| Revision as of 19:11, 9 October 2024 editWhatamIdoing (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers121,757 edits →Person(s)/people with uteruses: ReplyTag: Reply← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 18:47, 18 November 2024 edit undoWhatamIdoing (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers121,757 edits →Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2024 (3): ReplyTag: Reply |
| (18 intermediate revisions by 10 users not shown) |
| Line 39: |
Line 39: |
|
* <nowiki>]</nowiki> The anchor (#Parity) has been ] before. <!-- {"title":"Parity","appear":{"revid":608199803,"parentid":607170918,"timestamp":"2014-05-12T09:46:24Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":},"disappear":{"revid":1109942945,"parentid":1109942666,"timestamp":"2022-09-12T18:26:01Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":}} --> |
|
* <nowiki>]</nowiki> The anchor (#Parity) has been ] before. <!-- {"title":"Parity","appear":{"revid":608199803,"parentid":607170918,"timestamp":"2014-05-12T09:46:24Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":},"disappear":{"revid":1109942945,"parentid":1109942666,"timestamp":"2022-09-12T18:26:01Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":}} --> |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
|
|
== MOS:GNL in the lead == |
|
|
|
|
|
On {{diff2|1173893876|5 September}} {{u|Klisz}} removed the word {{tq|woman's}} from the lead, though without reason. About {{diff2|1174977923|twenty minutes}} ago, {{u|Crossroads}} restored it with an edit summary, I then removed it again citing ] and ]. Crossroads has restored it a second time. |
|
|
|
|
|
With respect to Crossroads' second edit summary, the third bullet point of ] does not apply. We aren't making a direct statement that men can have a uterus. Though that certainly is true for cisgender men (see ]), trans men, and non-binary people. The fourth bullet point doesn't apply in this circumstance, as when modern ] sources discuss uteri they typically do so without gendered adverbs like woman, though some still use sexed adverbs like female. And the sixth bullet point does not apply, as we are already linking to ] and the sex and gender distinction is not overly helpful in this regard. |
|
|
|
|
|
Gender-neutral language issues aside, there is also a ] issue here. That one is pretty clear that {{tq|When possible, do not place links next to each other, to avoid appearing like a single link}}. Because the current text reads "] ]", while being two separate links, it appears to be a single one when rendered. If we are going to keep woman here, which as I've said seems not necessary, at the very least it should not be wikilinked there per SEAOFBLUE. ] (]) 00:20, 12 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Refreshing myself of the two past discussions linked in the edit summary, neither of those actually addressed the substance behind the edits to this sentence over the last few days. Both of those prior discussions were specifically relating to including content relating to trans pregnancies in the lead. This issue is not that, as it is about using gendered language for terminology that does not need to be gendered, and is not gendered in recent MEDRS. ] (]) 00:32, 12 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::{{tq|We aren't making a direct statement that men can have a uterus.}} A stated purpose of is to avoid saying that women have uteri, on the basis that men (and nonbinary people) can too. For the same reason, the sixth bullet point does apply as well. |
|
|
::{{tq|The fourth bullet point doesn't apply in this circumstance, as when modern ] sources discuss uteri they typically do so without gendered adverbs like woman}} - this is not correct and easily disproven. etc. etc. Almost all such sources refer to the people affected by pregnancy as women, straightforwardly. |
|
|
::] states {{tq|when possible}}, it isn't a hard and fast rule. But if that is the issue, then removing the wikilink would suffice. Neither it nor GNL justify removing a word that both experts and everyday readers use commonly, typically, and freely. |
|
|
::] discussion which I linked in my edit summary opened with the user proposing to {{tq|remov words such as "woman"}}. This did not succeed after discussion and never has. <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 00:42, 12 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Correct, but there could be some middle ground here; e.g., there is probably no reason to write "woman's uterus" when just "uterus" will do. But I'm opposed to peppering this article with language like "pregnant people" and "people with uteruses" and so on, because it's still not the conventional way across all RS to write about this subject (even among MEDRS sources, where usage remains sharply divided), so it is jarring to many readers (and highly socio-politicized to many of them as well). As with singular-''they'' becoming the new normal, such language might become the new normal over time, but it has not yet. WP's articles are not the place to engage in a "culture war"; we should steer as far away from that as is practical with bounds of policy. <span style="white-space:nowrap;font-family:'Trebuchet MS'"> — ] ] ] 😼 </span> 00:48, 12 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Another way to address the SEAOFBLUE issue is just to not link to ]. We're not expecting readers to need that link to be able to understand this article, after all. ] (]) 00:29, 15 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::{{tq|this is not correct and easily disproven}} Actually, a PubMed search for , filtered to show only reviews, meta-analysis, and systematic reviews shows 126 papers published in the last five years. However a PubMed search for , with the same filters, returns 1,446 results. There is an order of magnitude more papers publish that do not use gendered terminology here than use it. Even if you count all papers published since 1975, has 562 results, to 's 5,881. I am very certain that MEDRS do not overwhelmingly use gendered adverbs when discussing uteri. ] (]) 00:53, 12 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::It should also be noted that everywhere else in the article where we mention uteri, we either say "the uterus" or just "uterus", without gender modifier. If we don't need that modifier in the article's body, why do we need it in the lead? ] (]) 01:10, 12 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Something is apparently problematic with the search feature used in that way; I tried to verify the results and they don't work out. For example article shows up in your "NOT" search but very clearly uses "woman" and "women" heavily throughout, both in the abstract and in the rest. . one uses it heavily in the body of the article. one uses the term. And . I could go on but clearly the NOT function in PubMed is not able to identify articles that use "uterus" and not "woman" or "women", hence invalidating the analysis. The fact that the same pattern in the results goes back to 1975, when the idea of avoiding "woman" because of pregnant non-women was nonexistent, is also telling. |
|
|
:::::The present lead sentence is (a) the status quo and there was not a consensus to change that in the past, and (b) acts as a very broad overview, which later sentences do not. <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 01:16, 12 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::It's the pluralization of woman to women. Unlike a Google search, PubMed does not always automatically search for plurals or synonyms. |
|
|
::::::Modifying the search to returns 565 results for the last five years, with the same filters. Whereas returns 1,154 results. Expanding that to all papers ever indexed by PubMed gives 2,170 results and 4,374 results. There's still an order of magnitude difference for the last five years, though overall the pattern is roughly 2:1 in favour genderless terminology when describing the uterus. ] (]) 01:25, 12 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Your results only search titles and abstracts; a look at the fully viewable ones reveals that they generally use those terms in the source even if they happen not to do so in the abstract; e.g. It remains the case that almost all sources on the topic refer to the group affected by pregnancy as women, straightforwardly. <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 01:36, 12 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Perhaps they use gendered adverbs for discussing pregnancy, I haven't checked too deeply as it's tangential to this discussion, but ''not for the uterus''. Each of those three papers, as well as the five ] do not use a gendered adverb when discussing the uterus. And most instances of the term also do not use a sexed adverb either. Overwhelmingly when sources discuss uteri they do so using gender-neutral and sex-neutral terminology. |
|
|
::::::::As an amusing aside, as you highlighted a paper above, the French word for uterus; , is a masculine noun. ] (]) 01:49, 12 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::For what little it is worth, I support removing "woman" from "uterus" for the simple fact that pregnancies in girls 10-14 are hardly unknown, and it rings culturally hollow to me to refer to such people as "women." But happy to go wherever consensus leads. Cheers. ] (]) 03:37, 12 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::You do know PubMed contains articles about non-human organisms with uteri...? There are results in the last 5 years for "mouse" AND "uterus", for rat, etc.<br>EDIT: Now I see that you limited it to reviews/metas/SRs; but that still yields hundreds of articles in other animals, including in pigs, in cows, etc. ] (]) 04:26, 12 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
:Given that the balance of the article uses "woman" a number of times I don't understand why we would avoid the term in the lead. The discussion of the number of times papers use woman/women really would need to look at the specific examples to see if/why they didn't use "woman". Did they use an alternative word indicating gender/sex, did they actively avoid specifying gender/sex or was the topic specific in a way that gender/sex simply wasn't mentioned (blood profusion across the uterine wall as a hypothetical example). I think avoiding the word "woman" in the lead would violate the 3rd GNL example which specifically uses pregnancy as an example. ] (]) 06:56, 12 September 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::This has come up again. |
|
|
::Could someone please tell me why it's really really really important to link (NB: ''link'', as in ], not merely write the word out in plain old text) the word ''woman'' in that particular sentence? |
|
|
::If we feel the need to provide a link to ] early in the article, could we please do that in the infobox's caption, or in the ==Terminology== section, or by introducing the word woman into the second sentence and linking it there ("A ] is when a woman is pregnant with more than one offspring, such as with ]"), instead of in the first sentence, where the blue "woman" runs into the blue "uterus", and makes it difficult to tell whether clicking on "woman" will take you to the article about women or to the article about human uteri? ] (]) 05:00, 21 November 2023 (UTC) |
|
|
::: {{u|Fwaff}} removed the word {{tq|woman's}} from the lead and has replaced it with "a female" which many women find offensive. Please read the talk pages before making changes to the lead! ] (]) 17:48, 5 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::I wonder if you could provide a reliable source proving that many women find the word ''female'' offensive. ] (]) 19:52, 5 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::It's when 'female' is used as a noun rather than a adjective. But many are so adverse to it, language has trended towards morphing woman into an adjective. https://www.newyorker.com/culture/comma-queen/female-trouble-the-debate-over-woman-as-an-adjective ] (]) 20:35, 5 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::The change, which you without any explanation in the edit summary <small>(something we typically do only when the reason is obvious, like "poop" vandalism, by the way; if you revert similar edits in the future, please try to explain a little in the edit summary, or mention that you'll post a longer discussion on the talk page)</small>, changed "a woman's uterus" to "a female's uterus". The older form is unnecessary, and the newer attempt is redundant (as the subject of the article is human pregnancy, and among humans, only the female has a uterus). Both have a ] problem. |
|
|
::::::But: your reason for reverting it is that "<u>many</u> women find offensive", for which you have provided a source that says only "<u>Some</u> women bristle at being called females, because it is a word that packages them as bodies". Firstly, "some" is less than "many"; secondly, pregnancy is an embodied experience, so the bodily aspect is relevant. (Your source also ends with the author saying she's okay with being called a female.) So I'm finding the rationale a bit lacking. |
|
|
::::::I would suggest removing it (thus also solving the SEAOFBLUE problem), and, if wanted, sticking the word ''woman'' somewhere else in that paragraph. ] (]) 04:01, 6 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Do you not see the explanation "manual rollback of change by Fwaff"? That is the explanation. I wanted to let Fwaff know that there was a discussion. Many pages have one, and if i wanted to change the lead, after seeing the conversation, i would have asked for a consensus vote. Did i even ping that user correctly? |
|
|
:::::::Frankly, i am sorry i edited the talk page. Please focus the topic at hand. All i did was roll it back to the lead that has been on the page a while.] (]) 22:46, 6 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::That is not an explanation. An ] would say why you removed it, rather than just saying that you did. ] (]) 22:50, 6 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::] is about females across species, whereas ] is more accurate to what this article is about: human pregnancy. (For the same reason, having neither word is also much less clear, in addition to the other problems elaborated above). ] opens with {{tq|When possible}}; it's not a hard and fast rule, and clearly acknowledges that sometimes it isn't possible, as this seems to be. Incidentally SEAOFBLUE's rationale has to do with {{tq|avoid appearing like a single link}}; however when hovering over the link it becomes obvious that it is not a single link since only one word of the two become underlined. |
|
|
:::::::I understand the dislike of overusing "female" instead of "woman"; while I am sure sources on the matter exist somewhere, anecdotally there is a lot of online discourse and complaint about how some men will refer to women as "females" to make dehumanizing and negative generalizations. <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 23:17, 7 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::thank you, Crossroads! And i agree it's best to separate the two links. It's a difficult sentence, but maybe something like this is better? :shrug: ] (]) |
|
|
::::::::>Pregnancy is the time during which a ] develops one or more ] (gestates) inside her ] (womb). ] (]) 04:04, 8 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::That would work. |
|
|
:::::::::@], you can't hover over a link on a mobile device, which is where most of our readers are. SEAOFBLUE is about what you see ''without'' hovering. ] (]) 05:27, 8 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::At present it seems that the {{tq|'s}}, in black text, creates a separation between the links anyway. <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 17:19, 8 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
| ⚫ |
== Semi-protected edit request on 21 May 2024 == |
|
|
|
|
| ⚫ |
{{Edit semi-protected|Pregnancy|answered=yes}} |
|
|
Suggestion to clarify language throughout that pregnancy occurs in human *females*. That is the sex of someone with a womb: female is the most accurate, least political definition of who can be pregnant. Different language for such examples as the image captioned "pregnant woman" makes sense, of course. I am not an activist nor angry denizen. This suggestion is earnestly meant to help make a protected article irrefutable: female is female. Thanks. ] (]) 16:29, 21 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Do you want the word "female" to replace "woman", or to supplement it? |
|
|
:There was a discussion recently that claimed using female as a noun (e.g., "human females", but not "female humans"; "pregnant females", but not "female athletes") is derogatory. It turns out this has been contested off and on for about 130 years. Originally, it was about the word female being used for other animals, so the Victorians decided that it was dehumanizing to lump women into the same category as livestock. Now, it seems to be about the linguistic quirks of ] ("Every time I've dated a young man who talks about 'females' instead of 'women', he turned out to be a misogynistic jerk"). ] (]) 17:33, 21 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:] '''Not done for now:''' please establish a ] for this alteration ''']''' using the {{Tlx|Edit semi-protected}} template.<!-- Template:ESp --> ] (]) 18:46, 21 May 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
==Wiki Education assignment: Exercise Physiology in Aging, ES4300-01== |
|
==Wiki Education assignment: Exercise Physiology in Aging, ES4300-01== |
|
{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Misplaced Pages:Wiki_Ed/Kennesaw_State_University/Exercise_Physiology_in_Aging,_ES4300-01_(Fall_2024) | assignments = ] | start_date = 2024-08-12 | end_date = 2024-12-02 }} |
|
{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Misplaced Pages:Wiki_Ed/Kennesaw_State_University/Exercise_Physiology_in_Aging,_ES4300-01_(Fall_2024) | assignments = ], ], ], ], ], ] | start_date = 2024-08-12 | end_date = 2024-12-02 }} |
|
|
|
|
|
<span class="wikied-assignment" style="font-size:85%;">— Assignment last updated by ] (]) 18:58, 1 October 2024 (UTC)</span> |
|
<span class="wikied-assignment" style="font-size:85%;">— Assignment last updated by ] (]) 02:18, 15 November 2024 (UTC)</span> |
|
|
|
|
|
== Person(s)/people with uteruses == |
|
== Person(s)/people with uteruses == |
| Line 112: |
Line 56: |
|
:The "people with body parts" language, though anatomically accurate, is often seen as dehumanizing and as ignoring the social components. |
|
:The "people with body parts" language, though anatomically accurate, is often seen as dehumanizing and as ignoring the social components. |
|
:Think about the ] that results in excess maternal mortality for Black women in the US. The shockingly high perinatal death rate is not because they're humans who, as a matter of ordinary biological variation, happen to have uteruses and melanin. It's because of their social race and their social gender: they're Black women who live in a society that values this ''social'' type of person less than other social types of people. To erase their gender is to pretend that gender doesn't matter. ] (]) 19:11, 9 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
:Think about the ] that results in excess maternal mortality for Black women in the US. The shockingly high perinatal death rate is not because they're humans who, as a matter of ordinary biological variation, happen to have uteruses and melanin. It's because of their social race and their social gender: they're Black women who live in a society that values this ''social'' type of person less than other social types of people. To erase their gender is to pretend that gender doesn't matter. ] (]) 19:11, 9 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::Agreed with WhatamIdoing. Also, when we look at how sources (especially ]) as a group talk about this topic, the vast majority simply refer to "women"; it is not the place of Misplaced Pages editors to go against this. This especially holds true when it comes to specific claims that go deeper than "who can get pregnant"; most of the studies that have been done and which we cite really are about women specifically, and not trans men or nonbinary people, even though biological differences between the two (such as hormone levels from hormone therapy) may plausibly exist and affect pregnancy. We cannot commit ] and extend these statements to be about non-women. <span style="font-family:Palatino">]</span> <sup>]</sup> 00:34, 10 October 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Wiki Education assignment: Exercise Physiology in Aging, ES4300-02== |
|
|
{{dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment | course = Misplaced Pages:Wiki_Ed/Kennesaw_State_University/Exercise_Physiology_in_Aging,_ES4300-02_(Fall_2024) | assignments = ] | reviewers = ] | start_date = 2024-08-12 | end_date = 2024-12-02 }} |
|
|
|
|
|
<span class="wikied-assignment" style="font-size:85%;">— Assignment last updated by ] (]) 21:04, 14 November 2024 (UTC)</span> |
|
|
|
|
⚫ |
== Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2024 == |
|
|
|
|
⚫ |
{{Edit semi-protected|Pregnancy|answered=yes}} |
|
|
I would like to edit the pregnancy article. More specifically, the exercise section. ] (]) 16:00, 14 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:] '''Not done''': it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a ] and provide a ] if appropriate.<!-- Template:ESp --> ] (]) 21:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2024 (2) == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{Edit semi-protected|Pregnancy|answered=yes}} |
|
|
Hi I am trying to post a paragraph of a summary of my 3 articles I researched. It won't let me edit my paragraph in because this article is protected but I need to post it for a grade. I hope to be able to do this because I need to post it today. ] (]) 19:32, 14 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:] '''Not done''': it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a ] and provide a ] if appropriate.<!-- Template:ESp --> ] (]) 21:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2024 (3) == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{Edit semi-protected|Pregnancy|answered=yes}} |
|
|
Hello, can I have permission to edit this article for my class assignment? ] (]) 21:17, 14 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:] '''Not done''': it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a ] and provide a ] if appropriate.<!-- Template:ESp --> ] (]) 21:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::@], ], and ]: This article is open to registered editors who have made more than 10 edits and whose accounts are at least four days old. That includes all of you now. ] (]) 18:47, 18 November 2024 (UTC) |
Instead of using the words "female" and "woman", can we just use the phrases "people with uteruses" and "person with a uterus"? And then we can also specify that such people can get pregnant if they have a functional uterus. This is perhaps the most inclusive we can be, including all people who have uteruses whether they cis or trans, woman and/or man and/or non-binary and/or agender.
How about this sentence as the lead:
>Pregnancy is the time during which a person with a functional uterus develops one or more offspring (gestates) inside their uterus (womb)
Hi I am trying to post a paragraph of a summary of my 3 articles I researched. It won't let me edit my paragraph in because this article is protected but I need to post it for a grade. I hope to be able to do this because I need to post it today. Dsham2244 (talk) 19:32, 14 November 2024 (UTC)
level-3 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
.svg){kind=small}
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 12 August 2024 and 2 December 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Weloveaging, Iloveexercise, Kyliekoch, Peytonkunert, Dsham2244, Jennshakti (article contribs).
Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 21:25, 14 November 2024 (UTC)