. Let's keep it on our radar and discuss snything new that may come up, OK? Sectionworker (talk) 02:21, 20 July 2022 (UTC)
- As an example: Primitive streak says that it appears at day 17 in the text and day 15 in the infobox. Which is correct? I don't know. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:35, 19 July 2022 (UTC)
- User:WhatamIdoing I looked for anything that would be useable when I first read your note here and as usual for that sort of info could find nothing. Then I looked at the math until my eyes started to cross and then I put it aside. Thinking about it today I found the the chart is from a gynecology journal from that month's online feature articles. I have no interest in trying to hunt that down. Exactly what do you think might be wrong and what math are you referring to also? Sectionworker (talk) 17:16, 18 July 2022 (UTC)
I don't like that periviability source. For one thing I get a "buy this book" after a sentence or two. Plus, how did you make that choice? Also, at 22 to 24 weeks it is actually only 30 percent that survive. Then, there is the very high rate of serious problems that the infant faces, (an aside...to say nothing of the hell that parents may go through to get financial help). I would prefer to say something like sources are not in agreement. This is a better source. [5] Sectionworker (talk) 05:05, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- I started in Google Books and looked for a textbook published in the last few years, by a reputable publisher.
- It looks like ACOG is defining periviability as being 20 to 26 weeks. This is a sensible range, because periviability is the time around viability rather than the point at which 50% survive, but I'm not sure that we really want periviability in the table.
- The world record for actually surviving is 21 weeks, 1 day (LMP dating). Early in the 21st week, the survival rate is not usefully expressed as a percentage; the survival rate is best expressed as "in the last half century, Curtis, Richard, and Frieda survived". Maybe the world record should be in the table instead.
- Or maybe we should have 50% survival lines. That would actually require two lines: one for what you can accomplish with unlimited resources in the most advanced medical facilities (23 weeks LMP per the JAMA study I added to Fetal viability), and another one for what happens in most of the world (probably around 30 to 32 weeks LMP). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:08, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not sure we want "periviability" either. Of the sensible things I read it gets harder and harder to find numbers for the chart. Here is Guttmacher saying that the final decision is for the attending physician to decide. [6] Of course it was easy enough to use compassion and medical knowledge before old, male politicians were put in charge of a woman's body and her life. I don't know the level of fear these days, meaning the fear of losing one's license to practice medicine and even getting put in jail. Here is a 2021 survey done in the UK with 22 wks usually replied. [7] Thanks for all the marvelous work you are doing here. Sometimes being so persnickety just makes me yawn, but not here... Sectionworker (talk) 23:56, 23 July 2022 (UTC)u. Sectionworker (talk) 01:37, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- I've removed that line. If anyone needs the ref, it was Denney-Koelsch, Erin M.; Côté-Arsenault, Denise (2020-02-05). Perinatal Palliative Care: A Clinical Guide. Springer Nature. p. 42. ISBN 978-3-030-34751-2.
- The Guttmacher source doesn't seem to be talking about viability on average. Of course the healthcare professional (who might not be a physician, and who frequently isn't what the US med students call an Attending physician) will have to make a decision on individual cases. It's the same as the difference between "the average lifespan" and "your own lifespan". WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:49, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
- Re Guttmacher, I was doing research for something else I'm working on and this line struck me re this discussion: "Viability cannot be presumed based on gestational age, fetal weight or any other single factor; it must be determined by a patient's doctor on a case-by-case basis." I was not suggesting it had any place in the article but merely to add to our discussion. Same for the other site I linked to. At any rate I think you made the wise decision here. I am happy with it, are you? Sectionworker (talk) 02:14, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- I don't think I'm "happy" with the decision; instead, my feelings are closer to "good enough for now" and "better than what we had".
- Guttmacher is correct that viability isn't a bright line that's the same in every case. Some birth defects are not survivable even at full term. OTOH, the fact that individual cases vary from the median doesn't make the median stop existing. Wikipedia articles should generally care more about the median than about exceptions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:36, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- One of the things that feels off about this table is that there are a lot of "events" in the first few weeks, but the last few lines cover six months. What do you think about adding Quickening? It'd have to be a range (probably 15–20 weeks LMP). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:32, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
- Re Guttmacher, I was doing research for something else I'm working on and this line struck me re this discussion: "Viability cannot be presumed based on gestational age, fetal weight or any other single factor; it must be determined by a patient's doctor on a case-by-case basis." I was not suggesting it had any place in the article but merely to add to our discussion. Same for the other site I linked to. At any rate I think you made the wise decision here. I am happy with it, are you? Sectionworker (talk) 02:14, 25 July 2022 (UTC)
- I'm not sure we want "periviability" either. Of the sensible things I read it gets harder and harder to find numbers for the chart. Here is Guttmacher saying that the final decision is for the attending physician to decide. [6] Of course it was easy enough to use compassion and medical knowledge before old, male politicians were put in charge of a woman's body and her life. I don't know the level of fear these days, meaning the fear of losing one's license to practice medicine and even getting put in jail. Here is a 2021 survey done in the UK with 22 wks usually replied. [7] Thanks for all the marvelous work you are doing here. Sometimes being so persnickety just makes me yawn, but not here... Sectionworker (talk) 23:56, 23 July 2022 (UTC)u. Sectionworker (talk) 01:37, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
Third Trimester pregnancy image
I noticed there was a picture for the 2nd trimester but not the third. Here is one for the third with a side and front view. It could be added under the Maternal changes 4.3 section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:3A87:9A00:3E28:B44B:8CBF:87DA (talk) 18:51, 4 June 2022 (UTC)
- We already have two third trimester photos. Sectionworker (talk) 13:53, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
Missing chapter about the capacity to become pregnant
Hi, I recently introduced a sub-chapter in Physiology about the development of reproductive organs. Meaning a chapter about variations in sex characteristics and their development, as the basis to be able to become pregnant. This can include cases such as women with partially developed reproductive organs, or other obstacles. But it would be a place to speak about age and pregnancy, in young and old people, as well as trans-gender and intersex cases. The latter are now in the legal/social chapter where it is only partially fitting. The age issue is just as a "further" link at the beinning od that chapter; and fertility is alltogether in the "see also" section. In my opinion also "male pregnancy could fit here as a link.
I would suggest maybe give the issue even an own chapter seperate to physiology, because it has such a delicate social dimension too. So I am for a cromprehensive chapter about "Capacity" or "Fertility" (I cant think of less valueing terms).
What do you think? I think its an important complex that shouldnt be spread out. Nsae Comp (talk) 19:38, 3 July 2022 (UTC)
- Are you considering a summary of Fertility and Infertility? Maybe it would be best to improve those articles first, and only then try to summarize them here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:03, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- No I do not just suggest to summarize these articles. I am suggesting to have a chapter that deals with the capacity to be pregnant as a young or old person, as an intersex or trans person, or women with different physical conditions that influence their capacity to become pregnant (which would include, but not completely cover the issue of fertility). It is odd that it is even a point of dicussion to have a chapter about the capacity to have ferilization happening and become pregnant. Nsae Comp (talk) 10:05, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Is not "the capacity to be pregnant" actually the subject of those articles? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:05, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- No I do not just suggest to summarize these articles. I am suggesting to have a chapter that deals with the capacity to be pregnant as a young or old person, as an intersex or trans person, or women with different physical conditions that influence their capacity to become pregnant (which would include, but not completely cover the issue of fertility). It is odd that it is even a point of dicussion to have a chapter about the capacity to have ferilization happening and become pregnant. Nsae Comp (talk) 10:05, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Well as far as I understand it (IMHO): no, fecundity seems to be the term that I was looking for. Fecundity as the opposite to sterility, instead of fertility and infertility, the latter two being the capacity to fertilize. So I suggest to introduce a chapter called fecundity, which covers and moves together the above suggested. Nsae Comp (talk) 23:23, 4 July 2022 (UTC)
- Ignoring the fact that this article is actually about abortion, are these the issues that you wish to cover? [8] Sectionworker (talk) 11:28, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Please elaborate what fecundity has to do with abortion? But yes reproductive health is an issue also of trans, nonbinary and intersex people. But I am arguing for a particular chapter about the capacity to become pregnant. Nsae Comp (talk) 12:55, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
- She means that the main subject of the cnet.com source she linked is about abortion, but touches on similar subjects – not the main subject of the Wikipedia articles is abortion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:13, 8 July 2022 (UTC)
I just found the following source that discusses the term, but due to its conclusion I would just call the chapter "Capacity" and then elaborate on the different terms, incl. their opposites (infertility and sterility), and the different cases.[1] Nsae Comp (talk) 18:25, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
Another more contemporary fertility science glossary:[2] Nsae Comp (talk) 18:50, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
So more then ten years later to the first source I now introduced the terms fertility and fecundity still stand and are differentiated as discussed. So I would as I said still suggest a chapter called "Capacity" and collect all the issues relating it and elaborate on their differences: fecundity (/sterility), fertility (/infertility), variations in sex characteristics in women, nonbinary, transgender and intersex people, as well as the fecundity throughout age. Nsae Comp (talk) 18:57, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
I introduced now my updated version of the chapter. If something is still lacking, please discuss here particularly before reverting the chapter. Nsae Comp (talk) 22:32, 5 July 2022 (UTC)
References
- ^ Habbema, J.D.F. (2004-07-01). "Towards less confusing terminology in reproductive medicine: a proposal". Human Reproduction. 19 (7). Oxford University Press (OUP): 1497–1501. doi:10.1093/humrep/deh303. ISSN 1460-2350.
- ^ Zegers-Hochschild, Fernando; Adamson, G. David; Dyer, Silke; Racowsky, Catherine; de Mouzon, Jacques; Sokol, Rebecca; Rienzi, Laura; Sunde, Arne; Schmidt, Lone; Cooke, Ian D.; Simpson, Joe Leigh; van der Poel, Sheryl (2017). "The International Glossary on Infertility and Fertility Care, 2017". Fertility and Sterility. 108 (3). Elsevier BV: 393–406. doi:10.1016/j.fertnstert.2017.06.005. ISSN 0015-0282.
spontaneous/induced miscarriage/abortion in the lead
'Miscarriage' often has the connotations of spontaneous and 'abortion' of induced, but really they're the same thing: an elective abortion is defined as an induced miscarriage, and a miscarriage is often described as a spontaneous abortion (the body aborts the fetus). So I think we should keep the wording parallel in the lead. I don't know the best wording, but I think it could confuse people not to clarify that both words can have both meanings. — kwami (talk) 05:11, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- I wonder if it would be a good idea to write a few sentences to explain this in the body of the article since it may be confusing to a person other than one who has medical training? Sectionworker (talk) 12:16, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- Also, supposedly FIGO and WHO, like Massachusetts and Mexico, define pregnancy from implantation, e.g. the supreme court of Mexico cited WHO for that in their 2019 ruling, but I can't find where FIGO or WHO state that. I've written FIGO, so maybe I'll get a response. And of course you can't have a miscarriage, and thus an abortion, before you're pregnant, so this could play into coverage of the changing situation in the US, if readers come to this article to understand what exactly 'pregnancy' and 'gestation' are. — kwami (talk) 22:12, 22 July 2022 (UTC)
- It looks like the CDC and FDA in the US do as well, but rather than an explicit statement, I'm only finding indirect wording such as emergency contraception preventing pregnancy by preventing a fertilized egg from implanting. — kwami (talk) 22:06, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- I don't believe it's generally true that "an elective abortion is defined as an induced miscarriage". Consider, e.g., the legal definitions collected at https://www.lawinsider.com/dictionary/elective-abortion (which do not mention the word miscarriage at all) and the definition given in Britannica: "An elective abortion is the interruption of a pregnancy before the 20th week of gestation at the woman’s request for reasons other than maternal health or fetal disease." Or this one from the NCI: "An abortion performed due to individual choice, in the absence of a harmful medical condition caused by pregnancy."
- I suggest that we should be cautious of definitions that have been promoted in response to recent events in the US.
- As for the terminology, elective is complicated because it is strange wrt abortion. Elective medical care is normally the opposite of emergency medical care. When we're talking about abortion, however, we contrast elective with therapeutic. Therapeutic is not significantly different from Medically necessary (usually because someone wants to avoid the birth of a disabled child, and only rarely to preserve the life or health of the mother). As a result, it is possible to have an elective therapeutic abortion (e.g., fetus diagnosed with Down syndrome, and surgical abortion is scheduled in advance) or to have an emergency therapeutic abortion (e.g., mother's life in danger and a surgeon is called minutes after her arrival in the emergency room), and an elective elective abortion (e.g., scheduled in advance for non-medical reasons), but not an emergency elective abortion.
- As a result, I tend to prefer induced abortion, as it sidesteps the problem with which kind of elective it is. Also, some sources have complained about the "elective" terminology (example). Usually this is either because they disagree with the elective–therapeutic binary, or because it's unclear. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:26, 3 August 2022 (UTC)
Changing pronouns and gendered language
Anyone with a uterus can get pregnant so it could be useful to clarify that in the article by removing words such as "woman" or she/her/hers pronouns and replacing them with gender neutral language Beatswithbea (talk) 17:22, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
- Let's discuss this before we make a decision. From my understanding trans women can't get pregnant but trans men can since they have a female body (unless they've had surgery). How often that happens I have no idea. I don't know much about what gay partners call themself or each other except for the way TV personalities refer to their partner and so far I've heard women refer to their partner as "my wife" and men as "my husband". Anyway, I am wondering how often "men" become pregnant? Sectionworker (talk) 17:57, 17 September 2022 (UTC)
- Exceedingly rarely, because transgender people are already a small minority, and the proportion of trans men who get pregnant is also smaller than for women because it would likely be a dysphoric experience in most cases.
- This matter is already covered in this article under Pregnancy#Capacity and Pregnancy#Intersex and transgender people. However, replacing other text such that the article says little or nothing about women is not WP:DUE, nor does it follow WP:Reliable sources - the vast majority of which, both generally and in this article, refer simply to women. Indeed, in almost all cases only women were studied, and we must WP:STICKTOSOURCE. Most importantly, Wikipedia community consensus is that
the terminology in articles, especially medical articles, is dependent upon the support of reliable sources and it is expected that editors would use the same terminology presented in said sources.
Crossroads -talk- 20:41, 17 September 2022 (UTC)- You seem to have offered good, sound advise and I hope this will settle it. I believe that some students are using gender neutral language which perhaps fits in with their class instructions. Sectionworker (talk) 00:12, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
- One of the proposals in the past has been to define terms towards the top of the article. Imagine a box, perhaps similar to {{Contains special characters}}, that says something like "This article uses the word woman to refer to any biological female human who has reached reproductive maturity, regardless of age, gender identity, gender expression, or gender role."
- I don't know that it is a good proposal, but it might address the concerns about "anyone with a uterus can get pregnant" (...which claim is not strictly true, by the way). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:54, 18 September 2022 (UTC)
- This seems like it would just attract more of those types of comments because it goes down that road by mentioning gender identity, but still doesn't change definitions entirely. (Also, gender expression and roles as distinct from identity are entirely irrelevant here.) As it is it's really no different from Human body#Anatomy saying
The human body has four limbs (two arms and two legs)
even though some people are amputees. It's clear from context that we mean as a biological standard, even though some people might be exceptions. This matter is already acknowledged in the article text well. Crossroads -talk- 04:21, 19 September 2022 (UTC)- Imagine that you believe words like woman and mother should only be used to refer to a person with a particular gender identity. Imagine that you read this article, and it uses what you're accustomed to thinking of as an exclusively gender-specific term to describe pregnancy. You might assume that the previous editors had accidentally overlooked this and would be grateful to have someone (e.g., you) remove all of the gender-specific terms and replace them with gender-neutral terms.
- But if you saw a box at the top that said something like "In this article, pregnant woman refers to anyone who's pregnant, including trans men", then you would probably not think it was just accidentally overlooked. You would stop assuming that other editors would be grateful for your corrections. You might disagree, but you would have a somewhat more accurate picture of the situation.
- I do not think that this is like saying that the human body has four limbs. We're talking about a word that has historically had multiple definitions, except one (sub)culture now declares only one definition to be truly valid. We don't have people telling us that there are multiple definitions of "human body" but only one can be used from here out. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:04, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- I diverged from your thought experiment at the 3rd sentence. If that was my belief and I read this article, my conclusion would be informed by the fact that texts which cut "women" out of female reproduction tend to be unpopular and controversial, and that most texts on the matter still use "woman" as a sex term, so that is probably what they did here. With a footnote, particularly zealous individuals of that sort would see that we've already made terminological concessions in that way, see an opening to push further, and could say, "they acknowledge trans men and enbies but still call them "biological female" and still use the word woman!? That is super problematic; they need to make it entirely degendered."
- I've seen this time and time and time again with people who try to please such activists without fully submitting - activists are inflamed, not placated, by such moves, because doing even a little signals agreement with their premises and worldview that language must follow certain new rules, and hence vulnerability to further pressing on this point. And in general, it sets a bad precedent. Sources typically just use their terms without comment and so should we. If rando newbies or WP:Student editors make a fuss, we revert if necessary and inform them of how we do things around here. Crossroads -talk- 17:25, 20 September 2022 (UTC)
- This seems like it would just attract more of those types of comments because it goes down that road by mentioning gender identity, but still doesn't change definitions entirely. (Also, gender expression and roles as distinct from identity are entirely irrelevant here.) As it is it's really no different from Human body#Anatomy saying