User talk:WhatamIdoing/Sex and gender in medical articles

Please be nice

I don't want anyone to lose any wiki-friends over this. Some days are more stressful than others. Step away when you need to. Use Special:EmailUser/WhatamIdoing if you don't want to post in public. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:25, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, I'm out now. The road to hell is paved with good intentions; thanks for trying, though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:30, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

Please share worked examples

A worked example is like your math teacher saying "show your work". It gives a specific, concrete example. For example:

• Idea: Articles should be written to use as few gendered words as possible.
• Example: Change "A man's hairline may recede as he ages" to "Receding hairlines, called pattern hair loss, may appear in older people".
• Reason: Anyone can get a receding hairline, including people of all genders and sexes.

(Don't worry about the format. Worry more about sharing good examples with clear reasons.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:14, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

Discussion

What is the purpose of this? It looks to me like an attempt to create a new guideline, and I don't think that's a good idea in userspace, unless the goal is simply drafting a proposal that will later be put to the community in a WP:PROPOSAL process, e.g. at WP:VPPRO. If that's not the purpose, then what is it? If it IS the purpose, what exactly is wrong with extant guidelines like MOS:GNL, etc.? This is feeling like a solution in search of a problem (or at least a specific enough problem to be actionable).

Even the "worked example" above is confusing in its intent and reasoning. The potential problem with the "A man's hairline ..." example, in certain broad contexts, isn't that it contains gendered words, but that it contains a misleading half-truth (again, in certain broad contexts), and ignores the fact that women can sometimes experience a receding hairline. That is, missing information is the possible problem; it isn't a "failure" to use gender-neutral language. It would almost certainly be better to continue using sex-specific wording but be more detailed, e.g. noting that men (or males, or whatever wording is preferred) commonly experience a receding hairline among other hair loss as they age, while women/females more often experience general hair thinning, but can also sometimes experience a receding hairline. Provide more information rather than get into yet another socio-politically motivated "my word is better than your word" pissing match.

That said, wording along the lines "Men commonly experience a receding hairline as they age" would be entirely appropriate in the article Man, with a receding hairline link to an article where the fact that it can also affect women is covered. It simply is not relevant in Man that women can also have receding hair. What's relevant is that receding hair in aging men is common. We're having a lot of disputation at Talk:Sex differences in medicine and elsewhere, specifically because people keep trying to inject essentially irrelevant and distracting and even confusing "But what about ..." exceptionalism into every other occurrence of generalized sex-specific information, as if our readers had brain damage. We just don't need to do that. It is not helpful to readers and is proving disruptive internally.
 — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  02:28, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

About where to write:

If we end up with a new guideline, then I think we will have failed. (If you ever want to draft a whole guideline, then I recommend first quitting Wikipedia, and, if you can't do that, then I recommend drafting it in your userspace. As a possibly interesting point of local history, PROPOSAL itself was drafted in my userspace.)

I suspect that we are more likely to end up with, say, a couple of sentences that we think should be added to (e.g.,) MEDMOS or a couple of changes to suggest for the Wikipedia:Gender-neutral language essay – or with nothing. Anything that stops editors from fighting about this for the next several years would be a win in my books. I could be wrong, and I am open to being persuaded otherwise, but I do not think that anything lengthy or a separate guideline will achieve that goal.

About what to write:

Tell me something (real or hypothetical) that you think would be the wrong way to go about it. Then tell me how to do it better. With enough examples, we can find the principles, and test our suggested advice against practical use cases. Any functional format works. The key is finding interesting examples, so we can analyze them (as you have done here, in a way that suggests that "What you should do depends on the type of article" could be a relevant principle). WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:30, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

"Should our advice be based primarily on reliable sources or on editors' opinions" is ambiguous. Are these the reliable sources used for the sentence in dispute, reliable sources used elsewhere in the article, reliable sources found when googling the article topic + desired/opposed language choice, or reliable sources of expert opinion on the matter. Or all or some of those. And how do we weight opinions of experts who have achieved a consensus for an organisation that is neutrally in the health-information business, or experts who are associated with a minority group affected by the language choices. Ultimately editor opinion plays a necessary role in shaping any guidance or essay or paragraph, and aspects of such will be Wikipedian in nature for which no external body can help. So an answer to the question may depend on what definition we are using and splitting hairs over what "based primarily" means. Probably all of these things are important to various degrees.

Perhaps you should set out some goals of what you'd like to achieve. It seems like choices may involve prioritising some goals ahead of others, and priorities may vary depending on context. The example "idea" further up is "Articles should be written to use as few gendered words as possible". That's not really a goal but a proposed strategy that is probably too easy to shoot down since "as few as possible" is zero if one is determined to strawman it to death. Less extreme might be to consider the effect of a small and targeted change and viewed from our readers. Who benefits and who is disadvantaged or excluded by a change. Perhaps instead of offering advice about how editors should write, for some things, we just explain the approaches taken by various professional, considerate writers, and note their documented pros and cons. This may be particularly appropriate for issues for which there is no settled best approach with consensus, but for which saying absolutely nothing at all leaves a vacuum to be filled by soapboaxing by editors on both sides. -- Colin°^Talk 21:19, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

By "our advice", I mean anything that we decide is worth writing down to help other editors. Wikipedia articles shouldn't contain "advice", and external advice isn't "ours".

My ultimate goal is fewer disputes over gendered language in health-related contexts. I believe (though I could be wrong) that one way to achieve this is to write down some advice for editors. I would prefer that this advice is based on the recommendations of external experts. I am a little concerned that if we say "Alice recommends this, and Bob recommends that", then the disputes will continue, merely changing the comments from "I think this/you think that" to "I think we should follow Alice's advice/you think we should follow Bob's advice". This might be an improvement, but I am hoping for something closer to "The community more or less agrees to the following (and the rest is still fair game for fighting over)". WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:15, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

We don't really have "advice". We have policies and guidelines, saying what editors should do. Any "advice" would just be battled over all the same. And this did come before the community at the Village Pump here, where the closure statement found that As outlined below, 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. Of course, that fits perfectly with WP:STICKTOSOURCE and WP:V. WP:NPOV is also based on what sources say, not editor opinion. If anything is to be added to MEDMOS, it should be a short statement to use the terminology found in the reliable sources being cited. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:13, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

The primary purpose of policies and guidelines is to provide advice to editors. The primary meaning of the word advice is to give an opinion or suggestion about what someone should do. Therefore, we do really have "advice", and "our advice" (if the community ever finds anything worth advising other editors on) would be to tell other editors what they should do.

Your suggestion to "use the terminology found in the reliable sources being cited" is certainly something that should be considered, and in my experience it is the automatic starting point for any experienced editor. However:

• It is different from what MEDMOS has advised in other cases, e.g., kidney vs renal, and people vs patients.
• It didn't seem to work in this discussion (which you will remember from early this year), because common sense and intelligible writing sometimes seemed to be replaced by carefully searching for sources that "accidentally happened" to line up with whatever the editor's personal opinion already was.
• Inconsistent use in the sources could lead to a confusing experience for readers. If a paragraph cites four different sources for four consecutive sentences, would you advise editors to make each sentence match the individual source? Or to make the whole paragraph match (in which case, see problem #2)?

I do think that we should talk about this more. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:02, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

I guess I was thinking of "advice" as advisory-only and non-binding. Anyway. Regarding the three bullet points: (1) Those examples are very similar in meaning, unlike a lot of what gets tossed around in this area. And surely "men/women", as a more everyday term than "male/female", would be equivalent to "kidney" and "people" in those examples. (2) At best this is a case for making an exception only for intersex and transgender articles, but I don't see how any additional rules would have helped that situation. Incidentally, that intersex condition is a perfect example of why "assigned female at birth" is not equivalent to "female". Aside from the fact that a doctor reciting "it's a girl!" isn't what makes someone produce ova and be capable of pregnancy. (3) What I had in mind was to figure terminology based on the MEDRS sources on the topic of the article as a whole. It could be clarified that if those MEDRS sources use multiple terms seemingly interchangeably and at about the same rates, then which terms to use is up to editorial discretion. MOS:STYLEVAR would then come into play. For example, for pre-existing text, changing some or all instances of "women" to "females", or vice versa, and same with men/males, would be considered disruptive enforcement of personal style preferences (assuming the sources use both, which for most sex-specific topics is most common). Something like "menstruators" or "uterus owners" in text added by, say, some student editor still gets the boot for not representing the sources (almost certainly).

Not every dispute would disappear, but that would be impossible to do no matter how good the guideline. And it seems that anything else would solve less disputes or even create more disputes, and be less likely to get approved to add to MEDMOS in the first place because it would add more rules than this idea (which matches the Village Pump consensus and is just about explaining how to apply NPOV, NOR, etc.). Crossroads ^-talk- 05:50, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

On the points:

1. Men/women is a more everyday term. I think if we decided to follow that pattern, I don't think it would rule out male/female, but it might suggest avoiding less-familiar phrases, such as your examples of "menstruators" or "uterus owners", except in specific contexts. (Those terms might be useful if the article Gender neutrality in English developed a section about health-related terminology.)
2. I don't think that this problem is specific to intersex and trans articles. If you have one experienced editor who is determined to use the word "men" and another who is determined to use the word "males", then "follow the sources" might produce the same behavior in any article.
3. The problem with calculating terminology based on the MEDRS sources on the topic of the article as a whole is the same problem as #2. However, it sounds like you would recommend to use reasonably consistent language throughout an article. Maybe with an exception for this or that paragraph that requires somewhat more precise language (pathophysiology sections can get pretty technical, and a paragraph on trans people should use appropriate language for its subject), but overall it sounds like you'd choose one set of wording for most of an article, right?

WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:42, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Right now our medical articles basically use "women" and "females" interchangeably (with a few exceptions, like for children or adolescents where "girls" might be more appropriate, or where one is part of a larger standard phrase like "female reproductive system" or "women's health"). Uterus is a typical article in this regard. Almost all MEDRS speak the same way. So, that is what I favor and I see no reason to change that. If someone wants to change all instances of "women" to "females", or vice versa, for the sake of personal preference, then that is an example of WP:STYLEVAR coming into play as I said. They should be told not to enforce their personal preferences like that. Indeed, it was people doing exactly that at sex differences in medicine that set off this whole issue. The only reason such changes would be constructive would be if underlying sources use only one term for a specific reason that they themselves give. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:55, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

There is no guideline or policy support for the idea that we must write like and always use the same words as our sources do. It is sometimes claimed at MOS discussions and is sometimes proposed as a cop-out closing comment, but it doesn't stand up to any kind of scrutiny whatsoever. It is, as WAID points out, a fair starting point. In the field of epilepsy, it was proposed a while ago, to replace "partial seizure" with "focal onset seizures" and commonly used diagnoses like "complex partial seizures" would be "focal onset impaired awareness seizures". If you look at the major charity websites, they use the new terminology though often explain the old fashioned terms. PubMed on the other hand, appears to show a tendency for older terms. You even get articles for doctors with a title "Complex Partial Seizure" that immediately explain that's old terminology and you should use "focal impaired awareness seizure" or "focal onset impaired awareness seizure." Quite what patients are being told by the doctors probably depends on how old and up-to-date the doctor is. If we literally stuck to our sources, our articles could be a confusing mix of old and new terminology. During the transition period it may be hard to determine which language has dominance but for us perhaps a more important goal might be consistency at least within the one article, and ideally between articles.

With so many of English scientific papers written by people who don't have English as a first language, it seems odd to place them on a pedestal of how we should write. With tuberous sclerosis complex I've read modern dermatology papers written by I suspect non-native English writers, who used terms so old, so scientifically illiterate and inappropriate that they predate colour television and the double helix. Another example could be NHS Measles which talks directly to the reader as 'you': "You can easily catch measles by..." We just don't write like that. Pah, you say, we wouldn't use such a lay tertiary site as source. Ok, how about The Lancet. We'd likely replace their "morbidity and mortality" with easier terms in our lead. We wouldn't talk about "The management of patients with measles". It seems to me replacing "patients with measles" with "people who are ill with measles", say, is not fundamentally any different to the choices we consider with gender and trans issues. We avoid writing about patients partly because our audience is not just healthcare professionals, but also it does reflect a movement to avoid medicalization. By referring to "patients", our sources are not using terms we want to use. The Lancet goes on wrt vaccination "However, urgent efforts are needed to increase stagnating global coverage ..." Again it doesn't talk how we'd talk. We could still include that opinion if we felt it appropriate, but we wouldn't write it that way. -- Colin°^Talk 14:25, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

With regard to outdatedness, this can be easily accounted for by paying special attention to how recent sources on a given topic talk, rather than the entire body of work (such as PubMed may tend to give at first). In this area, the age difference is negligible and the vast majority still use "women", "female", etc. without commentary about gender identity. Other things like sources saying "you", "urgent", etc. are not really comparable here; removing those has to do with us being an encyclopedia, and those don't talk that way. A change to deprecate "women" or even "female" (which some do want which is why they say "assigned at birth", "menstruators", etc.) has nothing to do with encyclopedia-style, and is actively going far beyond how even recent sources talk about these topics. It is, simply, setting up a standard that does not exist in the vast majority of MEDRS. It is therefore a form of POV OR. I suppose someone could now reply to me and deny that, but any proposal here would have to get past an MOS RfC, listed on the central notification template, and any proposal to enshrine activist language as a guideline will very likely fail. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:57, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Crossroads, I know this sandbox is about "Sex and gender in medical articles" and you may well be right about that language used in that situation. What I'm trying to ensure is that folk don't use arguments for those language choices that are not supported by policy or guideline or general practice, and only somewhat correlate with picking a good choice in this particular case. What I'm seeing is that when folk happen to note that their preferred language choice is also being used by the sources then they get very insistent that we must tightly follow those sources for our word choices. But when folk want us to write in a different way to our sources, then suddenly essays are written and cited about how this approach is a fallacy, and we sometimes veer off into the opposite direction of original-research and unfortunately culture wars and battles of the egos. I have seen the same editors try to argue both ways when it suits them. So I don't think being rigid about this is workable. You may win one battle only to have to eat your words tomorrow (or more likely, hope nobody remembers the inconsistency).I think it is better to note the observation you have made but accept it isn't a decisive argument. -- Colin°^Talk 15:40, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

This reminds me that we should probably consider encyclopedic register.

Think about an exceedingly rare disease affecting only males, and largely fatal within months. I wonder which of these terms you (all) would recommend as "normal" for that article:

• newborn/infant/baby/child/person
• male/boy/man
• mother/father/parent/carer/caregiver/guardian

Do any of these feel un-encyclopedic? (I suppose "man" doesn't really apply chronologically.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:55, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Those all seem fine to me. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:55, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what the characteristics of the disease have to do with how one may refer to the parents, say. Did you pick it because the affected individual would be too young to declare a different gender? It isn't just "encyclopedic" that determines our choice. This particular encyclopaedia is for the general reader whereas another might be for professionals in healthcare. Both would use a formal register but for us we have a tension if the default formal word in the field (e.g. 'neonate') might not be considered accessible enough and we have to decide if 'newborn' is ok or too casual as to be informal. In some places the less formal word might be fine, but in others we failed our mission to educate the reader about a term they are going to see in a hospital (neonatal). I think caregiver is the US version of carer but neither imply the biological link that parent has. I recall "parent or guardian" from school letters to home, and possibly that combination is more about a legal responsibility role that might be unusual in a medical article. -- Colin°^Talk 15:40, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

I am curious about several things in this list. One of them is whether "boy" seems informal. We usually write about "children" rather than "boys and girls". My impression is that this isn't really an effort at being gender neutral; it's just what we do. Another is whether "boy" feels right for a baby that is only a few months old. Looking at articles containing the words x-linked and recessive, I get seven hits for articles containing the (quoted) word "children" for each one containing "boys", even though recessive genes disproportionately affect boys. Are we avoiding it?

And, of course, there is the question about how to refer to a human who is incapable of forming a gender identity. The standard practice seems to be to assume a congruent gender for both babies and people with disabilities. In my experience, being scrupulously gender-neutral when referring to a person with severe disabilities ("because you don't really know their gender") seems to strike most people as discriminatory and even dehumanizing behavior, however well-intentioned it might be. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:30, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't think boy or girl on its own is informal, though probably "boys and girls" is inferior to "children" for several reasons (it is longer, it always seems to put boys first, it is gender binary, and it reminds me of primary school teachers). I can see that using 'male' and 'female' has the advantage of being age-neutral that 'boy' and 'man' does not. There can be a problem with some conditions where children with the condition get all the attention and adults neglected, and that tendency could surface in our articles if we referred to affected individuals as boys, say, rather than males. Perhaps editors sometimes wrote 'children' rather than 'boys' for variety or because the sex of the child wasn't foremost in all thoughts. Consider diseases that mainly affect certain ethnic groups... that would be a notable fact but wouldn't change how you describe the person all the way through the article. Wrt 'dehumanising' or 'erasing', I think we agree that that word choices in this area don't come at zero cost. Unlike some other discussions where the cost to the reader was zero, who is unware that such and such a term was not used, and the only people who get upset are editors who voted a certain way. -- Colin°^Talk 14:27, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

What do other people think

Wrt "Anything that stops editors from fighting about this for the next several years would be a win in my books" I think a good start would be to collect references to discussions, articles and guidelines written by other people. While what we end up writing and where is a matter for Wikipedians, I don't think it has been productive for editors to simply argue from their own opinions, politics and experience about the ideal terms to generally use for X, Y or Z. The project is about building an encyclopaedia, not fighting culture wars. I don't think the average Wikipedian is any more qualified to settle these disputes than they are to settle arguments about wearing face masks or funding healthcare. I'm puzzled why we continue to engage in original research and soapboxing. I'm puzzled at the focus about what editor X thinks or editor Y understands vs what the readers will think and understand from what we've written.

Related, it might be useful to consider which aspects of this issue are specifically Wikipedian. As the current first 'problem to be solved' indicates, we can have original-research problems if we want to use inclusive language but have a source (with statistics or opinions or findings) that doesn't define their group in that language. Another aspect could be considering the context of the words, such as a general medical article, or an article specifically about sex/gender, or about social or political matters. Can we separate what issues we, as Wikipedians, are uniquely good at, from the issues that I think we should humbly admit that other brighter more informed people have already or are already debating and writing about.

The notes suggest that 'male' (and presumably 'female') may be harder words then 'men' or 'women' for those who are struggling with English. That includes both native and non-native speakers, and the latter in particular could be fluent in another language. Do we have a source for this or is it just speculation? I'm conscious that in another discussion about rewording for making things easier to read for non-English-natives, that the 'simple' word chosen was uniquely English, whereas the original word had common European variants. Perhaps although male/female are not quite as common as men/women, they are common enough, and for many medical topics, worrying if the reader can't understand 'male' would be the least of the problems. -- Colin°^Talk 10:47, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

On the "specifically Wikipedian" question: I am wondering whether part of the challenge is our global audience. If you are writing for a narrower audience, then you can choose your language accordingly. A pamphlet about breast cancer for a trans-friendly clinic should not use the same wording (or even contain the same facts) as a pamphlet about breast cancer for a clinic that mostly sees grandmothers. But when you try to write for anyone who can read/understand English, it's difficult to say that any particular language is well-suited to the task. We aren't unique (I imagine that several of the biggest health-related websites also struggle with this), but we do have an uncommon challenge in that area. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:42, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I like this approach, and will add to it when I have time (cramming for an exam and in the early stages of developing a case of (albeit mild) COVID right now :) ) But I think it is truly one of the few ways we ca have a level playing field, and I think using sources to guide us on what language to use is a lot more than "Let me find the sources I like and let's use those" and a lot more of "what do experts tell us is the right way to talk about this. But that's just my opinion.. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 21:01, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I hope that you recover easily, @Shibbolethink. Wikipedia will still be here when you get back. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:26, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

There's an inherent selection bias in this. There will likely be more articles on the side that's advocating a change than the side that just keeps continuing with language as it is. But the actions of that latter group absolutely must be accounted for. That is, just because articles may advocate for such and such doesn't mean that they have convinced the relevant community of experts. It is correct that the sources determine how we discuss topics - but that means taking into account all the sources. How they actually use terms - and not merely what a few sources say about how they think terms should be used - is what we take into account.

And even if one were to take such an approach, surely the AMA Manual of Style carries far more weight than an individual paper or some organization. Here is what the AMA Manual of Style, 11th edition (2020), says under 11.7 Age and Sex Referents: Adults are persons 18 years or older and should be referred to as men or women...Whenever possible, a patient should be referred to as a man, woman, boy, girl, or infant. Occasionally, however, a study group may comprise children and adults of both sexes. Then, the use of male and female as nouns is appropriate. Male and female are also appropriate adjectives. Neither that nor 11.12 Inclusive Language says anything about e.g. not using "women" to refer to the female sex. And the quote from 11.7 implicitly supports use of "men" and "women" to refer to sex.

Additionally, Wikipedia's approach and purpose is unique. We exist to say what our sources say and not going beyond them while avoiding any kind of activism. No one else is bound this way. I see no way any possible rule about how to write about these things that is more strict than 'write like the MEDRS themselves' could be anything other than Wikipedia participating in language-change advocacy. No matter how well-intentioned, while people are free to feel how they wish and off-wiki to write and advocate as they wish, this is simply not the place to WP:Right great wrongs. It would also be a form of WP:Synthesis - taking source X using certain terminology and combining it with source Y actually supporting the point to result in text Z.

It is also likely that removal of "women" and "men" would offend and alienate far more people than the opposite. It's also the case that there are many more exceptions in the form of small minorities with rare conditions than just trans people. We don't change how we describe human anatomy just because some people - whether due to birth defect or injury - are missing certain limbs, digits, etc. It would be bad writing and it is impractical to write as though the exception is typical, and creates WP:Undue weight.

It really should be quite simple. Just present the topic the way the underlying MEDRS do. Same as every other topic. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:12, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

@Crossroads, I wish you'd split the information about the AMA MoS into its own subsection, so we can talk about it separately. The more sources we can find, from all points of view, the better. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:25, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Agree. There are biases in all approaches. Those who watchlist and participate in MOS discussions are not representative of the wider editorship. And RFCs will get opinions from those who get deeply engaged in gender/sex issues, and those who are quite ignorant about it yet have been asked for their opinion. I think there are three myths here. The first is that the words we use have to come from our sources. I've previously given the example of French Wikipedia's mostly English sources (on medical topics anyway). So there's no inherently Wikipedian rule that we have to write like our sources do. And our sources may use highly technical language or shorthands that are inappropriate for our general readership. At the other end, newspapers may be way too simplistic and hand-wavy or sensational. Sources can guide us but no more. Secondly is the belief that only one side of this culture war are activists. And thirdly is is that WP:Right great wrongs says anything at all about how we write. It is about what we write about and claim. Our articles facts and opinions and the balance we give to them come from our sources. How we write is up to us. Anyway, this is getting off topic, and I think all of use here are mature enough editors that we don't need to do the WP:UPPERCASE thing at each other. If you disagree with me about these things, then come to my talk page rather than WAIDs.

Crossroads, we are all here familiar with finding sources to back up our claims. A statement like "It is also likely that removal of "women" and "men" would offend and alienate far more people than the opposite." may well be true, but it is hardly an original argument. I am absolutely sure there are sources for it. I am trying, in this approach, to stop this being a battle between editor X's opinions and beliefs and unsourced claims and editor Y's opinions and prejudices and limited world experiences. I don't think that approach has achieved anything but heat. I know you've been involved in this area for a while, so it would be really great if you can add some sources and summarise their points. -- Colin°^Talk 08:59, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

This is relevant here and has to be addressed here. Using sources that are in another whole language (i.e. English sources in French Wikipedia) is not at all comparable to using different terms within the same language than our sources do. Neither is this a case of sources using overly technical language and editors proposing to use simpler text with the same meaning - if anything it is the side advocating change that is pushing such language.

And this idea of 'both sides are activists' implies false balance or the golden mean fallacy. No, it is only one side that is seeking to radically overhaul the language as it has always been spoken and written. They can try to convince the writers of RS/MEDRS, and then and only then would we follow. The idea that WP:RGW doesn't apply to how we write is entirely personal opinion. We can only report that which is verifiable from reliable and secondary sources...Let reliable sources make the...statements. What we do is find neutral ways of presenting them. Activist wording is not neutral, nor is it verifiable to the MEDRS we are citing. Restricting wording in a way sources do not is not justified and is instead an attempt at language reform.

Focusing solely on sources specifically giving views on what language to use is skewed towards the loudest - i.e. activist - voices, which you said you wanted to get away from. We must also account for how the massive body of sources actually writes on these topics. The "heat" in this topic comes from the few who want us to be part of the vanguard of language reform, and we get less "heat" not by sinking massive amounts of time into debating their claims but by simply explaining why that is not what Wikipedia is for. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:07, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

@Crossroads, I would still be very happy if you could provide a summary of the AMA style guide.

As for activists having the loudest voices and all of that: That's not likely here. The only bona fide activist on this page is Stanton, and his area of activism had basically nothing to do with gender. Save those worries for another discussion. For now, I'm very interested in the AMA style guide that you've recommended, and you can safely assume that we've got some sensible folks with policy-writing skills here. You're in good hands here. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:27, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

By "activists" I'm talking about the people who write sources that consist of new language rules. And not being an activist off-wiki doesn't mean someone can't act that way on-wiki. Maybe I'll give the AMA style manual a subsection, but I don't want to endorse the approach of 'let's only look at the sources saying what language to use' because of the skew I mentioned. If I cited every source I thought relevant, it would be thousands of MEDRS about sex differences and sexed anatomy simply using clear language to speak about men and women. Obviously I won't actually do that, but it needs to be in mind. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:19, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

I think we shouldn't say that an editor is "acting like an activist", because that seems to mean little more than "doesn't agree with me". I have seen this on wiki, but I hear that it is a general problem on the internet. But again: on this page, unlike on most, you're talking to people with deep experience in writing Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. You can present your view as strongly as you want, without me thinking that yours is the only view, and without me thinking that you are trying to do anything other than help me understand your view about what works best for Wikipedia. The same goes for everyone else: Tell me (and everyone else) what you think serves Wikipedia best, and let others do the same.

I would really like to have you write up the AMA MOS. I don't believe that Wikipedia should ever take any style manual, no matter what the subject is, as the final word, but I do find them very useful for identifying things that I haven't thought of before, and sometimes their explanations are useful for understanding their advice. The more we know about the terrain, the less likely we are to fall in a hole. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:10, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Gender Inclusive Language in Perinatal Services: Mission Statement and Rational

• Gender Inclusive Language in Perinatal Services: Mission Statement and Rationale by Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals.

The rationale explains "the new guidance broadens the language we use and aims to support people who identify in a different way to feel the service includes and represents them". Their approach is to add rather than replace. For example "The vast majority of midwifery service users are women and we already have language in place they are comfortable with. This is not changing and we will continue to call them pregnant women and talk about breast feeding". They explain that "a gender-additive approach means using gender-neutral language alongside the language of womanhood, in order to ensure that everyone is represented and included." and "If we only use gender neutral language, we risk marginalising or erasing the experience of some of the women and people who use our services.".

While trans people form a very small minority of their users, they acknowledge that minority groups can be marginalised and discriminated against for various reasons, including language used. Rather than dismiss that group as irrelevantly tiny, their aim "is perinatal services that are available, accessible and acceptable to the trans and non-binary community, fulfilling our professional, statutory and ethical responsibility to address health inequalities in marginalised populations.".

Wrt context: "these language changes do not apply when discussing or caring for individuals in a one-on-one capacity where language and documentation should reflect the gender identity of the individual. When caring for cis women it is good practice to use terminology that is meaningful and appropriate to the individual; this may include terms such as woman, mother or breastfeeding".

Table 1 on page 16 gives a number of examples. The authors do acknowledge they are "leading the way" in the UK. On they other hand, they are an organisation whose primary mission is not gender politics but healthcare services. -- Colin°^Talk 12:23, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

The table is helpful for understanding what they're talking about. I think some of their examples are imperfect (e.g., if you're taking someone's pulse during childbirth, it matters which parent's pulse you're taking, so I'd have suggested "birthing person's pulse" as a gender-neutral phrase rather than "maternal or parental pulse"; they do use the "birthing person" language in another example). But in short, they suggest:

• Saying "pregnant woman or person" instead of writing "pregnant woman" by itself.
• Using singular they a little more ("The woman or person and their birth partner" vs "The woman or person and her or their birth partner").
• Occasionally avoiding gender, when a relevant gender-free term is available (they give the examples of "informed consent" and "perinatal care" being preferable to "maternal consent" and "maternity care").
• Using the appropriate gender for any individual person. Aside from the obvious application to BLPs, this suggests, e.g., that if we ever had an article on pregnancy in trans men, then they would recommend using masculine (not gender-neutral) pronouns throughout.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:59, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

I think the key point is "gender-additive" instead of "gender-neutral". They would not recommend removing the word woman from any article about human reproduction, and they would only rarely recommend reducing its prevalence (e.g., the informed consent example). Also, I don't know if this was intentional, but they always used "woman or person" with woman first. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:02, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Do we need the word ‘woman’ in healthcare?

• Do we need the word ‘woman’ in healthcare? by Sara Dahlen, Global Health and Social Medicine, King's College London. Editorial in Postgraduate Medical Journal.

This editorial takes a broadly critical view of gender inclusive language change and appears to be a response to the above guideline. The author is concerned with "balancing various concerns around language choice in healthcare communication". For example, they argue that treating some subjects as a "women's issue" excludes those affected by it but who not identify as women. On the other hand, "excising the word ‘woman’ in order to include transgender persons in our reproductive justice analysis can have the effect of effacing the particular lived experiences of women". Essentially, that it may be difficult to please everyone in both groups. They go on to explain that alternative ways of describing a patient group can be "dehumanising" and "demeaning", with a focus on biological functions and anatomy. Another problem is where "jargon-free communication" is highly desirable to reach people who have limited ability with English or limited knowledge of anatomy.

The author is concerned that "gender inclusive linguistic changes could have the unintended consequence of making biological sex conceptually less visible and much more difficult to clearly explain in healthcare and medical education". There is a lack of easily understood, unambiguous and simple terms for "individuals with a cervix" or "prostate-possessors". The editorial gives an example of reducing people to biological function ("menstruators and ejaculators") though most these examples of alternative word choices are not sourced to guidelines recommending them or articles using them.

The author notes that "gender inclusive phrases ought not be viewed as one-size-fits-all for transgender people" and that there are a very wide variety of people who come under the trans umbrella. They conclude "Clinical terminology needs to be cognisant of diverse audiences, flexible to different purposes and allow dialogue on local and global levels. Language in healthcare should aim for clear and respectful communication.". -- Colin°^Talk 14:39, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

I wonder how desirable "jargon-free communication" is for the English Wikipedia. There are limits in both directions (with WP:MTAA pushing for against the most jargon-filled content and the Simple English Wikipedia available for people seeking the least jargon-filled, and most articles using a range suited both to the subject and the specific material/paragraph), but outside of these extremes, I'm not sure that we would say that jargon-free communication is a significant goal. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:07, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Articles

Some more articles. May or may not be important enough to expand on.

• PMID 32282602 "The Imperative for Transgender and Gender Nonbinary Inclusion: Beyond Women’s Health"
• Why I’ll Keep Saying ‘Pregnant Women’ - Being inclusive is important. But it’s not everything." By Helen Lewis. I think there are a lot of good arguments in this column and good links. I did spot a few turkeys, though. For example "It’s the language that every adult alive today grew up using", is an explanation for resistance to or slow progression of change, but not really an acceptable argument against change. And their claim "Nonbinary is itself a very recent coinage; the usage examples given in Merriam-Webster’s dictionary date back only to 2015." seems to be based on a misunderstanding of Webster's usage examples (they are randomly chosen from current online news sources). One argument given is that when the subject is the 'gendered experience' then we can't just neutralise the words: 'The famous slogan commonly attributed to the second-wave activist Florynce Kennedy—“If men could get pregnant, abortion would be a sacrament”—would be totally defanged if it were made gender-neutral. And if we cannot talk about, say, the Texas abortion law in the context of patriarchal control of women’s bodies, then framing the feminist case against such laws becomes harder. No more “men making laws about women.” Instead we get: “Some people who are in charge of policy want to restrict the rights of some other people. We oppose that because people’s rights are human rights!”'
• Trans women and prostate cancer Example of how Prostate Cancer UK are handling non-binary and trans.
• Trans, Non-binary and Intersex People Example of how the British Pregnancy Advisory Service are handling non-binary and trans.
• A Person Paper on Purity in Language by William Satire (alias Douglas R. Hofstadter). This satirical piece was linked to by Lewis's article. I think it is interesting to see arguments people make against language change are often the same and can seem silly when arguing for something silly. Perhaps then those arguments are weak. I thought Hofstadter's conclusion was interesting: "My feeling about nonsexist English is that it is like a foreign language that I am learning. I find that even after years of practice, I still have to translate sometimes from my native language, which is sexist English.". A caution that what perhaps comes "naturally" isn't a reliable guide to what one should write.
• Guardian and Observer style guide: W: 'woman, women are nouns, not adjectives, so say female president, female MPs etc rather than “woman president”, “women MPs”. An easy way to check is to try using man instead of woman eg “man president”, “men MPs” – if it doesn’t work for men, it doesn’t work for women.'
• Guardian and Observer style guide: G: gender issues Our use of language reflects our values, as well as changes in society. There are several points made in the guide. I think the opening statement is important because how we write and the word choices we take reflect our values. Hiding behind the language usage of our sources seems to me a cop-out that would not fool a single reader. -- Colin°^Talk 14:38, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

The Hofstadter satire and the Guardian quotes have nothing to do with what we are discussing here, which is describing sex-specific anatomy or other sex-specific medical issues, rather than careers or like matters that have no necessary connection to sex. Characterizing other editors as "hiding behind" the language use of the sources is quite telling and is not an assumption of good faith. It is not Wikipedia's place to promote any of the many competing sets of values out there, but simply to summarize existing sources. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:45, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Crossroads, I think you're taking a narrow view of what we are – or should be – discussing here. We might be able to articulate some useful advice about medical content that is not sex-specific.

The Guardian's guide is correct about the grammar issue and about the values point. The values point is one of those things that is really just common sense – as common sense as teenagers getting their chores done and otherwise trying to look responsible before asking to borrow the car. Nobody would accept certain types of language as doing anything except reflecting the speaker's values, and all of our language reflects our values to some extent. Wikipedians, for example, are known to demonstrate our value for pedantry and hair-splitting distinctions. Every time we argue over whether to use a common word or a bit of jargon, we're showing our values.

(Colin, your optimism about people is showing again. It's not difficult to fool most people if you set your mind to it.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:55, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Crossroads, I am not singling out any editor as "hiding behind" anything. I'm imagining a potential reader reading something on Wikipedia that is written in a way or uses language that the reader objects to, and a potential editor or editors responding "Our source used that language so we are compelled to do too". Would that be acceptable if our source was sexist or racist? They would also, as I have done, quite easily find examples where we have chosen to use different language than our sources, and then call out our hypocrisy.

The Hofstadter satire I remember from decades ago, and was reminded of it when linked to by one relevant article above. I think it is valuable to see arguments about a different kind of social language change mocked intelligently and to identify perhaps when we are falling into the same traps with the same weak arguments. Crossroads, I hope you don't think I'm on entirely the opposite side of some binary argument from you. I just think the two approaches (that we must write with the language and terminology of our sources, or that we must ignore what other intelligent people have said on the matter and have some kind of original-research orgy of egos on a MOS talk page instead) are baloney. -- Colin°^Talk 19:24, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

We wouldn't use "sexist or racist" sources because they are not reliable. I don't think using "women" as a general term to refer to female people can fairly be equated with sexism or racism. My position is that the revealed preferences, and not just the stated preferences, are important. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:56, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Sexist and racist sources can be reliable. For example, a racist book can be a reliable primary source for saying that its author wrote that book, or that some people hold that racist view. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:55, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

• Kate Middleton admits to trying 'hypnobirthing' while pregnant to combat severe morning sickness. Kate Middleton did a podcast. 'Because of the illness she described herself as "not the happiest of pregnant people", adding: "Lots of people have it far, far worse, but it was definitely a challenge."'. There we go, "pregnant people" has Royal Approval. End of discussion :-). -- Colin°^Talk 10:44, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  Is this an example of "the future queen's English"? ;-) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:12, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  I wonder if there's a generational divide here. Identifying as a woman (and not, e.g., primarily as a lady, or primarily as a mother) was really important to many women in the 1970s. If you grew up in the 1990s, though, there may have been more of an emphasis that we are all humans first, and that "being a woman" was secondary to "being a person". I haven't looked for any sources on this – it is so far mere speculation on my part – but it seems to me that casual use of gender-neutral language is more common among millennials than among the older generations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:16, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  Btw, the Daily Mail covered this without any comment (that I can see) on her choice of language, yet frequently "slams" or "blasts" anyone in health or government doing so. Actually, when the Daily Mail writers aren't turning purple faced with rage over this issue, they are casually dropping "pregnant people" into their articles. If their articles are at all based on government reports that do likewise, it seems that "copy 'n' paste" is too tempting. You'd think an editor might spot that kind of thing. Perhaps a sign that this issue is only a problem when people are making a point, and relatively invisible if you aren't. (I'm not going to link to a hate site, so you'll need to do your own googling on that one) -- Colin°^Talk 18:05, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

  Considering the reputation the Daily Mail has around here, them plagiarizing text certainly seems possible. I don't agree with WhatamIdoing's speculation as to why it is relatively more seen among younger people, and I emphasize that it is still very uncommon among us Millennials. Those who use it are usually signalling their alignment with left-wing social politics, although even most of them don't say it in casual speech or when describing themselves (if they are a woman). I'm sure I could find many more of younger people using "pregnant women", but random quotes from individuals aren't really worth our time. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:16, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

  The thing is, Crossroads, your own opinion about why people might be writing or saying "pregnant people" doesn't take us any further than "Crossroads' opinion based on their own personal life experiences". I don't think anyone here is going to be convinced by that. WAID openly admitted to speculation and that sources would be needed to confirm their ideas. You know, it is possible for someone to want to use inclusive language and not be a lefty social justice warrior. Putting people into boxes so you can dismiss them isn't a productive argument imo. I agree finding examples of people using "pregnant women" would not be productive. We know those exist. What was useful imo to discover, was professional and public-facing bodies/people who use some of the alternative approaches. We have discovered some are being fairly widely used in some areas, but some don't appear used at all (unless someone here finds examples). -- Colin°^Talk 08:59, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

  There are some interesting comments in an extensive UK discussion Ministerial and other Maternity Allowances in the House of Lords last year reflecting on - "pregnant person" vs "pregnant woman", in which baroness Morris of Yardley declared "We are not here to pass legislation that does not make sense to the public whom we represent. If we were to go out into the streets of our country and try to explain to the electorate—to our citizens—that we have got ourselves into a position where we are not permitted to use the word “woman” in a Bill that deals with maternity, they would not know where we were coming from. - The whole discussion can be found here and later ammendments to the Bill with Lord Lucas rationale as to why the phrase "pregnant person" was unacceptable and therefore substituted can be found here. CV9933 (talk) 15:54, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

  Thanks. I skimmed this and it is interesting that they did not revert back to "women". They chose "mother", which one Lord explained (and is my understanding) "anyone who gives birth is a mother under English law" (referring to this case). So for the purposes of defining a legal text in English law, that applies also to trans men. To be honest, the idea that legislation has to make sense to the public is a bit of a odd comment. You can read the bill here and it complicated. These are designed for lawyers to read, not the public. -- Colin°^Talk 17:25, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Other encyclopedias

There is a suggestion above that rather than matching the language of sources, we could match the language of similar publications. There was an edit war at Pregnancy recently, over whether the first sentence should describe pregnancy as something experienced by "a woman" or by "a person with a uterus". For comparison, here's what other encyclopedias are saying:

• Encyclopædia Britannica uses "woman" at the start of their article on pregnancy.
• Funk & Wagnalls's encyclopedia (2018) uses "the female" in the first paragraph, and thereafter switches to "woman".
• Magill's Medical Guide (2019) appears to have an article on obstetrics rather than pregnancy; it uses "mother" and "woman".
• Salem Press Encyclopedia of Science (2019) uses "woman" and "mother".
• Columbia Electronic Encyclopedia (2021) has a one-paragraph article on obstetrics, and uses "woman" and "mother" throughout, although it's mostly not about patients. (For comparison, their article about midwifery is two paragraphs long and only talks about the healthcare providers, not the patients.)

EB is for teenagers/high schoolers. Funk and Wagnalls usually caters to a slightly younger crowd (~12 year olds). Magill's Medical Guide probably assumes adults. I don't know enough about the other two to make a guess there. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:47, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine

Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine Position Statement and Guideline: Infant Feeding and Lactation-Related Language and Gender, 2021.

This is a deeply thought-out statement that covers both the psychosocial aspects of language and issues of scientific accuracy. Some highlights:

1. To be inclusive of all people in our written materials, use of desexed or genderinclusive language (e.g., using ‘‘lactating person’’ instead of ‘‘mother’’) is appropriate in many settings. In some situations, however, use of sex-specific language may be preferable, for reasons we state hereunder. Reasons to use sex-specific language include "Translation concerns, literacy, and clarity" and "Desexed language may also alienate some readers."
2. Substituting ‘‘parents’’ for ‘‘mothers’’ may be factually inaccurate because breastfeeding research has presumably always been done with cisgender women. Breastfeeding is known to confer certain health benefits to cisgender mothers, but data are lacking as to whether these benefits can be expected in transgender men who chestfeed.
3. When describing the words or recommendations of any other author or organization, it would be incorrect and unethical to use desexed or gender-inclusive language if the original author or organization did not use such language. This is a big issue for us and I'm curious if it's something the community could come to consensus on relatively quickly. (Happy New Year by the way everyone! I'm typing while waiting for my kid to fall asleep and then I'll go celebrate.) Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:48, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Clayoquot, and Happy New Year to everyone! I think your last point touches on our no original research policy, as well as accurately representing the facts and opinions of our sources. The example they give is taking a WHO recommendation on "mothers" and substituting "parents". I can only think they used "mother" as they were deliberately referring to the person who gave birth, or who is breastfeeding or is taking on that maternal role, and deliberately not including the person who supplied the sperm or takes the paternal role. If they'd meant both or either parents, they'd have said that. So that's an example of where the gender neutral word substitution would include people that were not intended by the source.

I wonder though, would we be ok if where was a WHO recommendation: "mothers and fathers should..." that we substituted with "parents should..." I think that is fine, as the dictionary defines parents as "your mother and father" and I think it reasonable to assume the writer did not intentionally mean to exclude an LGBT family, say, with two mothers or two fathers.

We've now got several sources warning to be very careful with studies and statistics that assume a binary-gender, where it is not possible to automatically extend this to include trans or non-binary people. -- Colin°^Talk 10:12, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

While I agree substituting "parent" for "mother" or "father" is fine in many circumstances, there are other circumstances in which it changes the meaning. Your comment made me wonder if the WHO has recommendations for "mothers and fathers". I googled and found the WHO's Helping parents in developing countries improve adolescents’ health (2007). A quote from this document is:

One study in Kenya, for example, found that the presence of the father significantly reduced the likelihood that young females would engage in sex and have an unwanted pregnancy. However, other research indicates that the quality of the father-adolescent relationship is much more significant than the amount of time. Further research is needed to understand how physical availability affects parents’ abilities to establish and maintain the bond between parents and adolescents.

Clearly here when they say "father" they mean "father". Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:04, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Clayoquot did you make a mistake in your first clause? I'm not sure the style guide or my argument suggests that substitution of a single gender with no-gender "is fine in many circumstances". The piece you quote isn't really about "mothers and fathers" as a description of both of one's parents or parents in general. It singles each gender role out and so for that purpose, the gendered term is vital to its meaning.

I found this which looked at parental height and in one sentence says "Mothers and fathers were tallest in Norway and the United States and shortest in Oman" It might at first seem that one could substitute "parents" here. But the article often separately deals with mothers and fathers and with "mid-parental" height, and here they are very much dealing with the biological parents split along by gave the egg and who gave the sperm, not gender roles. Another document said "The exposure of future mothers and fathers to certain risks at the workplace can have a serious impact on the health of their unborn child." It seems to me one could substitute parents here, though I can see why the author wrote it that way as perhaps it forms a better image in the mind. -- Colin°^Talk 12:01, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Hi Colin, thanks for asking. I thought I was agreeing with you, not any particular style guide, but let me know if I misunderstood you. You said, I wonder though, would we be ok if where was a WHO recommendation: "mothers and fathers should..." that we substituted with "parents should..." I think that is fine, and I thought you meant that substituting "parent" for "mother" or "father" would be fine in at least some circumstances. Did I understand you correctly? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 02:44, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Clayoquot, I was specifically thinking that only the pair of literally "mothers and fathers" as a synonym for "parents" would generally be ok, though even then there may be cases where the author is explicitly mentioning both genders for some reason. I'm thinking that on its own, a "mother" or "father" would be less likely to be successfully made gender neutral without expanding the scope too much. But there are two approaches, going gender neutral or adding to be gender inclusive, so I wonder if "mother or trans father" could sometimes be an acceptable expansion of "mother". I note that the law on birth certificates recording a trans man as "father" varies depending on the country or US state, and some laws insist the person who gave birth is always the "mother" on the certificate (see Freddy McConnell). -- Colin°^Talk 11:46, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for clarifying - I've refactored. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 02:40, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

"Mother or trans father" would still leave out the non-binary parents. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:15, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

And some people use the term for an adoptive or step-mother instead. Clearly, "mother" has different meanings in different contexts. It would be the height of absurdity for our readers for Wikipedia to expunge the term "mother" as meaning "female parent", or add in all these "but what about" clauses at every use, when our sources overwhelmingly do not do this. It also seems that only an exceedingly small proportion of trans men or non-binary people ever give birth, given the high likelihood such a quintessentially female activity would exacerbate their dysphoria. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:20, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Crossroads, this is veering into original-research arguing-among-ourselves territory again. Nobody here has suggested expunging the term mother. I'm not, in this section at least, interested in your rationale as to why certain language is a good idea or is ridiculous. -- Colin°^Talk 08:55, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm scratching my head over when one would use "mother or trans father". Can anyone give a realistic example of how this would be used in a sentence, cited to a source that says "mother"? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:39, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Clayoquot I wonder if we can find examples in the journals that these style guides or editorials are for. -- Colin°^Talk 08:55, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

This website uses that phrase: "When mother (or trans-father) were depressed during pregnancy, higher rates of depression, ADHD, and co-occurrence of both were found". This book describes its contents as telling the "stories of lesbian mothers and trans fathers". "Mothers and trans parents" is a more common phrase (but still unusual). WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry I wasn't clear - what I was looking for is an example of when Colin (or others) as a Wikipedia editor might write "mothers and trans fathers" when the source says only "mothers". Colin, you said so I wonder if "mother or trans father" could sometimes be an acceptable expansion of "mother" - can you provide an example of when such an expansion would be appropriate? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure that I could give you an example that everyone would fully agree was appropriate, but one might imagine a sentence such as "Mothers and trans fathers can experience postpartum depression in the weeks or months after giving birth" – a statement that is true, and for which most sources only mention "women" or "mothers". WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:57, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Hmmm, IMHO that sentence would pass WP:NOR only if there is a source saying that it is true for trans fathers. If the sourcing directly supports this statement, Wikipedia editors wouldn't be "expanding" on anything. If the sourcing doesn't support it, I think including "trans fathers" would be original research. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:42, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Clayoquot, I've created a new section to discuss OR as I think this could be looked at in isolation of one set of guidelines or of other feelings about the topic. -- Colin°^Talk 15:08, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Regarding #3, I suspect that a slightly softer version would be a popular view among editors (i.e., something that we'd have a good chance of getting adopted into a formal policy or guideline, and actually followed by editors in practice).

I have run across fairly egregious examples of #2, in which "20% of women" is turned into "20% of people". There are 7.9 billion "people" in the world. There are only 3 billion post-pubescent people with ovaries in the world. Twenty percent of 7.9B is not the same as 20% of 3B. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:07, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree that something very similar to #3 is an excellent approach. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:01, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Can we explore the scope of "describing the words or recommendations of any other author or organization". There are several scenarios:

a) A direct quotation which we generally don't interfere with though there is some leeway to explicitly alter the wording such as using "[parents]" to make it clear it is altered. I think typically such alteration is for grammatical purposes but sometimes occurs when the author uses "they" or "it" to avoid repeating a descriptive term/noun they've used previously in an unquoted section, and we need to insert that to clarify.

b) We may explicitly in-text attribute facts, opinions or recommendations to an author or organisation but express it in our own words.

c) A combination such as saying 'WHO recommend mothers "should breastfeed until ..."' where the word "mother" is outside the quote.

d) We simply state a fact in our own voice and use a citation to back it up.

I don't think #3 is about scenario (d) but instead could sometimes foul #2. Do we agree? -- Colin°^Talk 12:01, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I think that (a) and (b) should be handled the same way we already normally handle, e.g., a name change (e.g., professional name that doesn't match the legal name, a business that changes its name, Bombay is properly called Mumbai, etc.). I think that we should be more careful with the partial quotes in (c) than with complete paraphrasing in (b).

With all of the options, we need to be careful to avoid inaccuracies, such as falsely assuming that the maternal health benefits of breastfeeding extend to people who were never pregnant (because nobody knows) or to people who are changing their hormones (the relative benefit, especially in terms of breast cancer, is probably lower because the overall risk is lower, but nobody's done the research to prove that). WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:54, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree that the ABM's point #3 is not about scenario (d); Point #3 is about opinions and recommendations, not facts.

If we look at a WHO recommendation such as WHO recommends mothers worldwide to exclusively breastfeed infants for the child's first six months[1], here are some possible statements that I would consider problematic:

• "WHO recommends that parents exclusively breastfeed or chestfeed infants for the child's first six months."

• This is introducing language that implies the WHO holds certain values around gender. The WHO has not expressed those values so it would be inaccurate and unethical to make this implication.

• "WHO recommends that infants be fed only human milk for their first six months."

• I think we should encourage Wikipedia editors to stick as close to the wording of the guideline as possible without falling afoul of copyright, because when we paraphrase too loosely we can introduce mistakes such as conflating "mother breastfeeding" with "giving human milk". The WHO has stated that the best option is milk directly from the breast of the infant's mother, the second-best option is the mother's expressed milk, the third-best option is another woman's milk, and the fourth best option is formula. When they say they want mothers to breastfeed, we should hear that they want mothers (or whoever gave birth to the baby) to breastfeed.
• The term breastfeeding can evoke certain values, including simplicity, tradition, female empowerment, and seeing the breast as having more than a sexual purpose. When we change the terminology we can lose connotations that were intended to be evoked. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:49, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Clayoquot, I agree that your first example fails #3 of the style-guide quoted in this section (you might also want to look at the examples I added in the JMWH section). However, I'm curious what "values around gender" such a wording makes, and why you think WHO might not hold them. When I've googled trans or non-binary topics wrt WHO, I find very much the expected definitions, I find they are revising their terminology for ICD-11, and I find they include this group in their "Leave No One Behind" goals, which recognise, for example, that trans and non-binary people are historically neglected in health education, including for professionals. For example this complains of "cis-normative service models that presume all patients, learners and clinicians are not transgender or gender diverse". -- Colin°^Talk 10:06, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

WHO probably does hold those values, but not every group that makes a statement about breastfeeding holds those values.

The statement that "WHO recommends that infants be fed only human milk for their first six months" is true and verifiable. It is additionally true and verifiable that WHO is very specific about their recommendations for feeding infants. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

If you were going to try to write a de-sexed description of the WHO's rules, it would probably sound something like this:

"WHO recommends that infants be fed only human milk for their first six months. This milk should preferably come directly from the body of the person who gave birth to the infant, without using a bottle or other artificial device. The second best-option is expressed milk from this person. If milk from the person who gave birth is not an option, then milk directly from the body of another healthy person, such as a wet nurse, is the next-best option. If natural human milk is not available, then commercial infant formula, prepared and delivered in a scrupulously clean environment while following all of the instructions about concentration and safe shelf life, is acceptable."

Also, you'd have PICU parents complaining that you didn't mention Human milk banks at all. (WHO mostly writes their infant feeding advice for LMICs, not for people in billion-dollar hospitals.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:53, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

It may sound like points 2 and 3 are not much different to the argument we must follow our sources wrt social language choices. But point 2 is just about being careful when rewording the name of a population, of accidentally redefining the scope of a fact or claim or opinion. Even "patients" and "people with X" are not always equivalent as the former are those receiving medical treatment or care, and the latter is everyone with X. In a condition where many are undiagnosed or choose not to get treatment, the difference could be large. Some may wrongly assume that the lockdown rules set by the UK parliament apply to all of the UK but this is a devolved matter and only applies to England.[2] Accidentally altering the scope when rewriting and paraphrasing is a general problem. And point 3 is just "don't put words into other people's mouths". If we are slave to source authors' language choices, then it matters which sources, and WAID and I have already seen a dispute where a concern was raised that sources could be cherry picked in order to support a language choice. But if the problem with the language choice is one of WP:OR or WP:V, say, then substituting or adding another source may entirely resolve the problem. -- Colin°^Talk 12:15, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Almost all sources use "woman" and "female" interchangeably (and same with men/males) for the vast majority of sex-specific topics. The only cherry-picking that can really occur would be if someone was advocating for "uterus havers" or other such neologisms. "Cherry-picking" can be a problem with any topic on Wikipedia. If that is happening, then the opposing side to the cherry-picker will easily demonstrate that cherry-picking is going on and what wording is actually WP:DUE. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:20, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Almost all sources use "woman" and "female" interchangeably...for the vast majority of sex-specific topics sounds to me like a manifesto commitment in search of a problem, and also tends to be circular (what is a sex-specific topic? If defined narrowly enough, the statement almost becomes tautological). There are certain topics, such as the reproductive health of trans and nonbinary people, where this is not at all true. While it may seem too obvious to need saying, from the actual edit history of these topics it clearly needs to be said - where Wikipedia addresses these topics, it needs to use the clear, up-to-date language actually employed in the RS specific to them, and not revert to "Almost all sources use "woman" and "female" interchangeably" on topics to which this is demonstrably false as a justification for inserting language in article space that violates current RS practices (an argument that at least one, now topic-banned, editor took great joy in making). Newimpartial (talk) 03:14, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I am of course speaking about the topics which are overwhelmingly about people in general, not trans-specific topics. Sticking to how the sources speak works for trans topics too and will often mean speaking differently in those cases. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:00, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think WP:DUE has anything to say about how we write, provided we use a neutral formal tone. Crossroads, you keep linking to policy pages that might superficially sound like they support your argument, but they actually don't. WP:ENGVAR is a good example of how we've come up with our own rules on writing style, that ignore the weight of our sources and for that matter the weight of our readers. -- Colin°^Talk 08:55, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Above you complained of "veering into original-research arguing-among-ourselves territory again". It can't be original research when I make an argument but 'we make our own rules' when you do. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:00, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Let me clarify. I was responding to your claim "It also seems that only an exceedingly small proportion of trans men or non-binary people ever give birth, given the high likelihood such a quintessentially female activity would exacerbate their dysphoria." That's original research being used to support an argument that Wikipedia should take the view that there are so few trans fathers or non-binary people who are pregnant or have had children, that we can write in a way that denies their existence. And you also used an exaggerated strawman 'Wikipedia to expunge the term "mother"', which is the sort of thing people do when arguing in a non-productive manner. We do "make our own rules" wrt how we write. The bit I'm trying to avoid here is that we take the culture war of some feminist group vs some trans group vs conservatives vs liberals vs some other feminist group, etc, etc onto our talk pages and start having that war on Wikipedia. And I'm trying to avoid people flinging "facts" around that we'd all want to add a "citation please" tag too. -- Colin°^Talk 10:30, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Again, the fact that you frame it as "writ[ing] in a way that denies their existence" is telling as to your own (possibly unconscious) biases. When we write in Human body#Anatomy that humans have two arms and two legs, is that 'denying the existence' of amputees? When we describe other organs that people may have lost due to injury or disease, is not including caveats about how not all humans have those organs some sort of denial of existence of those minorities? How is writing about female anatomy without reference to "women" any less a denial of the existence of this much larger group, by your reasoning? For some reason when it comes to people with gender dysphoria, though, some people forget that it is not reasonable to write every topic treating edge cases as though it is typical, and hence implying that what is typical is actually just one of many common alternatives.

'Expunging the term mother' is where these ideas being toyed around with are leading to. I see it already in some of the hypothetical rewrite and advice proposals on this page. Regarding original research, let me be clear that my position has always been first and foremost that writing like our sources do is the way to go. It is this approach of 'let's compile these different sources giving advice or using new language and synthesize guidance from them' that is, well, WP:Synthesis. It is the job of the sources we cite to do that, not ours.

I will note here that I am going to add in a writeup on this page of the AMA Manual of Style and several other sources starting tonight. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:23, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that anyone has suggested expunging the term mother from Wikipedia. However, it is true that many medical professionals prefer to use the word woman for pregnancy-related content. If we follow the style of medical sources, we will use mother only rarely.

I am looking forward to your description of the AMA's advice, along with any others that you think will be interesting to discuss ("good" and "bad" examples can be useful). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:33, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

"Woman" instead of "mother" is fine; you can substitute the word in my post and the point is the same. I will have to post about the AMA tomorrow as this evening was busier than expected. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:57, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Crossroads, I think all of the viewpoints in the paragraph WAID wrote below that begins "All of the language options are politically charged" are valid and rational and I can see why people hold them. I should have written that sentence above as "that we can write in a way that many trans and non-binary people feel denies their existence". There, is that better? And I can supply sources for that if you doubt it. What I don't think you can supply sources for, and I don't want to read, is arguments about amputees. I don't want you or anyone where trying to persuade me that your political view is the only correct one. I'm not interested in people's politics on this matter. I'm interested to see if there is a way we can accommodate the arguments of these various groups as expressed by intelligent, thoughtful, considerate, informed, experienced and published writers, taking into account our peculiar Wiki ways. What isn't wiki, is some random argument that because we don't write about people with one arm we also shouldn't write about people who gave birth while identifying as a man. -- Colin°^Talk 20:10, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

And many ways of writing about the few who gave birth while identifying as a man deny the existence (by this same reasoning) of the overwhelming majority who are women by refusing to name them. Also, it is not our place to figure out how to 'accommodate their arguments' for writing in whatever way. Such arguments are aimed primarily at professionals in the field who actually write on the topic, not anonymous wiki editors anyway. We always have been downstream of reliable sources and their example. That is their problem to figure out. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:57, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't see that trying to write respectfully for all our variety of readers, and being mindful of disadvantaged minority groups, is any different than Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility asks us to make extra effort to accommodate those with a disability. A fair amount of that advice is specific to the MediaWiki interface that Wikipedia uses and how our markup affects it, so it isn't like we've left it to our sources and "followed" or been "downstream" of them in that regard. We decided that accessibility was important and we did something about it. We didn't say "Oh, The Lancet isn't accessible, so we don't need to be. Stick to the sources!" And (I hope) we didn't label as "activists" people with a visual disability, for example, asking to be able to more easily read Wikipedia. In Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch we find many examples of style we wouldn't consider "encyclopaedic" and yet appear in our sources. Look at the very first example: "Bob Dylan is the defining figure of the 1960s counterculture and a brilliant songwriter." How many copies of a biography of Dylan would be sold if the blurb on the jacket just said "Bob Dylan is an American singer-songwriter, author and visual artist."? Those sources do not write like we do or want to. And WAID has already demonstrated that our medical sources do not write like we do, because Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable. Writing well for our readers is our job. -- Colin°^Talk 10:23, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Making articles accessible is not comparable to changing the ideas found in the articles away from those in the sources. Nor is accounting for encyclopedic style by sticking to facts rather than opinions. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:44, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

It might help if you elaborated on what "opinions" you refer to in this sentence. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:52, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Simply that what is being proposed here is nothing like Wikipedia avoiding phrases like "defining figure" and "brilliant songwriter". Crossroads ^-talk- 05:15, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think anything is being proposed here? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:56, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Crossroads, being led by the sources has worked brilliantly for Wikipedia and I understand why you'd think we are led by the sources 100% of the time. But community consensus occasionally supports making exceptions, a memorable one being the retitling of "Chairman" to "Chairperson" in 2019. Personally I'd like to see us decide that we should generally follow the sources, but contemplating exceptions is important and consensus-building is important. I'd appreciate it if you could stop repeating your assertions that issues around gender-inclusive style are already settled. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:15, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Also, it's not true that including trans folks means we have to deny the existence (by this same reasoning) of the overwhelming majority who are women by refusing to name them. That's the main point behind the "gender additive" approach that one of these sources advocates for. You name women and you name non-women in that model. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:39, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Are women and "non-women" equally likely to get pregnant? Are even women and 'trans men + "AFAB" non-binary people' equally likely to get pregnant? Is the population of people with female-anatomy-specific needs roughly equally made up of women and non-women? If not, then why should we imply they are? How is this not a false balance that misleads readers? Crossroads ^-talk- 06:44, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

The issue with "false balance" is about ideas and opinions only held by a tiny minority being treated like they are equivalent to the established or majority opinion. I don't think that has anything to do with counting how many trans men get pregnant or the fertility rate of AFAB non-binary people. I don't think you are suggesting that the idea that trans men could get pregnant is a fringe viewpoint, so let's not confuse minority views with minority populations. -- Colin°^Talk 11:49, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

You know Crossroads, a few months ago our provincial health officials said something about COVID vaccination being important for "pregnant people". When that got reported in the news, the phrase got lots of criticism from readers in the comments section. But I don't think any of the criticisms said that the phrase was misleading. Nobody who reads "COVID vaccination is especially important for pregnant people" is going to be misled into thinking that women and non-women are equally likely to get pregnant.

"Pregnant people" is obviously not misleading in all contexts. Perhaps it would be helpful to focus on specific contexts in which you think it is misleading. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:04, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I wonder if Crossroads is suggesting that by saying "pregnant people" we might imply there are an equal number of cis-women and trans-men in that "pregnant people" group. I wonder if we referred to a midwife's duties and used singular "they" whether Crossroads would complain that this was giving a "false balance" about the proportion of male midwives ("a minuscule 0.4% of the total"), and for that reason we must write "she" so as not to mislead the reader. -- Colin°^Talk 20:05, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I've just fully read the article I linked (The making of a male midwife) and I think, Clayoquot, you'd be interested in reading that too. I found the middle bit about the law to be relevant to our discussion about inclusive language. I assume professional literature (and therefore our best sources) about midwifery is no longer written with the assumption midwifes are women. But society has not caught up and the reality is there are very few male midwifes. Yet we are happy to define "A midwife is a person..." without people complaining about righting great wrongs or using Wikipedia for advocacy or "false balance". -- Colin°^Talk 10:11, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

This is yet another inaccurate analogy. There is no necessary connection between being a midwife and being female. However, every "pregnant person" is female. English has a word for female humans, and we should not misleadingly forgo it just because a tiny minority of them have a condition (gender dysphoria) whereby they identify otherwise. Same as the other exceptions I've mentioned about people who are missing digits or whatever. Centering rarities is misleading. It is not "people" for whom unprotected sex can result in pregnancy. It is not all "people" for whom a major aspect of their health needs involve obstetrics and gynecology. I submit that "pregnant people" is always misleading because it takes away reference to sex for something that is inherently sexed, as though it were sex-neutral.

Colin, the first and foremost reason that I point to RGW and not-advocacy is because the sources by and large haven't started using these terms - unlike not assuming midwives or other professions are a certain gender.

Clayoquot noting that "the phrase got lots of criticism from readers in the comments section" should be a warning to all of us. This is my impression too of what happens when the phrase is used. I touch a bit on this below in the following subsection. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:40, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

We can nit pick about analogies, but I brought it up because you were arguing about whether the proportions of two groups were equal and that by rewording it to remove the mention of the group that forms the nearly all of the population (women) we were doing a false balance thing. The midwife thing is exactly the same. If your argument held, then Wikipedia calling midwifes "people" gives a false balance. Male midwifes have not achieved equality or complete acceptance in society, and have a population group the BBC described as "miniscule". So is it ok to RGW and advocate for male midwives if our sources do? -- Colin°^Talk 11:29, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

It is not solely a matter of proportions. It is the fact that it is inherently connected to femaleness and hence from there to the paradigmatic sense of womanhood, coupled with the fact that it is only involving rare conditions that people are arguing the term shouldn't be used. It is like pretending that humans may have more or less than ten fingers because of rare conditions. Medical conditions are not comparable to non-sexed occupations. Crossroads ^-talk- 16:03, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Pregnancy requires a female reproductive system, but breastfeeding doesn't. With the exception of a few people with rare birth defects, all humans exposed to the relevant hormones are capable of breastfeeding. There is no necessary connection between breastfeeding and being female, so it is logically not "inherently connected to femaleness". Does this argument about "the paradigmatic sense of womanhood" apply to breastfeeding? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:10, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Males are not naturally able to breastfeed; their bodies did not evolve with that ability. That is a sex-specific function regardless of artificial or rare conditions causing some sort of male lactation. I see no evidence that whatever is produced there is actually identical to milk and could come in enough volume to nourish a baby. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:25, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

There are reports in the literature of trans women exclusively breastfeeding for months, with no harm to the baby. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:21, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

[citation needed] Crossroads ^-talk- 04:27, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Start with PMID 30840524 and PMID 29372185. It is certainly unusual, but there are multiple reports. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:54, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Even so, case reports aren't MEDRS, so not exactly a justification for overhauling anything. And this was only possible due to artificial hormones. That doesn't make breastfeeding a non-sex-specific physiological function. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:23, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Crossroads, I don't think your response here is fair. You claimed "I see no evidence that whatever is produced there is actually identical to milk and could come in enough volume to nourish a baby." and when WAID said "There are reports in the literature..." you simply didn't believe them and asked for a source. WAID gave you two. The correct response, would be "Oh, interesting, and sorry that I doubted you". Btw, Case reports are not banned by MEDRS. They are to be avoided when discussing a health effect, such as the efficacy of something, as their evidence is the lowest possible quality. But if the report documents the existence of something, then that could be a RS if the journal was reasonable. The only problem then, if we were writing an article, would be WP:WEIGHT to say if it is worth covering at all. Nobody is disputing that a transgender woman would not breastfeed naturally or easily or commonly. -- Colin°^Talk 09:55, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Wrt to Clayoquot's "the phrase got lots of criticism from readers in the comments section", I have a feeling there is a word for an angry group of people writing to their newspapers and politicians, demanding that others conform to their language choices surrounding a social matter. And I have a feeling Wikipedia discourages such activities. I wonder if there is a policy page or guideline on the matter? -- Colin°^Talk 11:35, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

What is the argument here? I'm sure we'd make people angry if we used womxn also. Crossroads ^-talk- 16:03, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Crossroads, please don't play with language. Female human has multiple senses because "female" has multiple senses. Trans women are "female humans" in terms of gender identity - and in many cases, often legally - although they will not have a functioning "female" reproductive system. The reason some of the sources on pregnancy (including the general guidance in Canada on covid vaccination and pregnancy) uses "pregnant person" is because of this ambiguity about when "female" is a social category and when it is a "biological" category, what it means in a particular context, and what various audiences will understand it to mean. When you argue that Centering rarities is misleading you seem to be arguing against including the language of more careful sources in WP articles even when it predominates among relevant, recent, RS and essentially to be offering a rationale for the disruptive arguments recently put forward by a now topic-banned editor (who argued that "female" always means the same, biologically determined category, regardless of context or specific sourcing). I hope this is not the case. Newimpartial (talk) 13:12, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

When medical sources talk about "female", and the context is not specifying gender identity, sex is meant. The female reproductive system is called such because it is of the female sex; it is not a term for the genitals of anyone who identifies as female.

"More careful" is a highly subjective notion. It would be OR if one used, say, "pregnant people" to describe a study of "pregnant women"; that is actually less careful.

No, it is not true that I argue against these terms "even when it predominates among relevant, recent, RS". My central point has always been that we should use the terms that predominate among the relevant and reasonably recent RS - namely the MEDRS, which already has a rule about preferring recent sources. And the benefit of such a stance is that someday, if these newer terms do predominate, then we would make the switch. But, crucially, that has not occurred yet, and might never occur. Crossroads ^-talk- 16:03, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

In certain contexts, though, they do already predominate, and in other contexts the field is divided. Perhaps I am misunderstanding you, but you seem prepared - along with the topic-banned editor - to appeal to the universe of MEDRS as a whole to adjudicate which choice to make in specific contexts when the terms used are diverse.

In fact, you seem to be making a very similar move just now, in saying When medical sources talk about "female", and the context is not specifying gender identity, sex is meant. This is not true of psychiatry, for example, where "female" is much more likely to be used to invoke social than biological factors (crudely, "gender" rather than "sex"), quite aside from gender identity in particular. It is also not true of studies that explicitly identify gender, in addition to or as opposed to sex, as a factor in health outcomes. But once again you are appealing to what may be true of MEDRS as a whole to run roughshod over more specific literatures, which have their own typical features and dynamics. Newimpartial (talk) 16:17, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Please stop making WP:ASPERSION-ey references to a topic-banned editor. I am not appealing to the "universe" of MEDRS, I am saying that we should follow the clear majority of MEDRS (per WP:WEIGHT) on each topic we write about - say, COVID-19 and pregnancy. That is a much larger grouping then, say, cherry-picking a few articles that use a particular terminology, but it isn't a contextless appeal to 'all' MEDRS, even including articles that have nothing to do with pregnancy. This approach is flexible in that it accounts for how terminology may differ in, say, intersex or transgender topics.

I think your claim about psychiatry is questionable - the section of the field related to gender dysphoria aside, while gender is considered, reference to differences between males and females - without further elaboration - usually has to do with sex differences. Gender as a distinct set of social influences is investigated as part of that, but biological differences are also investigated. All the more this demonstrates that sticking to the sources in each case is necessary - while also not cherry-picking sources that use unusual terminology, on either side of any given dispute. Crossroads ^-talk- 16:51, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I think it might be helpful to extend the discussion of psychiatry a bit further. Without casting ASPERSIONS, I question the basis for your claim that in this field reference to differences between males and females - without further elaboration - usually has to do with sex differences. In some instances the MEDRS are explicit that they are examining gender, and in some instances they are explicitly looking at sex. But many sources in psychiatry in particular do not specify, and in such an instance I don't think stating that it usually has to do with sex differences is a helpful generalization. For example, feelings of physical helplessness may have to do with a combination of physiological factors and socialization, and therefore both sex and gender may come into play. I don't know why it would be helpful in this and similar cases to assume that "female=sex" - and it is steel-manning rather than ASPERSIONS on my part, I feel, when I attribute your reasoning on this to "this is what sources in the rest of MEDRS tend to do" rather than "this is my arbitrary a priori assumption", which is the obvious alternative that comes to mind.

My main point here is that whether or not, e.g., "female=sex" is an empirical question to be asked in specific contexts within the MEDRS domain, and having an overall generalization doesn't help in generating these more specific answers IMO. You're right that it doesn't really matter who has been making the argument to the contrary of my position - the argument is equally wrong, regardless. Newimpartial (talk) 17:09, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

In reading this, I found myself wondering what "trans female" would mean in a MEDRS-style source. From a quick look at PubMed, the answer appears to be "whatever the author wanted it to mean". WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:12, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Values implicit in wording choices in other organizations' guidelines

To answer Colin's question above, However, I'm curious what "values around gender" such a wording makes, and why you think WHO might not hold them., it doesn't surprise me in the least that the WHO wants transgender and nonbinary people to get better health care AND that the WHO regularly uses terms like "breastfeeding" and "mothers" by themselves. Using gender-exclusive language some of the time doesn't signify you're don't care about including all genders; it can signify that including all genders isn't the only thing that matters when it comes to choosing words.

As several of the style guidelines have pointed out, unfortunately choosing words is something of a zero-sum game. When you change wording in a way that makes some people feel more included, that wording change might also make the content less accessible to others, such as people who are reading the content in their second language. It's not fair to imply that the WHO believes that the needs of the people who benefit from gender-inclusive wording take priority over the needs of the people who lose something from it, when the wording of the guideline suggests otherwise.

And of course, when it comes to topics like these, our wording choices send signals to others about where we sit on the political spectrum. If a health organization writes guidelines about breastfeeding and deliberately avoids terms like "mother", I'm more likely to perceive them as being on the left than on the center or the right. The WHO might not want to be perceived that way. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 07:05, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

P.S. Colin thanks for providing the link to the Transgender health in medical education document - this is a great read and I think it enriches the conversation in ways I'll come back to later. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 07:11, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I am very much looking forward to hearing your thoughts about that document. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:55, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you about the "zero-sum game" problem. Some previous social language discussions had a variety of widely acceptable alternatives and it has hard, to my mind at least, to appreciate why some editors were so determined to retain words might trouble some of our readers. I was hoping that researching this might uncover some positive advice about inclusive language we could agree on, and not just focus on the negatives. I think advice would likely be cautious and describe, as you note, other things that matter when choosing words (not distracting the reader, being easy to follow, not altering the facts or opinions of our sources, etc). -- Colin°^Talk 18:21, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

If we could identify and agree on some values, and especially if we could say that we want A+B+C, but that if you can't achieve the ideal, then "B" is slightly more important, I think we could make some progress.

I doubt that we will come up with a single value that is always the most important (for language/style). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:58, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I too was hoping that the external style guides would give more positive advice about inclusive language, but I'm actually pretty happy with what we've found so far. The pattern I'm seeing is, roughly,: There are reasonable and ethical professionals who prefer to write using gender-inclusive language, and there are reasonable and ethical professionals who don't. Several editorial committees that have studied this question find both approaches to be ethically and scientifically acceptable. In other words, if you fail to get your preferred wording don't worry that losing this battle will hasten the end of civilization. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 01:37, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you about the overall pattern. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:31, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm glad you bring up the matter of the political spectrum. As a thought experiment, let's suppose that avoiding "women" in reference to breastfeeding, whatever effect it may have on trans men and non-binary people whose dysphoria permits breastfeeding, simultaneously repelled most centrist and conservative people, including such women, and discredited Wikipedia as politically biased in their eyes. This is almost certainly a much larger group. Would participants here consider that as a reason to avoid doing so? I know I would. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:48, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I live in Canada, where the discussion about "pregnant person" language to date would not lead me to entertain any such possibility. But I suppose your argument might potentially apply to less developed countries. Newimpartial (talk) 13:02, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think this sort of exceptionalism is warranted here, as Clayoquot herself who raised the possibility is also Canadian, and her comment higher up about a news story with the term getting many negative comments was presumably Canadian media. Crossroads ^-talk- 16:14, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

The reaction to that single news story does not encompass the entire discussion of the topic in Canadian RS. The fact remains that "pregnant person" is the standard term for public health guidance on covid-19 vaccines and pregnancy in Canada. Newimpartial (talk) 16:38, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Public health messaging is the purview of the government, which I will remind you is a political entity currently under the control of the Liberal Party of Canada, a socially left-wing party. The common people which we are talking about here have no direct input on wording in that messaging. This has no impact on my thought experiment here. All that matters is that significant numbers of people do dislike that wording (even some Canadians), and we even have sources elsewhere on this page acknowledging that dislike. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:02, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

As I have noted before, Crossroads, your grasp on Canadian governance is pretty shaky. Public health is predominantly in provincial jurisdiction, and possibly the most prominent bodies using "pregnant persons" in the context of covid-19 vaccines are in Ontario, under its current Conservative government. The Ministry of Health, the Chief Public Health Officer (a nonpartisan position) and a large group of Ontario hospitals (funded by but not directly controlled by the provincial government) have all used the "pregnant people" language, with very little in the way of backlash.

As far as the Canadian Federal government goes, "pregnant individuals" is the language preferred by the National Advisory Committee on Immunization - which is not only nonpartisan but also at arm's length from government - and it seems simply to be following the language used in the medical sources it cited (including US-based MEDRS). So your attribution of these language choices to the Liberal Party of Canada seems either conspiratorial or comically wrong, depending on one's preferences I suppose. Newimpartial (talk) 17:30, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Newimpartial I'm curious how you came to this conclusion. If you could show us your methodology that would be very useful. Crossroads, FYI public health messaging in Canada is mostly done by the provinces of Canada and by medical associations. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:14, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I looked initially at the statements by the major provincial public health authorities and at the media coverage of them. Is there another approach you would recommend? Newimpartial (talk) 17:21, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

That's the approach I was thinking of. I was just wondering if you looked at all ten provinces and three territories. Are all thirteen using "pregnant person"? Also do you happen to know what they say for people who are breastfeeding? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:28, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

And if it's not too much trouble, if you could provide links to the relevant thirteen documents, that would be super helpful. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:34, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry; I am not going to go back and copy-paste the links; I do have a day job lol. And I haven't looked at the three territories.

But to answer your previous question, six of the ten provinces use "pregnant people" in their guidance. The exceptions are Quebec, New Brunswick and PEI (who use "pregnant women") and Saskatchewan (who use the second person: "if you are pregnant"). So only 25% of the Canadian population (and substantially less than 25% of the English-speaking population) are governed by public health guidance referring to "pregnant women" in this context.

While I didn't go through them systematically, I did notice that several professional bodies - including the New Brunswick doctors and the Nova Scotia midwives - also chose "pregnant people" or "pregnant individuals" rather than "pregnant women".

While I didn't look systematically at breastfeeding and covid, the language choices I did notice appeared similar, with "breastfeeding individuals" as one preferred term. And contrary to one editor on this page who prefers "trans fathers", I noticed "mothers/birth parents" as a public health term that seems intended to allow inclusion without causing undue alienation. But I didn't validate that nation-wide. Newimpartial (talk) 17:55, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Interesting, thank you! I'll mention for our non-Canadian friends that the governments of most of these provinces are centre-right by Canadian standards.[3] Also FWIW public health statements from Quebec have probably been translated from French.

BTW I like your comment about wording that allows inclusion without causing undue alienation. I still bristle when "breastfeeding" is changed to "breastfeeding/chestfeeding" but "breastfeeding individuals" is growing on me. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:50, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

IMO one of the biggest problems with "mothers and trans fathers" is that it leaves out non-binary parents, which I suspect is a larger group of people. I do think it has some value for clarifying points under discussion. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:26, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Journal of Midwifery & Women's Health

• Intentional Inconsistency as Gender-Neutral Language Evolves Editorial by Frances E Likis, Journal of Midwifery & Women's Health (JMWH), 2018. I don't have time to quote bits, but I found very interesting their comments about the hard-won move away from referring to patients towards referring to women (because pregnancy isn't an illness!) and moving away from referring to organs or illnesses being the subject of a sentence towards the women being the subject of a sentence. They see that some attempts at gender neutrality or avoiding referring to "women" are in their view a step backwards if they adopt this older writing style.
• Inclusive Language Promotes Equity: The Power of Words Editorial by Frances E Likis, Journal of Midwifery & Women's Health (JMWH), 2021. Another piece by the same author, talking more generally about inclusive language, with an appendix that deserves exploring.

Both the above articles strike me as excellent examples of an intelligent and highly informed writer discussing this topic and justifying their conclusion. Whether one agrees or disagrees with some or all of it, it is inescapable to me that this is writing that is an order of magnitude more thoughtful, considerate, respectful and wise than, well, nearly anything I've seen on Wikipedia talk pages when it comes to social language change. -- Colin°^Talk 19:46, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

+1. Your idea of looking for external sources was excellent. This is so much more interesting and enjoyable than arguing amongst ourselves. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 20:33, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

• Should You Judge a Journal by Its Cover?. A podcast where the editor of JWMH (Frances Likis) is interviewed about the journal cover change (see also this editorial). The meat of the discussion starts at 4min. Their new cover has three figures, line drawn to avoid race or ethnicity. While two are feminine in shape, one is deliberately ambiguous, reflecting not just the variety of shape in women's bodies but also a possibly male body. The podcast also discusses their thoughts about gender inclusive language. They note that midwife age plays some part in shaping attitudes and also that academics are seeing a demand from their students to be more inclusive, and want advice on how to do that.
• Journal of Midwifery & Women’s Health Manuscript Preparation and Style Guide. As noted above, the journal takes an approach to let authors decide provided they are consistent within an article. They have some preference: "Use women instead of mothers, patients, or clients wherever possible, including for women who are pregnant, postpartum, and/or breastfeeding.". Also a warning about study populations: "Gender-neutral language should not be used for gender-specific study populations. For example, a study that only included women as participants should be described as such, rather than described as a study of people."

The first editorial above describes the arguments of "simplistically" two positions. One is that "a broader understanding of gender identity is becoming apparent" and "midwives are currently providing a variety of types of care for individuals who do not identify as women". Opposing that is the fact that "the vast majority of individuals midwives care for consider themselves to be women". They recall "advocating for women to stop being referred to as patients because many women seeking health care are not ill" and "efforts to make women, rather than their body parts or clinical conditions, the subject of sentences.". In addition to the "rationales" the editor considers the "ramifications" of change. "moving to gender-neutral language will seem more inclusive to some individuals, it may make other individuals uncomfortable" finding gender-neutral terms "awkward and even alienating". Our challenge, like theirs, is that all these arguments are true and can't simply be dismissed. Some of the problems with gender-neutral replacement explains why that author has moved towards using the term gender-inclusive to describe their approach.

The second editorial above states that "Language is powerful, and its influence on perceptions and behaviors can have negative or positive effects. Communicating without consciousness of inclusive language can marginalize and misrepresent individuals and communities, perpetuate stereotypes, and be offensive. Inclusive language conveys respect and promotes equity.". They warn this "also needs to be respectful, accurate, unbiased, and consistent with the preferences of the individuals and communities who are being discussed". Practically, "It is not always a matter of simply replacing words with a more inclusive alternative. Careful attention must be paid to the context in which the word is being used to determine if an alternative is more appropriate. For example, when discussing a health topic for which it makes a difference whether someone has a vagina or penis, one cannot simply change every gendered word to a gender-inclusive alternative". They conclude "It is important to bring a sense of humility to the process of using inclusive language, setting aside ego, and welcoming correction and improvement.". -- Colin°^Talk 11:26, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

It sounds like this source is concerned about a shift away from "person-centered" healthcare to biological reductionism. They seem to be offering an ENGVAR-type approach as a stop-gap measure, until the language shift settles. I wonder how long the "gap" will be (a decade? a generation?). WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:36, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

Keep in mind WP:CRYSTAL though - it is not a given that a proposed new way of writing will actually become a "language shift" rather than languish in a minority of sources and perhaps later be dropped for whatever reason. History has many things like that too - not just what we in hindsight call progress. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:11, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Settling is settling, no matter what the result is. I think it is reasonable to assume that it will settle on some reasonably consistent pattern. English seems to have done that for every previous shift, so there's no logical reason to assume that this will remain unsettled forever. The only open question in my mind is whether we'll live long enough to find out what the outcome will be. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Sometimes, changes in language persist among some speakers of a language but not others. Womyn is an example of a language shift that some English speakers have used for decades and that others reject, and there's no sign that it will either disappear or become normalized anytime soon. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 02:32, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Examples

• Abortion with Pills: Review of Current Options in The United States. Refers to "people", "pregnant people", "person" (including "a person's last menstrual period"), "patients", "individuals". No mention (AFAICS) of "women" or "mothers".
• Experiences of Quality Perinatal Care During the US COVID-19 Pandemic. Largely substitutes "maternity" with "perinatal", "women" with "people", including "birthing people", "pregnant people", "people giving birth", "people in labor", "people who gave birth". A few "individuals" but no "patients".
  • "The WHO defines respectful maternity care (hereafter referred to as respectful perinatal care) as that which is “organized for and provided to all women in a manner that ..." which maintains WHO's language but explicitly points out their alternative.
  • "The WHO guidelines for COVID-19 clinical management state that all pregnant people, including those with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection, should have access to high-quality perinatal care that is respectful, person-centered, and skilled". Here the WHO source says "Pregnant women with suspected, probable, or confirmed COVID-19, including women who may need to spend time in isolation, should have access to woman-centred, respectful skilled care". I wonder how we feel about changing "pregnant women" to "pregnant people" and "woman-centred" to "person-centered"? On Googling "woman centered care" I find this which a quick skim does not seem to me to indicate anything female/woman-specific or about the term, but instead is a rebranding of "patient-centred care" by midwifes towards their patients.

  The word "women" only appears a few times outside of quotes, mostly where the statistics likely require it. The word "maternal" appears many times, however. For example: "This study highlights the need for further research in many areas related to health equity in maternal health. Further qualitative research is needed to understand what women need to feel they are respected and in control of their own health care needs, especially during the important life transition of pregnancy and childbirth." Could "maternal" or "women" be handled differently?

I should note that not all articles in this journal are written this way, and I only looked at a few recent free-access ones. For example this and this both use "women" countless times. -- Colin°^Talk 17:19, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

This is what I mean about avoiding cherry-picking. The overwhelming majority of sources in this area still use "pregnant women". It is not neutral to take a few sources that do otherwise and suggest that perhaps we should write like they do while ignoring the many more that do not. Removing "women" from pregnancy - which is overwhelmingly a women's issue - is very much a sociopolitical-activist choice and not a neutral stance. If this new terminology takes hold in the majority of new MEDRS, then it may make sense to change over, and only then. But that time is not here yet and may never be here. We do not lead, we follow. Speaking in a way that the vast majority of sources do not is necessarily engaging in language reform advocacy, which is WP:NOT what we are for. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:18, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

"Speaking in a way that the vast majority of sources do not", for medical articles, could equally be called "complying with Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable". WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:04, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I didn't include these examples to "suggest that perhaps we should write like they do". It could well be that everyone looks at those examples and recoils in horror. But they are examples of how some other people have handled this, and published professionally, and so I think they are worth looking at. They also demonstrate a couple of cases where the paper has revised the gender language of their source. I think those are a lot more valuable as examples than the ones opponents criticise but aren't actually citing a real publication. I'd like to try to find examples from that journal that take a more additive inclusive approach rather than just calling everyone a "person". Crossroads, can we just agree to disagree about this "we do not lead, we follow" claim wrt how we write, because we only have your word for that, because there are no policy pages stating it, because it is quite easy to disprove with examples, because you've said it already several times, and because I wasn't convinced all those times either. -- Colin°^Talk 09:47, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, removing "mother" and "woman" and/or adding in caveats about gender identity is the opposite of 'making technical articles understandable'.

Colin, yes, I understand that you don't agree that WP:NOTADVOCACY applies to the style with which we write. Even though no clause making such a carveout exists anywhere. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:31, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Sometimes, we have to choose between "making technical articles understandable" and "following the style used in our sources". Sometimes our sources write things like "Methodological observation of the sociometrical behavior tendencies of prematurated isolates indicates that a casual relationship exists between groundward tropism and lachrimatory, or 'crying,' behavior forms", and we can either follow the source's style, or we can write in our own style, which would sound more like "Sometimes, children cry when they fall down". One of the things we could discuss is whether sticking to the style of our source is actually the most important value.

Every single choice we make around this subject can be credibly described as a NOTADVOCACY violation. Do you want the "traditional" language? You are advocating for traditional understandings of gender. Do you want to include gender minorities? You are advocating for modern understandings of gender. Do you want to use simple words? You are advocating for younger readers, non-native English speakers, and educational value. Do you want to use more complex jargon? You are advocating for Wikipedia's place as a "serious" reference for professionals. Everything is advocacy. It is naïve to pretend otherwise. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:42, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

That (humorously exaggerated) case of technical language is not an appropriate analogy to this. Using terms equivalent in meaning is not comparable to terms that differ in meaning, especially politically controversial neologisms.

I don't think framing these positions as "traditional" or "modern" is accurate or helpful. Everything is advocacy is simply not supported by Wikipedia policy. If that were so, then we would delete the WP:NOTADVOCACY section of WP:NOT. I address this more under #WP:OR.

I mean, if everything is advocacy, then how about this modest proposal? We should replace usages of "women" with "womxn". After all some people say it's more inclusive, so we really need to spend hours and hours finding a way to accommodate that. Sure, almost all sources don't use it, but we can create our own style! And it's not inappropriate advocacy to say we should use it, no way. Saying it's unnecesary is just as much advocacy as saying it is, advocating for traditional gender roles.

See how these arguments really sound? Crossroads ^-talk- 05:25, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Crossroads, you keep citing NEO but I haven't seen anyone here or any of the cited guides use a neologism, until your mock proposal to use "womxn". Am I missing something? Which neologisms are those guides suggesting? -- Colin°^Talk 10:31, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I assume that "pregnant person" sounds like a neologism, especially to people who haven't read authors such as Immanuel Kant using that exact term back in the 18th century. The feminist movement (~1960s and 1970s) pushed for the focus on "pregnant woman", so if you've grown up with that, you might think English always worked that way, and that "pregnant person" was invented about a decade ago. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:57, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

The Google Ngram Viewer, which goes as far back as 1800, suggests that the phrase "pregnant people" was rarely used between 1800 and the late 1970s. The phrase had a huge liftoff beginning around 2012. [4] Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:05, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, "pregnant person"/"pregnant people" is a neologism, as are "person with a vagina", "lactating parent", and the numerous other terms invented for these purposes. They have not become replaced other terms even in the literature, and certainly not in common speech. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:56, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, the Ngram started picking up use of "pregnant people" over 40 years ago. I wouldn't call that a neologism, although I agree with you that "pregnant women" is much more commonly used. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:42, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

A medical text uses the term "pregnant person" in 1718.  That's 303 (three hundred three!) years ago.  ("if the pregnant Person is on other accounts well, it will most commonly be convenient to let Blood in the Arm, giving a Vomit before-hand").  Does anyone really believe that any term used three centuries ago – one that predates the word neologism itself by more than 50 years – counts a neologism? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:48, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

One use 303 years ago, and minimal use 40 years ago according to Ngram, is beside the point that the phrase is new in terms of people trying to use it as a replacement where they would use "pregnant women" in the past. Previously this was a phrase so obscure almost nobody would ever hear it in their life. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:59, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

You forgot about Immanuel Kant – one of the most widely read philosophers of the last two centuries – who used the phrase 223 years ago. ("The arbitrable killing of one's self can then only first be named self-murder (homicidium dolosum), when it can be proved that it is in general a crime, which is perpetrated either on one's own person, or by this killing of one's self on others (for instance, when a pregnant person puts herself to death"). If "almost nobody would ever hear it in their life", then that is an indictment of the educational systems, not proof that it wasn't used throughout those centuries.

Also in a book from 1804 claiming that birth defects appear if "the pregnant person" is startled ("marks...where the pregnant person has been suddenly touched").

From a daily newspaper in 1819. ("he can ascertain whether a son or a daughter may be expected from a pregnant person arrived at the 9th month of that state")

And in a medical book by Marie Anne Victoire Gillain Boivin et al. from 1834 that was probably describing cervical cancer. ("He has observed this disease in the young and in the aged; he has seen it in the case of a pregnant person")

And in a medical book by William Coulson in 1836. ("Even if a pregnant person leaves off the use of the stays early, she carries her child with more difficulty than if she had not worn them at all")

And from a medical journal in 1863. ("more is due to the peculiar nervous temperament of the pregnant person")

And from a widely re-printed speech in 1880 ("Having thus gone rapidly over the subject of the prevention of defect , deformity, and disease by the intra-uterine medicinal and nutritional treatment of the pregnant person during gestation")

And in a court case in 1893 about an abortion drug ("What action would that have, in itself, upon a pregnant person?")

And many others. The fact that it is less common than alternatives (especially when social delicacy encouraged literate people to refer to someone's Interesting Condition, rather than use the word pregnancy in any form) does not make it new. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:52, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

So, a few more 19th century uses. Here in the 21st century, until very recently, this term was non-existent. Then it appeared and increased somewhat. It's almost as if it would be new to most people hearing it nowadays. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:37, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

• 2000: "the single homeless who are without dependent children and who are neither pregnant nor residing with a pregnant person."
• 2001: "with the knowledge and voluntary consent of the pregnant person"
• 2002: "Therefore a pregnant person should not be treated as a sick person, with too many restrictions on food and movement"
• 2003: "I'm not – I'm not infertile any more. I'm out of that group. Now what am I now? I'm just a normal pregnant person."
• 2004: "Speaking as a pregnant person, I find the view of maternity inherent in maternity contracts profoundly demeaning. Pregnancy and delivery are not 'services' performed for the baby's father."
• 2005: "However, in addition to a lack of menstrual cycle, I had other indications of a pregnant person: nausea, tenderness, dizziness, fatigue, etc."
• 2006: "A Man's Guide to Pregnancy: How to Live with a Pregnant Person (And Get Out of It Alive)" (the title of a book)
• 2007: "This legal standard of care would involve refraining from acts which a reasonably prudent pregnant person would avoid when that person knows...that such acts cause prenatal harm"
• 2008: "The meeting of Mary and Elizabeth is a celebration of pregnancy, and it is hard to read it so well if a pregnant person is not present."
• 2009: " I began to feel like a normal pregnant person"
• 2010: "Equality between men and women cannot here be protected, because the unborn's right to life takes precedence over the constitutional rights of a pregnant person, unless her own life is at stake."
• 2011: "This paper deals with the risks to the foetus and the regulatory environment that arises when a pregnant person is irradiated."
• 2012: "The pregnant person must inform the practice manager of the pregnancy in writing."
• 2013: "Indeed, a public scandal erupted in 2012 that involved Target, a large U.S. retailer sending advertisements to a pregnant person based on inferences from her shopping patterns when that person had not told other members of her household"
• 2014: "In “Metaphors,” Plath understands that pregnancy may begin as a clever riddle whose answer is known only to the pregnant person"
• 2015: "While most people gasp when they hear of a pregnant person with cancer I have to say being pregnant made it easier in a lot of ways. I had focus and purpose."
• 2016: "A number of ciswomen friends...too found “pregnant person” a better fit, especially if it meant not being referred to as a “lady” all the time."[5]
• 2017: "The Big Fat Activity Book for Pregnant People" (the title of a book)
• 2018: "A doula, on the other hand, attends more to the emotional needs of a pregnant person."
• 2019: "After all, if two patients are at stake in such decisions—a fetus and a pregnant person—then choosing one over the other is not necessarily an example of overriding patient autonomy."
• 2020: "Infants born to a pregnant person infected with Zika may have microcephaly and severe fetal brain damage."

It is obviously not true that "Here in the 21st century, until very recently, this term was non-existent". This term may have become more popular in the last few years, but as you can see, it has been in use every single year for decades. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:09, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Ultimately, it makes little difference whether the term went from non-existence to some presence or from extreme rarity to some presence. The point is that the usage that we have now is not widespread enough to justify a switch on our part. It is undue. And I think that the wider community will find the principle at NEO relevant. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:30, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Presumably you are referring to MOS:NEO, since WP:NEO is basically irrelevant. MOS:NEO says:

"Neologisms are expressions coined recently or in isolated circumstances to which they have remained restricted. In most cases, they do not appear in general-interest dictionaries, though they may be used routinely within certain communities or professions. They should generally be avoided because their definitions tend to be unstable and many do not last. Where the use of a neologism is necessary to describe recent developments in a certain field, its meaning must be supported by reliable sources."

Let's review:

• Neologisms are expressions coined recently
  • Obviously not true in this case, since it's been used in print for more than 300 years.
• or in isolated circumstances to which they have remained restricted.
  • Obviously not true in this case, since one of the complaints is that the gender-neutral term is getting used widely in the popular press and government announcements, and not remaining restricted to isolated circumstances.
• In most cases, they do not appear in general-interest dictionaries,
  • Probably not relevant, as we're talking about a phrase made of common words, and the gender-specific equivalent terms, e.g., pregnant woman, equally do not appear in general-interest dictionaries.
• though they may be used routinely within certain communities or professions.
  • The term pregnant person probably is used routinely within certain communities, but this term is also used outside those communities as well.
• They should generally be avoided because their definitions tend to be unstable
  • Obviously not true in this case.
• and many do not last.
  • You've argued against looking into our crystal balls to predict the future, but since the term has lasted for more than 300 years already, this seems unlikely to be a significant concern. One might gaze into the crystal ball to see whether the term will "remain popular", but that's different from continuing to exist.
• Where the use of a neologism is necessary to describe recent developments in a certain field, its meaning must be supported by reliable sources.
  • This seems irrelevant, unless you (a) want to write about gender-neutral language in sex-specific medical scenarios and (b) you think people probably can't figure out that the term pregnant person means exactly what it says on the tin.

I do not therefore see any reason to believe that the principles in MOS:NEO are helpful in deciding how to write articles in this particular area. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:10, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Another break

I this is confusing "unfamiliar" with "neologism". Merely sticking an adjective in front of a noun doesn't create a neologism: we make sentences by sticking words in front of and after other words. For example "purple hair" or "electric car" might not appear in past literature, but their combination doesn't invent a new sense distinct from what those words literally mean together. Better examples of neologisms would be "banana republic" or "culture war" where the term needs to be learned and only then does the word combination make sense. Typically, a neologism has a parent -- the person who first used it to mean something new that they wanted to talk about. "Pregnant people" is no more a neologism than "female president" or "Tesla owner". I haven't seen a professional guide or medical article use "person with a vagina". -- Colin°^Talk 10:00, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

It is used as a replacement where "pregnant women" would be used in the past. It is certainly new to most people. Hair splitting in this regard is not likely to be productive. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:59, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

"Bodies with vaginas" on the cover of The Lancet: https://twitter.com/TheLancet/status/1441372277786951681 Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:11, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

The point is that both WP:NEO and MOS:NEO are entirely irrelevant as they are not neologisms. -- Colin°^Talk 12:18, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

So if a term is coined and immediately becomes more widely visible, NEO applies, but if a terms languishes in obscurity first for a long time, then it no longer applies, despite being new to most people who see it? Does NEO not apply to womyn, then? Crossroads ^-talk- 16:18, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

If a term is coined recently, then it is a neologism as far as Wikipedia:Notability is concerned (that's WP:NEO).

If a term is both coined recently and also not used widely, then it is a neologism as far as the Manual of Style is concerned (that's MOS:NEO).

If a term was coined hundreds of years ago, and it was used occasionally during those centuries (with the same meaning), and it happens to be more popular now than it was before, then it is not a neologism.

"Womyn" is an alternative spelling. It is probably not technically a neologism, not even half a century ago when it was first promoted. But since it is more than half a century old, it is probably no longer new enough to count as a neologism.

If you are looking for neologisms so you can see how they should be used in an encyclopedia, Wiktionary lists these: Cancel culture (so new that Google's Ngram Viewer still can't find it), Crowdsourcing (rare before 2005), and Gender-critical (rare before 1990s). All of these are notable subjects, and would be no matter what word was used to describe them. Also obviously, some neologisms are widely accepted. Compare the rates of books using "gender-critical" against the rate of books using "pregnant person".[6] Pregnant person is more popular. Any argument against pregnant person for being too new or unaccepted would have to apply to the newer and less-used term gender-critical even more strongly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:28, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I have no idea why you are bringing up "gender-critical"; it has a totally different meaning and has nothing to do with this. The proper comparator here is the term it is meant to substitute for, which is "pregnant women".

Also, sometimes words are identical but have different meanings. For example, "right" can be the opposite of left or of wrong. Nowaday, the term "pregnant person" is meant as a form of "inclusion" of trans and non-binary people. That is behind the recent use of the term. That is not what it meant when Kant or a few 19th century writers used it - it seems to be a stylistic quirk. None of them would have said 'I am using this term because men and women can get pregnant'. Before the rise of the new term, the term for these contexts was "pregnant women". It still is, mostly, but that is the recent history that applies most directly. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:37, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I still think you are missing the point. To coin a word or term is very much a singular activity that requires original publication. Neologism are nearly all single words or hyphenated. Those few that are two separate words always describe a novel concept that is not fully understandable from that word combination. The lack of obvious meaning from the word combination makes it unlikely to have arisen spontaneously from the population, but instead requires an author to coin it. There is nothing at all original about "pregnant person" any more than "purple hair". If my hair was dyed purple, you'd describe it as purple hair even if you'd never seen purple hair before. If you wished to refer to someone who was pregnant but avoid using the gendered term "women" you'd say "pregnant person", and so would the person next to you, and the one next to them. Indeed if you wished to describe who the chair on the tube next to the door is reserved for, you might say "Infirm, pregnant or disabled people" and nobody would bat an eyelid. There's no invention. No originality. No spark of creativity. For example: Allen Ginsberg coined the term "flower power"; Kraft coined the term "middle America"; Jaron Lanier coined the term 'virtual reality'; Thomas Kuhn coined the term "paradigm shift"; Nam June Paik coined the term "electronic superhighway"... Those are neologisms and they are nothing at all like "pregnant people". -- Colin°^Talk 10:57, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

The idea that one should "avoid using the gendered term "women"" is itself a new idea, hence the phrase as meaning that is new. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:34, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

WhatAmIDoing has already explained it isn't "new" and I've explained what a neologism is (which is what concerns those guidelines). That a phrase has become more popular in recent years is not something covered by policy or guideline. It has already been noted that some people dislike replacing "women" with "people", but that is a separate matter. Words and terms do go in and out of fashion but that doesn't make them neologisms. -- Colin°^Talk 08:40, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

American Medical Association Manual of Style, 11th edition (2020)

The American Medical Association Manual of Style, 11th edition, from 2020 (so, very recent and well after transgender matters began receiving heavy attention in the early-to-mid-10s), discusses "Correct and Preferred Usage" for "Age and Sex Referents" (11.7). It states, Adults are persons 18 years or older and should be referred to as men or women. (It had also stated that children may also be referred to as boys or girls.) It further states that Whenever possible, a patient should be referred to as a man, woman, boy, girl, or infant. It then says, Occasionally, however, a study group may comprise children and adults of both sexes. Then, the use of male and female as nouns is appropriate. Male and female are also appropriate adjectives. I emphasize that this is under a heading about how to refer to the sexes. It clearly permits, and even seems to prefer in some cases, use of "men" and "women" to refer to the sexes. The idea that these terms should be avoided or include caveats about gender identity is entirely unsupported here.

There's also 11.12, "Inclusive Language", especially 11.12.1, "Sex/Gender". While that certainly sounds like the sort of place directives of the sort being entertained here would reside, nothing of the sort is there. For example, there is no directive to avoid use of "pregnant women" as a general term, none to add statements about transgender persons to such phrases, none to favor "females" over "women", and so on. It in fact says, Use man or men when referring to a specific man or group of men and woman or women when referring to a specific woman or a group of women. This came after a list of terms to avoid, largely ones like "chairman" and "fireman". But this seems to be a very good principle and would seem to apply to describing the findings of studies or review articles on sex-specific matters. They, after all, usually use these terms to refer to the specific groups of people they studied. 11.12.2, "Personal Pronouns", says, Avoid sex-specific pronouns in cases in which sex specificity is irrelevant. This of course implies that when sex-specificity is relevant, than "sex-specific" pronouns would normally be used. This is of course contrary to the occasional drive-by editor who rewords a sentence talking about pregnancy to use "they" instead of "she".

If the approach being taken is to look at what sources specifically about what language to use have to say, then surely the AMA MOS carries far more WP:WEIGHT than does individual papers in the literature, or even what a couple of individual journals (out of many others) have to say. It is their job to synthesize that literature, not ours. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:17, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I have managed to get hold of a PDF of the 11th edition. Here is what is says about transgender:

"Transgender means of, relating to, or being a person whose gender identity differs from the sex the person had or was identified as having at birth. Cisgender means of, relating to, or being a person whose gender identity corresponds with the sex the person had or was identified as having at birth. Avoid using any trans term as a noun; the adjectival form is preferred (not transman or transwoman but transgender man and transgender woman)"

That's it. Just some dictionary definitions and a noun/adjective advice. They then link to GLAAD Media Reference Guide-Transgender and Gender Equity Resource Center

The "Age and Sex Referents" is largely concerned with age (infant, child, adult) and when to use girl vs woman boy vs man (age 18+). The preference for boy/girl/man/woman is indicated vs using female or male as a noun, though they accept there are cases where that is acceptable. So I would say that the concern there is to avoid for example, referring to female adults as "girls" or as "females". Crossroads above complains another section's advice has 'none to favor "females" over "women"' but this is already covered here, and favours the opposite.

The "Inclusive Language" "sex/gender" section is concerned with sexist language. The advice to use man/woman if you are clearly dealing with a specific person does not run counter to trans-inclusive guidelines: if a person identifies as a man, you can call them a man. There is no reason to call them a person. I don't think we can read into their advice anything about how to refer to an individual who is non-binary or how to deal with trans/non-binary issues. Essentially, this section dates from a time when being "inclusive" meant reminding writers to include the girls and not just the boys, in your thinking.

The "Pronoun" section does of course advise writers not be sexist such as using "he" to refer to an unspecific patient where their sex or gender is irrelevant. Again, I don't think we can read into that anything about whether such pronouns should "normally be used" as Crossroads suggests.

In the section on "Indefinite pronouns" they say "the AMA Manual of Style now permits the use of they as a singular pronoun when rewriting the sentence as plural would be awkward or unclear. In addition, this construction can be useful in medical articles in which patient identifiability is a concern (eg, removal of gender-specific pronouns)". The preface describes the changes in this addition (the previous was in 2007) and the acceptance of "singular they" is the only gender/sex issue they note. They don't however mention the use of "they" to refer to a non-binary person (btw, this usage was chosen by the American Dialect Society as their "Word of the Year" for 2015) as non-binary people are not mentioned in the AMA guide.

I think that without some rationale document or some "proposal for the new edition" document, we are unable really to assume the reasons the AMA guide largely ignore trans or non-binary people.

I have noticed that those guidelines where we have seen discussion of this issue, and articles where we've seen inclusive language used in practice, seem to concern "women's health" or "men's health" rather than the whole of medicine. So perhaps it is not surprising that a guideline covering the whole scope of medicine would not prioritise guidance in this area. -- Colin°^Talk 17:34, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the AMA objects to those drive-by editors: Reword the sentence to use a singular or plural non–sex-specific pronoun, neutral noun equivalent, or change of voice; or use “he or she” (“him or her,” “his or her[s],” “they or their[s]”). The use of the “singular they” construction is permitted when rewriting would be awkward or unclear.

Similarly, they write: In nonresearch reports, choose sex-neutral terms that avoid bias, suit the material under discussion, and do not intrude on the reader’s attention. Wikipedia articles probably count as "nonresearch reports". Whether sex-neutral terms "suit the material" or "intrude on the reader's attention" is a matter that could be debated (endlessly, and perhaps fruitlessly). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:12, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, in context, your first quote is specifically about cases in which sex specificity is irrelevant. It also says Do not use common-gender “pronouns” (eg, “s/he,” “shem,” “shim”). That is when one would reword the sentence that way. Sex-specific topics are not included in this.

Regarding the second quote, again, in context, it also says specify sex when it is relevant. Sex-specific anatomy and physiology, or sex differences in other aspects, are obviously cases when it is relevant. There is no basis here for sex-neutral terms on those matters.

Colin, I did not "complain another section's advice has 'none to favor "females" over "women"'". That was precisely my point - that "women" is favored over "females".

Overall, your arguments for dismissing the AMA MOS strike me as special pleading. That "this section dates from a time when being "inclusive" meant reminding writers to include the girls and not just the boys" is just opinion. The fact that transgender matters are mentioned elsewhere shows there is no basis for dismissing their lack of endorsement for these sexless phrases as though they somehow forgot to tell us they want them. That they are not included is significant. A choice to not include that matters just as much as one to include it. If one is going to dismiss everyone who doesn't use or endorse these phrases and only listen to those who do, then that is cherry-picking and misleading oneself. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:21, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Wrt the "this section dates". Well, has it changed since 2007 or even before? I think it could have been written last century. I would be interested what others think of the text (I can supply a PDF if required) and whether it is correct to assume that "lack of endorsement for these sexless phrases" suggests they actively prohibit "pregnant people". I think the only thing we can assume from the wording in the 11th edition is that they have not expressed any view on the matter when writing the 11th edition. We can't read their minds. -- Colin°^Talk 12:38, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

To be clear - not changing it is a choice. Specify sex when it is relevant, it says. "Pregnant people" is not specifying sex, even though only one sex gets pregnant. Crossroads ^-talk- 16:22, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I understood specify sex when it is relevant as meaning specify sex only when it is relevant. Do you understand it as meaning something closer to always specify sex unless it is completely irrelevant?

The reason I understood it that way is because the complete sentence says "An important consideration when referring to sex is the level of specificity required: specify sex when it is relevant." I understood from this that "the level of specificity required" would vary, from critically important to not worth mentioning. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:38, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

In sex-specific topics, specifying sex is relevant. Tautological, but I guess it needs to be said. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:38, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure that it's necessary for sex-specific topics. Anyone capable of reading the medical literature should already know that pregnancy doesn't happen in biological males. Even if you do specify sex ("Case study of 15 prima gravidas, all of whom are genetic females, just like every single other gravida in the history of the human race"), it should be necessary to specify it only once, rather than repeating it throughout the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:28, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles shouldn't assume prior knowledge outside of word meanings. This is especially important when it comes to parts of anatomy that many people may not be familiar with or know which sex has it, such as the cervix. There is no good reason to minimize reference to sex in an article about sex-specific anatomy. It would be an absurd exercise, bordering on censorship. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:34, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

That's certainly an opinion about how Wikipedia articles ought to be written, but I see nothing in this particular source that seems to oppose talking about "pregnant clients" or "pregnant patients" without explicitly saying that all of the people being discussed are biological females, or that requires repeating the sex-specific statement at every opportunity. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Existing Wikipedia examples

Are there any examples of Wikipedia articles on health and medicine that include trans or non-binary people, apart from those directly concerning trans and gender issues. For example, the NHS includes these groups when talking about susceptible populations or those entitled to screening for some cancers. I haven't been able to find any. -- Colin°^Talk 20:54, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Here are a few:

• Menstruation#Who menstruates
• Menstrual suppression (couple of places)
• List of women who died in childbirth#United Kingdom (trans woman listed)
• Polycystic ovary syndrome#Cause
• Endometrial cancer#Hormones
• Sexual motivation and hormones (two places)

It's a little complicated to search for things like this, but that might give us some ideas about current practice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:04, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Recently Dysphoric milk ejection reflex was made gender-inclusive in some places but not others.[7] I don't know if doing so was an improvement or whether it just made a mess. The editor added two sources which from a brief look seem to only be about women, so my bet would be mess. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 07:28, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Agreed and I reverted those changes. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:32, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

To achieve the goal of acknowledging that not everyone is cisgender, I think having a section on LBGTQ+ issues is often going to be a better solution than using gender-inclusive language throughout the article (a section like this could also achieve the goal of including the LGBQ people, who are more numerous than the Ts). In a section, we can explicitly describe how the needs of this community differ from the general population. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:52, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Something like a section called ==In specific populations==? It could include LGBTQ+, racial and ethnic groups, adults with "childhood" diseases, men with lupus, women with autism, etc. We have suggested ==In children== or ==Pregnancy== sections for some articles, so this should be a familiar approach. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:38, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Clayoquot, yes, and this is the approach in some of the NHS articles and cancer organisations I linked above. And there seem to be journal articles specifically about "trans and pregnancy", to pick one combination, so that also suggests that there is some WP:WEIGHT support for this approach. I wonder also though about where the NHS have felt it important to highlight that "and this group can get it too". I'm not sure they are just doing that to be inclusive, but because it isn't obvious, and there are serious consequences for the uninformed. Is it obvious that a trans man may often have a cervix? Is it obvious that a trans woman will nearly always have a prostate? It is even obvious to many of our readers that a trans man can actually get pregnant? This suggests that trans men are similarly likely to have an unwanted pregnancy as cis women. Perhaps we aren't going to find such basic birds and the bees elementary statements of fact in medical journals or professional textbooks articles on "pregnancy" or "prostate cancer" because they'll assume their readers figured that out during their medical or nursing degree. So we may need to look more at what other lay-audience healthcare publications are doing. -- Colin°^Talk 20:40, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Principles for guidelines

We seem to be finding two different kinds of style guides (or other types of advice for writing about specialized subjects). They are:

1. guides written by specialists, especially advocates in the particular subject area (e.g., a suicide prevention organization give advise about how to discuss suicide; LGBT groups give advice on how to write about LGBT people)
2. guides written by generalists (e.g., the AP Stylebook).

In related areas such as suicide and gay BLPs, editors generally seem to prefer subject-specific advice (e.g., GLAAD's media reference guide). Generalist advice tends to provide less detail (so it may not answer the specific question that editors have). The trend is for generalist advice to follow reputable specialist advice, perhaps with a delay of a couple of years, so the difference in the end is not very stark.

In this subject area, I wonder whether we might have more than one type of specialist to consider: the "medical" specialist and the "people" specialist. Imagine that you are writing about pregnancy, and you have style advice from a midwives' group, a LGBT group, and a women's group. Would you prefer one type over the other? Take the best two out of three, for any point on which the three disagree? Something else? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:22, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I suppose it also depends on whether you think the specialists are "people who know and understand more about the topic than others" or are "people who are more likely to have views that over-emphasise their identity and non-mainstream beliefs" or a mix or some other attributes that better qualify/disqualify them. I would think that the more that some advice has been adopted outside of the special-interest group, then the more likely it is to be generally accepted. Midwifes are not advocates for LGBT rights, say, though trans and non-binary issues will affect them much more than e.g., the fracture clinic or podiatry. I think though we need to be careful not to just write-off viewpoints published by members of a group about themselves or those they (health)care for. We wouldn't exclude black writers writing about language that was racist against black people, or Jews writing about anti-Semitic tropes. -- Colin°^Talk 13:50, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I think I was thinking about "specialists" as people/groups who have written on a narrow subject, but who don't write advice outside that subject. The AP Stylebook, for example, covers how to write about race, gender, sexual orientation, disability, religion, class, mental health, etc. as well as business, health, science, sports, etc. The Journal of Midwifery & Women's Health content above, on the other hand, is specifically about how that specific group writes about the specific people they serve, in the specific context of providing healthcare to those specific people. Thus the AP is "generalist" and JMWH is "specialist" in my division of the two. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:45, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:OR

In the discussion above about ABM guidelines, some examples were considered that might fail WP:OR. It seems to me this issue could be considered separately from whether one thinks that rewording the language to be gender-neutral or adding groups to be gender-inclusive was or was not a good idea or appropriate on Wikipedia. Are we able to consider this on its own? If it is too hard to separate the feelings about it being inappropriate or essential or whatever, then is it possible to find analogous language changes that could be considered more neutrally?

An example given was "Mothers and trans fathers can experience postpartum depression in the weeks or months after giving birth" sourced to an article that only mentioned "mothers" or "women". At what point is it safe to assume "trans fathers" experience will largely mirror those of women? Some may be entirely biologically identical to "women", some may have taken or continue to take hormones, some may have had top-surgery, some may have had other surgeries? We know frcom the guidelines above that we should be careful with study findings and statistics as 80% of women might not be 80% of trans men. But I wonder if there are issues where

(a) one would be quite surprised to find these groups were different and really would need a source to explain that difference

(b) one would be quite surprised to find these groups were similar and one would need a source to explain that similarity

(c) one isn't at all sure what similarity or differences there might be and one would need a source to confirm.

The sentence only indicates a possibility, not an inevitability or a percentage chance. It would seem to me rather extraordinary that a person assigned female at birth could invoke complete immunity from postpartum depression by identifying as a man, or by growing a beard. But I can quite believe the occurrence could be affected by hormones taken or by other challenges they face.

The above sentence could be written "Postpartum depression may occur in the weeks or months after a person has given birth". Again, leaving aside whether gender-neutral language is a desirable thing, are there policy problems with that? The "may occur" logically implies it may not occur in some people.

What about the opposite? I know that journal articles writing "pregnant people" are a minority but lets imagine there's a new drug that treats postpartum depression and we have just one good literature review of its efficacy. And that review in the JMWH happens to say "Pregnant people who take Wonderpam are less likely to develop postpartum depression". Would it be OR to rewrite that as "Mothers who take Wonderpam..."? Would that fail in some other way?

Would we cry "OR" if someone replaced "mankind" with "humanity"? The author might have only been thinking about great men of history? How do we know they were considering women at all? Or if a source used "he" when referring to the steps a doctor might take when diagnosing something? Would we insist the article said "Male doctors must first take a history" unless a different non-sexist source was found? In the same way that we may overlook their use of a gendered pronoun rather than singlar-they, would it be non-OR to ever overlook the choice of a gendered word when referring to "people who gave birth"? -- Colin°^Talk 15:07, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Most sources that write about postpartum depression write about "women", and by this term, they primarily mean "biological females". I don't think it would fall afoul of NOR to understand "women" as meaning "biological females" in this context, and I don't think it would be a NOR problem to understand that "(cis) mothers and trans fathers" are both biological females. I'm not sure that this is good writing (it's more verbose; also much has been written against erasing "women" and having only "mothers"), but I don't think that it would be a problem in terms of NOR.

That particular statement also has the advantage of being true: trans men are at risk of postpartum depression. In the end, if there were a dispute, the only thing that would change is that the statement would get a second little blue clicky number that almost nobody will ever click on.

There might be OR problems when making specific/narrow statements. One might hesitate to say "There is a 15% risk of pospartum depression in mothers and trans fathers" because the risk for trans men may be double that level (based on very limited research). For more general statements, though, I think this is an example of "writing in your own words" without changing the meaning, rather than making up ideas that aren't present in any published source. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:21, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

"are there policy problems with that?" Yes. Wikipedia is not for advocacy. Using politically charged language not found in the vast majority of sources is unavoidably a form of advocacy, no matter how much some people claim this is necessary for (their particular narrow definition of) "inclusion". Expunging "women" from postpartum depression - which is overwhelmingly a women's issue - is absolutely not neutral and creates a false equivalence, as though men and women are equally affected.

If there is some drug for which only one review has been written and the paper uses "pregnant people", then for describing that review's findings specifically, such terminology could be considered, and only then. Such an outlier could also be written around, perhaps by use of "patients" or the like, for consistency within an article. Such rare cases do not justify rewriting a whole article to use their preferred terminology when all or nearly all the other sources do not.

Equating this stuff to "mankind" vs. "humankind" or use of "he" for a hypothetical doctor is an erroneous analogy. Those language changes have gone mainstream many years ago, as seen by how most sources now write. If in the future these new proposed changes catch on to that degree - but that is a big "if" - then this would be an appropriate analogy. But, WP:NOTCRYSTAL, and we are not to help increase usage of novel terminology (compare WP:NEO). Crossroads ^-talk- 19:48, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

All of the language options are politically charged. It doesn't matter what word you put in the blank for "after a ____ has given birth"; all of the options are politically charged. If you use "woman", you're taking a political stand against mentioning the existence of non-binary and trans females. If you use "mother", you're taking a political stand that motherhood is the only role in her life worth mentioning. If you use "person", "individual", or "human", you're taking a political stand that women are not the primary group of people affected. If you use "patient", you are inappropriately medicalizing pregnancy and diminishing the humanity of the people involved by reducing them down to a single, usually minor role. And if you re-write the sentence to say "after giving birth", you're taking a political stand that the individuals who give birth don't matter enough to mention. There are no options that don't have political implications or express values. All of the options can be accused to advocating for a viewpoint.

In the latter half of the comment, it sounds like your general view is that we should first find sources that use a particular language, and then we should stick to the language style that we artificially selected for. Sources with the "wrong" language (whatever the editor decides is the wrong one) should be avoided and only used if they're the only available option, but when they're the only option, then we should not stick to the "wrong" language style. My summary may sound a little bald, but does that sound like a factual summary? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:00, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Wrt the first paragraph, I think WhatamIdoing has given an excellent description of the problem. But I was trying, in this section, to focus only on WP:OR or perhaps some other policy like WP:V, and not on whether one form of language is better for Wikipedia than another. Even if avoiding "he" and "mankind" has "gone mainstream" in professional writing (has it?), that does not change the OR issues about modifying a source's words to remove gender or include another gender. -- Colin°^Talk 10:18, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

The statement, "Mothers and trans fathers can experience postpartum depression in the weeks or months after giving birth" is one we can all be confident is true, because postpartum depression is known to also affect cis men and because "can experience" is a low bar. The question is whether this is the kind of statement that falls into the category of "true but original research". To see the OR in this statement, it might be helpful to see it reformulated as "Giving birth carries a risk of postpartum depression for mothers and trans fathers". This is the same type of statement as "Breastfeeding decreases the risk of breast cancer for mothers and trans fathers." How do we distinguish that the former statement is true but the latter statement may not be true, when in both cases the sources say "mothers"? We know it by bringing in our medical knowledge that's not in the source - that's OR.

As WAID points out, using gender-inclusive language for more narrow statements, e.g. about the prevalence of the condition, brings a clear risk of making factual mistakes. I'd say that this pitfall also exists when we talk about differential diagnosis, preventions, treatments, and prognosis - we shouldn't imply that these things are the same for women and for trans men. (It would be reasonable to assume that a drug that has been tested only on women also works on trans men, but I would think that the overall treatment strategy for trans fathers would contemplate gender dysphoria and consider hormone replacement therapy.) Assuming sameness is what the Academy of Breastfeeding medicine's calls "masking research needs": ", a conflation of the terms ‘‘mothers’’ and ‘‘lactating parents’’ will mask the need for future and specific research by assuming that scientific knowledge about the former applies uniformly to the latter"[8] (P.S. I'm hoping to reply to other points in this discussion in the next week; things are busy for me right now due to COVID-induced school closures.) Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:36, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Saying that people who give birth have a risk of postpartum depression cannot be OR because reliable sources say this. OR == no reliable source anywhere in the world ever said that. Once a source says something, then it's not OR. (NB that I wrote "a source" and not "a source currently cited in the aritcle", because OR doesn't care whether any sources are cited in an article. See "for which no reliable, published sources exist" and the footnote that clarifies it: "By "exists", the community means that the reliable source must have been published and still exist—somewhere in the world, in any language, whether or not it is reachable online—even if no source is currently named in the article. Articles that currently name zero references of any type may be fully compliant with this policy—so long as there is a reasonable expectation that every bit of material is supported by a published, reliable source.")

We know that reliable sources, e.g., a book that says "Some of them [trans men who gave birth] suffer postpartum depression, a not uncommon complication for cisgender women" exist to make this claim, and therefore this cannot be OR as the English Wikipedia defines it. As I said above, the result of any OR-related dispute over that sentence would result in nothing more than adding another little blue clicky number at the end of it.

That is not true for other statements. You cannot change a statement like "About 15% of women experience postpartum depression after giving birth" to include specific populations because the numbers are different for the different populations: Surrogates have lower risks (because surrogacy agencies intentionally screen out higher-risk women), trans men seem to have higher risks, socially isolated women have higher risks, etc. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:29, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Clayoquot, I completely agree "bringing in our medical knowledge that's not in the source - that's OR". What I'm trying to explore is where does that line get crossed, that it requires medical knowledge to know things are equivalent or different, rather than just basic knowledge of the definition of a trans man. There are surely some things about a trans man that we can assume are going to be the same as for a cis woman that we wouldn't require a source. I mean, the act of identifying as another gender doesn't fundamentally change one's biology. We know that some trans people take things further with hormones and surgery and we know that psychological differences exist (e.g. risk of self harm, suicide, etc). To use Crossroads favourite people group, we don't just start questioning whether trans people still have two arms and two legs. So I'm just curious if we can find examples where we agree it isn't OR, examples where we perhaps disagree, and examples where we all agree it is OR? -- Colin°^Talk 20:59, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, I agree that the existence of a source backing it up solves the OR. But if editors challenge OR then an editor must (on the talk page at least) demonstrate the existence of such a source, which could get tedious or be abused. So while we can find sources that demonstrate trans men who have had babies can get postpartum depression, I'm wondering if we can or can't agree that requiring someone to find such a source is not necessary, that even without such a source, it is still not OR. Otherwise, our discussion of "Is this OR?" will keep getting thwarted by someone finding a source. Is it OR if we pretend that's the only source, or if perhaps there are sources taking us some of the way but not all the way (synthesis). -- Colin°^Talk 20:59, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

If no such source exists, it is plainly and simply OR. This is why any advice to expand terminology beyond that used in the given sources is inappropriate. It leads to editors inserting identities to whom something may not apply. Editors are absolutely not allowed to insert ideas they think are true when those ideas are not in reliable sources (MEDRS, in this case). And regarding "the act of identifying as another gender doesn't fundamentally change one's biology", well, it is does inherently indicate a difference in someone's psychology, and that affects someone's social experience. All these things are intimately intertwined, which is why many researchers will refer to such things as "biopsychosocial". Gender identity is itself biologically influenced, and we don't know as editors how that biological difference affected other aspects of the person. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:35, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I was hoping for a more nuanced approach than that, but perhaps that is not possible for this topic. We change the "terminology" used by our sources all the time. -- Colin°^Talk 10:25, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Crossroads, I don't mean to single you out, because this is a common misunderstanding, but your comment is a perfect example. Your first sentence ("If no such source exists, it is plainly and simply OR") is correct. Your second sentence ("used in the given sources") is not evidence of OR. OR is when no source in the entire world, including the millions of sources not cited in the article, and millions of sources unknown to the editors, says the thing that the article says. OR is not about the given/cited sources. It is about every single source in the entire world, cited or otherwise. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:39, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I misunderstood nothing. If an editor inserts text that is not supported by the sources cited, but inserts it based on their own ideas or synthesis, they are engaging in original research. It does not matter if sources on that exist out there that they don't know about that happen to support it. If they include those sources, only then it isn't OR. You and I both know that someone inserting unsourced text in medical articles are routinely reverted per MEDRS. It is the WP:BURDEN of the inserting editor to find sources for their claims, not that of others to prove it is unsourceable (which is impossible anyway). Crossroads ^-talk- 06:28, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

That is not true, according to NOR. If an editor inserts text that is not supported by the cited sources, but sources exist out there that do support it, then it is not NOR. NOR does not attempt to read editors' minds to decide whether the editor "inserted it based on their own ideas". NOR does not depend upon what is cited in the article. NOR cares about "material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." NB "exist", not "are cited in the Wikipedia article". WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:17, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

And yet it goes on to say: To demonstrate that you are not adding original research, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented. "You", the person adding it, per WP:BURDEN. If someone makes an edit adding a bunch of claims about trans fathers to an article - either explicitly or by changing "women" to "people" - and adds no sources, they will be reverted. The BURDEN is on them. I thus challenge it as seeming to be OR. Do you deny that editors routinely revert material per NOR? Your position seems to be that we can never point to NOR to remove text unless we ourselves first somehow prove no sources exist. Per my quote from NOR and BURDEN, that is not the case. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:44, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

You are confusing proof of something with the something. If I told you I was 21 years old, and you said "Ha ha, pull the other one, it has bells on. Go on, prove it!" and I then showed you my passport or birth certificate, I was still 21 years old before I convinced you. This is the point about OR. -- Colin°^Talk 11:21, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

This tangent started with me saying This is why any advice to expand terminology beyond that used in the given sources is inappropriate, and WhatamIdoing claiming that this is not evidence of OR. Is anyone denying that it would be contrary to existing policy and MEDRS to add advice to MEDMOS advising people to add ideas/claims to articles without also saying that they should cite sources for those ideas/claims? Crossroads ^-talk- 04:39, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

I think we disagree with the "any", and that OR is the only relevant aspect (the "This is why" bit). We expand "patients" to "people" (and it is an expansion) frequently, and it isn't always appropriate. We overlook a "he" or a "his", which haven't entirely disappeared from use, and rewrite (expand) that to be gender neutral. The point of this section is to examine when it is OR. Sometimes it is useful to examine this issue as though the cited source was the only possible source, as it helps narrow down the factors to consider and makes it easier to find an example, but as WAID says, in practice the rules are different. -- Colin°^Talk 08:47, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Crossroads, your comments here seem to slide down a slippery slope. The policy starts with "you must be able to" cite sources, and then you say that gender-inclusive editors get reverted (which doesn't tell us whether that's specifically a NOR violation), and then you say that editors sometimes make claims about NOR when they revert people (true, but editors often cite the wrong policy; many allegedly "per MEDRS" reverts are actually NPOV violations), and then you eventually talk about saying that MEDRS and MEDMOS saying people should cite sources.

Must ≠ should, able to cite ≠ already cited, and uncited content ≠ presumptive NOR violation.

NB, too, that NOR doesn't say "you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material being presented before you finish editing the article". There is no timeline there. If you add something today, someone challenges it tomorrow, and you locate a source for it next week, then that's fine with NOR. There was no NOR violation in that situation.

As for whether people can add content to articles without citing any sources, it's obviously true that they can, because I've done it. It is very unusual for any of my edits to be reverted (less than a tenth of your rate, looking at our most recent 1000 edits). WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:29, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

So do you think MEDMOS should encourage people to add unsourced ideas to articles? Yes or no? Crossroads ^-talk- 04:37, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I think that there is an important gap between "encouraging people to add unsourced ideas" and "not banning people from adding unsourced content".

• Should MEDMOS encourage people to add unsourced ideas? Hmm, no. In fact, I'd say that MEDMOS shouldn't be saying much about citing sources beyond how to format the citations.
• Should some other page (e.g., MEDRS, WP:V) positively encourage people to add unsourced ideas? No. They don't, and IMO they shouldn't.
• Should some other page (e.g., WP:V, NOR) gently permit people to add unsourced content? Yes. They do, and IMO they should.

We encourage inline citations for nearly all content, and IMO we should continue to do so. However, we do not require inline citations for any content except WP:MINREF material (e.g., contentious claims about a living person). That feels like the right balance to me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:06, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Should MEDMOS encourage people to add unsourced ideas? Hmm, no. Okay, glad we agree. Now: Do you agree that an endorsement or encouragement in MEDMOS to replace "pregnant women" with "pregnant people" constitutes encouragement to add unsourced ideas? The latter term, after all, includes pregnant non-women. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:31, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Wouldn't the answer to that question depend on what the source says? If the source says "pregnant people", then maybe using the slightly more restrictive "pregnant women" could be considered an unsourced idea.

But in general, for most basic information, I don't think that this constitutes an unsourced idea. I think it constitutes "writing in your own words", which all of our policies encourage. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:14, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

In this thought experiment the source says "pregnant women", as do nearly all sources. Our policies speak of 'writing in your own words' regarding avoiding copyright violations. WP:NOR is very clear that we must not be adding ideas or claims not found in reliable sources. Do you agree that "pregnant person" contains a different idea or claim than "pregnant woman"? Crossroads ^-talk- 04:06, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

No, if it's making a general/non-trans-specific statement, then I think that "pregnant woman" and "pregnant person" are basically interchangeable. If you saw a sign that said "This roller coaster is not safe for pregnant women or people with neck, back, or spinal injuries" and another that said "This roller coaster is not safe for pregnant people or people with neck, back, or spinal injuries", then you wouldn't really think those meant to communicate different facts. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:08, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Not a good comparison since we are not merely reading a theme park sign but are obligated to accurately reflect the sources. Determining "if it's making a general/non-trans-specific statement" is entirely subjective and involves insertion of ideas not in the source. And we have quite a catch-22 really: if they're "basically interchangeable", then there is no basis for favoring the much less common "pregnant people". On the other hand, if that version is used because "inclusion", then the only way it which it is "inclusive" is by covering an additional group that "pregnant women" does not. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:13, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, the reason we are started talking about this particular example is: 1) Colin said I wonder if "mother or trans father" could sometimes be an acceptable expansion of "mother", 2) I asked for an example of when a Wikipedia editor might write "mothers and trans fathers" when the source says only "mothers", 3) You replied with this example, and 4) I said, IMHO that sentence would pass WP:NOR only if there is a source saying that it is true for trans fathers.

I am sure we all agree that if there is a source saying that this particular statement is true for trans fathers, there is no OR issue. What I don't think all of us have answered yet is the question of if there is no source saying this, then is there an OR issue? I was assuming (wrongly) that we would all imagine that no such source exists so that we could continue to roll with the example that you provided. But if you prefer to have us discuss an example that doesn't require us to imagine stuff, I'm happy to use any example you suggest. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 00:54, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

I have tried to think of an example that trans-inclusive writing probably hasn't touched, and I suspect we'd have to consider rare diseases. Maybe the source says "Mothers often feel guilty for passing Haemophilia A to their sons". This is an X-linked genetic trait that comes from biological females. We might understand here that "mothers" here specifically refers to whichever human's gamete contained the defective gene (rather than any social role or gender identity; it does not apply to adoptive mothers, stepmothers, gestational carriers who used an egg donor, etc.) and write this information in our own words as "The female genetic parents" or "Biological mothers" or "Mothers and trans fathers". I don't think that misrepresents the source's actual meaning. Do you? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:54, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

That's a great question. Setting aside the questions of whether these phrases are neutral or elegant, and just focusing on whether there's a WP:OR problem, my gut feeling is that "female genetic parents" or "biological mothers" would be fine because this meaning is obviously what the source intended. I'm not comfortable with "mothers and trans fathers" because to me it implies that trans fathers have specifically been the subject of research.

"Biological mothers" can be unclear because in cases such as egg donation, either the egg donor or the birth mother could be considered the biological mother.

BTW in other cases such as the statement "Domperidone increases milk supply in _____" , if the writer says "mothers and trans fathers" I would expect that the writer means not only that trans fathers have been the subject of research, but that research has included trans fathers after medical transition. That would be my impression as a reader, whether I read it in Wikipedia or anywhere else. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 02:57, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

With "biological mothers", there are multiple possible situations that could be meant, but it's the most common meaning understood there, and it's also clearer that it's not referring to any non-biological mothers (e.g., in a lesbian couple). WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:19, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I am interested in your idea that by mentioning trans parents, we are implicitly asserting (at least in some situations) that the statement has been properly researched in trans people. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:21, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

To me it's like if someone says, "Cough syrup XYZ is safe for adults and children", I would assume they're saying it's been tested on children. I would not assume they are including the word "children" just because they believe in equal rights for children. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:40, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

Exactly. If we stated "Mothers and trans fathers often feel guilty for passing Haemophilia A to their sons", we are inventing a fact out of thin air (that trans fathers often feel guilty for this reason) unless we are doing this based on a MEDRS source that actually studied trans fathers. Same for Domperidone increasing milk supply. It would be quite ironic to, in the name of trans recognition, write making an assumption that trans men are the same as women in whatever respect we have in mind. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:35, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think we are inventing a fact out of thin air. It would be strange to know that:

• parents feel guilty about passing genetic defects down to their kids
• this specific genetic defect came from a trans father

but then to omit the statement that this parent, too, is likely to feel guilt. It is not really enough for an editor to look at these facts and then guess that trans fathers might, uniquely among humans, be somehow (magically?) immune to feeling guilty about unintentionally harming their own babies. That does not stand up to scrutiny; it is not a reasonable belief. In fact, it is so far from a reasonable belief that if an editor went to ANI and posted that he thought that trans men usually didn't feel guilty about harming their babies, then we'd expect the next passing admin to issue a NONAZIS block.

For domperidone, on the other hand, there is a plausible question about whether a drug has the same biological effects in everyone/every circumstance. (For example, it might not work in people who are also taking testosterone, which is a thing that some proportion of trans men can be expected to do.) This seems like a subject for which it would be better to avoid inclusiveness, because there is a rational doubt about whether it actually does apply. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:46, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

So, you're combining facts that are individually sourced to reach a conclusion not found in any sources. That is plainly WP:Synthesis. Whether passing down such genes necessarily constitutes an act of "harming one's baby" is an undecided philosophical question. No, we cannot assume trans man psychology is identical to women in any matter, not even this one. And this is all aside from the fact that it is not practical or reasonable to insert asides about gender identity for every mention of "mothers" and the like. The sources don't do such things. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:51, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

Note that the first item in the bullet list was "parents", not "female parents" or "women parents". Trans men don't have to be psychologically identical to women to fit into the claim that "parents feel guilty about passing genetic defects down to their kids"; they need only be "parents".

You are recommending that we use a source that explicitly says this situation applies "parents" but then write the article so that it specifically excludes parents who are also trans. That sounds like a NOR violation to me. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:35, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

OR isn't necessarily inventing a fact out of thin air. OR is "any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources" (emphasis mine).

In many cases OR is a perfectly reasonable belief, but not in scope for Wikipedia. We're writing the sum of human knowledge, not the sum of human knowledge plus the reasonable beliefs of contributors, right?

I'm curious about where you would draw the line when it comes to more specific statements. Which, if any, of the following statements would you say fails WP:NOR, assuming that sources support the "mothers" part of each statement but don't mention trans or non-binary people?

a) Most mothers and trans fathers feel guilty for passing Haemophilia A to their sons.

b) The vast majority of mothers and trans fathers feel guilty for passing Haemophilia A to their sons.

c) Most mothers and trans fathers feel guilty for passing Haemophilia A to their sons. This emotion often leads the mother or trans father towards an overly protective parenting style.

d) Most mothers and trans fathers feel guilty for passing Haemophilia A to their sons. They often find parent support groups to be helpful.

e) Over 80% of mothers and trans fathers feel guilty for passing Haemophilia A to their sons.

f) Surveys in the U.S. and U.K. have found that over 80% of mothers and trans fathers report feeling guilt for passing Haemophilia A to their sons. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:15, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I think this can be looked at in terms of the a/b/c scenarios at the top of this section. And I'd go for (c) that we can't be entirely sure, though it is most problematic with the examples with percentages and that explicitly refer to a survey. My feeling is that guilt arising from an unintentional and unknowing act (having a child with a genetic disease you passed on but didn't know about) is a cultural thing that may also shift over time. Some people and some cultures might even look at you weirdly, perplexed that they should feel guilty when they did nothing wrong. If there is a difference in guilt-levels between mothers and fathers, say, I don't think Y chromosomes have anything to do with it, and more about cultural gender attitudes that shape personalities. That 80% figure could be 70% in Germany or was 90% in the 2010. I'd also question whether these sentences are how we should go about explaining the issue. We don't want to be essentially saying "If this is you, you should feel guilty, and would be odd if you don't". So I'd be concerned about why we are giving this fact to our readers? What's the point it is making? Is it important to say guilt is likely vs guilt can happen? Because for the latter, we are likely on safer ground expanding the population description. Another thing is that this is making a social comment (guilty feelings) and the only reason the source mentions mothers is that mothers are carriers. Within the article on Haemophilia A, how would this work:

g) Over 80% of carriers feel guilty for passing Haemophilia A to their sons

The effect is just as inclusive. Would you cry "WP:NOR" if you saw that version? -- Colin°^Talk 16:28, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I'll let WAID speak to why we give this fact to our readers as she can probably explain it better than I can. But I'd like to answer your question about option g: If I'm in a small, seldom-studied minority group, I am used to expecting that the literature is based on what is known about the general population and that the specific issues of my minority group have not been studied. But if I see an article that specifically names my minority group, I will think, "Oh wow, whoever wrote this has looked into how this disease affects people like me."

It's like the difference between saying "Cough syrup XYZ is safe" and "Cough syrup XYZ is safe in adults and children." If I see the former I'm going to think, "They usually don't test this stuff on kids so I'll assume they mean it's safe for the people they usually test it on, which is adults".

Regarding option g, I would not cry "WP:NOR" if someone substituted "carriers" for "mothers" because in this particular context, they would not think the writer is claiming that a group other than the usual carriers, i.e. mothers, has been studied.

Of the examples I gave, I actually think (d) is the most problematic. If you're the only trans father in a support group for parents of children with hemophilia, unfortunately you may not get the kind of empathetic support and sense of community that a cis mother would get from the same group. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:57, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you entirely. I meant to comment on that one and forgot. I think we are even more "unknown" about whether support groups are welcoming to a trans man and their feelings. Ok, we know in this case the source just said "mothers". What if a review said "Prostate problems are common in men and trans women who are over 50" and we reproduced that in an article, but the review's research study source was just a study of men. We have the same problem that the reader may think the issue has been studied in trans women, but actually hasn't (let's pretend it hasn't, as I fear WAID's SuperGoogle abilities will find just such a study). Are we ok with that? Could it be legitimately challenged? -- Colin°^Talk 18:26, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I would be OK with that. It would be in line with our usual practice if we assume that review writers know when it's safe to expand "men" to "men and trans women". I trust review writers to make this call; I don't trust random people who click the Edit this Page button to make this call (no offense to present company intended of course). Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 20:05, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Good. Because I think if a writer chooses a source that supports more trans-inclusive or gender-neutral language, they might be challenged by someone investigating whether it in turn was directly based on research or just expert opinion (a guess) of the review writer. Looking at some of the JMWH papers that use gender-neutral language, they will often do so citing sources that say "women" or "mothers". So I'm wondering if it is at all reasonable to challenge this, when perhaps other reviews stick with "women". If we agree that it isn't our job to challenge the review or textbook writer (assuming reliable source). Btw, we still haven't got any examples of journal articles saying things like "mothers and trans fathers", only of those using the gender-neutral approach. -- Colin°^Talk 20:15, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I moved some further replies to the WP:DUE section below. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:06, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

I'd be satisfied with (a). "The vast majority" in (b) sounds a bit too casual to belong in an encyclopedia. I don't like the percentages because it might not apply equally (trans people may be more anxious and regretful) and because that's the kind of sentence that usually needs a WEIRD disclaimer anyway.

Also, the usual point behind this information is merely to say that the phenomenon exists, because whether it's 80% or 75% or 90% doesn't make a clinical or policy difference. The reason the sources care about this is because kids with special needs do best when their parents are okay, and here's a group of parents that isn't doing okay. So we say: Carriers feel bad, and hopefully friends/family/healthcare providers/policy makers/etc. will think "Maybe I could help" or at least "Oh, so that's why she's crying about this". WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:19, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

But Clayoquot already established in her thought experiment that all the sources say "mothers". So if WP:CHALLENGEd, what is your source for the claim that Most...trans fathers feel guilty for passing Haemophilia A to their sons? It sounds like you are okay with adding synthesized claims to Wikipedia. However, it does not matter how certain you or I are that the sources apply to trans fathers too, since anyone who adds unsourced material is certain that their conclusions follow from sourced facts. NOR is clear, though, that sources must directly support the claims being made. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:38, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

In the context of passing along a genetic defect, "mother" means an individual who supplies the egg, irrespective of social role, gender identity, practical involvement in the child's life, etc. That includes cis women, trans men, and non-binary people. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:49, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, I think you've made an important observation here. I'll offer a bit of a twist on it: In the context of genetics, the term mother is already gender-inclusive. I have never seen a trans advocate say that the fact that genetics papers and genetics textbooks use a single word for mother is an ethical problem. I'm wondering what the scope of Wikipedia articles/content is for which you think using the term "mother" without additional language is an ethical problem. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:10, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure that it would be an ethical problem. I imagine that it could be an educational problem. It could be easy for someone to read "Mothers feel guilty" and misunderstand that as referring to only to cis women ("Of course mothers feel guilty, because women are so emotional, but a man wouldn't feel that way").

I could also imagine some editors removing that clarifying content (namely, we're clarifying that when the cited source says "mother", it refers to the carrier of the genetic defect, and not to a feminine person engaged in parental care) because they don't want the article to mention trans people. "The source doesn't explicitly say that trans people can be carriers, so that's just your original research" is one way for wikilawyers to get content removed while pretending to be purely neutral about the content.

Follow that with "Oh, by the way, if you cite a source that explicitly says all genetically female carriers regardless of gender identity, then you're cherry-picking sources to promote a trans agenda, and I'll replace all those sources with 'neutral' ones and then re-blank the verifiable content", and we're left with not being able to accurately explain reality (i.e., genetic defects don't care what the carriers gender identity is) and not being able to cite sources that accurately explain it.

This begins to feel rather Catch-22: you can't mention trans people if the source doesn't explicitly mention them, but you can't cite sources that mention trans people because those are not the One True™ Kind of Sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:25, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

feminine person engaged in parental care - so a butch mother is not a woman? Women are defined by being "feminine"? That is not what "mother" means in the dictionary or in common use. Are we going to add weird caveats to every term that some small minority (transgender, ethnic, religious, political, etc.) defines in an unusual way?

This seems to be a rather WP:BATTLEGROUND scenario. Inserting claims about what trans fathers feel when passing on something, claims that do not exist in any source, is bad because it is OR, plain and simple. Removing OR is not wikilawyering, even if it purports to benefit some minority group.

We don't need to worry about what readers will think when reading "mothers feel guilty" if that is all the source says. It is not our job or place to write what we imagine they must have meant.

Nobody said you can't cite sources about trans people. If none of the sources cover trans people, but one of them says "pregnant people" anyway because of sloppy "inclusive" writing, we should not follow that one source over the rest. That is my point. Sources about trans people can be covered according to existing MEDRS guidelines; but that does not justify UNDUE caveats or erasure of normal language sloppily scattered all over an article. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:27, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

• Feminine, adj: "Of or pertaining to the female sex; biologically female, not male." A butch mother certainly counts as "a feminine person" under this definition.
• I don't think it would be smart of us to say that it's only important which specific words the source uses, and to not care about what the source means. See also that long conversation at Talk:5α-Reductase 2 deficiency about whether the affected people should be called "male" or "female", since both terms are used in reliable sources, but all of them actually mean genetic males with a Y chromosome.
• As for "Nobody said you can't cite sources about trans people", I believe someone on this page with a remarkable similarity to your username was advocating for the removal of sources that used trans-inclusive language, and, after having removed the sources that, consequently removing the now-uncited (but still verifiable) trans-inclusive content from the article.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:37, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Talk:5α-Reductase 2 deficiency is not a good example to base conclusions here from. As an intersex condition, how that has to be dealt with naturally varies from topics that are about typical people. That in no way justifies an attitude of 'well, I think "mother" actually means this in this source even though they don't say it, so I will write accordingly.' Regarding your third paragraph, I believe I have laid out my position clearly already. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:31, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Re WhatamIdoing - Ah, I had gotten a sense that the rationale for adding "and trans fathers" was ethical; e.g., to make trans readers feel more seen and included. Now that I understand the rationale is more about factual clarity, I'll address that rationale.

• The statement "Mothers and trans fathers often feel guilty for passing Haemophilia A to their sons" makes two factual claims: 1) Mothers and trans fathers pass Haemophilia A to their sons, and 2) They often feel guilty about it. The first of these statements is about genetics. The second is about emotions. I agree with you that when we make statements about genetics, it is safe to assume that our sources use the term "mother" to mean whoever supplies the egg.
• If I understand you correctly, you're saying that "Mothers pass Haemophilia A to their sons" is not clear enough to the reader. If that's the problem we're trying to solve, I think there are better ways to solve it.
• It may be possible to rephrase it along the lines of "Hemophilia A is a genetic disease that boys inherit from their mothers". Readers who have grasped basic high school science would understand that this use of the term "mother" is the genetic one.
• Another option is to put a footnote after "mothers" and explain in the footnote what the term "mothers" in genetics means. We could also explain, in this footnote or another one, what the term "son" in genetics means. This option has the advantage of teaching readers how to understand the sources.
• The above options don't exclude non-binary assigned-female-at-birth parents, which as you've pointed out is a limitation of "Mothers and trans fathers". They also don't exclude trans/non-binary assigned-male-at-birth offspring.
• W.r.t. claims about people feeling guilty about things, these claims are not in the domain of genetics so we cannot be sure what the source means by the ambiguous term "mothers". It is better to use the ambiguous term than to write as if we know something that we don't know.

Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:33, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I think that most of gender-inclusive edits made are people motivated by ethical concerns. My own motivation skews towards the educational. I think we should understand both.

It is apparently not unusual for people to assume that BRCA mutations only come from the (genetic) mother. This isn't true; either parent could be the carrier. I don't think that it's a good idea to assume our readers have grasped high school science. I could see "Hemophilia A is a genetic disease that boys inherit from their biological mothers" as a valid approach. However, I wonder whether some editors would reject this, because to add the word "biological" would require understanding what the source actually meant in those paragraphs about how X-linked recessive inheritance works, rather than copying its exact language. I don't think you were active at the time, but do you remember the Arb who got kicked out for plagiarism about 10 years ago? He was closely following the language in the sources, instead of writing what the source meant in his own words. So on the one hand, we have a few editors who might allege OR violations unless you slavishly copy the language used in the cited sources, and other editors who will get you banned for plagiarism and close paraphrasing if you do. This doesn't sound like setting editors up for success.

I think what might set editors up for success is to say that anyone writing a Wikipedia article should understand the source and subject well enough to know which definition(s) of these multi-meaning words is the most relevant one, and to specify that at least once in the article (e.g., 5-alpha reductase deficiency affects biological males; hemophilia is passed to affected boys by their biological mothers). If you truly can't figure out whether "woman" in a source refers to a biological or social definition, then you probably shouldn't be editing the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:02, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

(Placeholder to say that I appreciate this conversation but need to focus on mainspace issues and RL stuff so I might be absent for the next few days). Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:40, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Using "mothers" when a source says "mothers" will never be called plagiarism. By that logic, we have to describe our source's ideas without using any of their words. Regarding "biological mothers", you may recall that this entire controversy was touched off by an editor who was accused of transphobia for stating that trans women are "biological males". Frankly, some people will not be satisfied unless every mention of biological sex as a material fact rather than a social construct is expunged. I see no reason to play that game at all. We can use "mother" as defined in the dictionary and should match the weight of sources. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:31, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Crossroads, my dictionary: "Your mother is the woman who gave birth to you. You can also call someone your mother if she brings you up as if she was this woman." Another dictionary: "A woman in relation to her child or children. A female animal in relation to its offspring." We have mother defined here in terms of both "woman", "female" and "who gave birth to you" and "she brings you up". While you may not like "mother" redefined, do you accept "woman" has been redefined to include people not assigned female at birth? Do you accept that a "(trans) man" can give birth or does that statement make no logical English sense to you? If we do accept these things, then our dictionary is not helping, but is incomplete and inconsistent wrt gender/sex. -- Colin°^Talk 10:48, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

You tell me. How do both ordinary and medical dictionaries define "woman" and "female"?

Many words have multiple meanings in different contexts. If a source in a certain context uses "mothers" - such as research about ordinary non-dysphoric females - then I see no reason to append anything that risks either OR or that doesn't satisfy a trans activist crowd anyway like "biological". In another context, like transgender pregnancy, sources would likely not use "mothers" and we follow their lead then too. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:47, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Em, it was your argument that 'We can use "mother" as defined in the dictionary'. The problem is a dictionary only defines some common meanings and doesn't tell you which meaning your source is using. I don't think a dictionary is a help here, but if that is your argument, it really is up to you to give examples and explain how that makes writing sex/gender-related articles trivially easy. -- Colin°^Talk 08:47, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Split

WhatamIdoing, regarding the 'every wording is political' argument, no, not everything is political in the same way. Wikipedia is not for advocacy, and hence not for wording that is political in a way involving change from how the language is used in reliable sources. We are not part of the vanguard of self-proclaimed "progressive" change efforts, nor would we advocate older language now replaced in reliable sources by newer language (in a trans context, we see this with MOS:GENDERID).

Regarding it sounds like your general view is that we should first find sources that use a particular language, and then we should stick to the language style that we artificially selected for, no, that is the opposite of what I am saying, and I don't know how you drew that conclusion. It is people saying that we should say "pregnant people" and "uterus havers" that are doing that. As I said above, we should use the language that is most common in the MEDRS on the topic.

I think you misunderstood what I saying about the hypothetical example (which would be exceedingly rare!) where the only source on a specific sentence used "pregnant people" instead of "women". In that case, since the rest of the article would probably be using "women" under the 'follow the sources' approach, if we wanted consistency within the article, then for this source (that is an outlier in its wording on the topic of pregnancy as a whole) we would not need to specifically say who gets pregnant. But that is really a quite minor point. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:47, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Concerning the pregnant people example, I don't think the point is so minor. If the source was from a study that included pregnant non-women in the research design, or that was explicitly offering treatment modalities for non-women as well as women, then it would be misleading to cite that article in a way that (through omission or substitution) pretended that it was referring to "women". Newimpartial (talk) 20:03, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

I was under the impression that in this scenario the source used the term without other comment on gender identity, but that may have been an assumption on my part. Ultimately, this is a point in favor of sticking to how the sources describe things. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:35, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree that everything is political; I also agree that not everything is political in the same way. For example, some views are dominant politically (e.g., children should be taught how to read), and some are not (e.g., when you learn to read, your memory gets worse, so maybe we should re-think this whole "everyone learns to read" thing).

The problem we are looking at doesn't actually involve "change from how the language is used in reliable sources". For most subjects, we can find a source that uses whatever language we'd personally prefer. With some effort, I could probably re-write the main article on Pregnancy entirely from sources that only use trans-inclusive language. If that's not possible now, it will almost certainly be possible in a couple of years. If I do that, will you still want me to stick closely to the style used in the sources I'm citing? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:36, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

But in that scenario you had to cherry-pick sources to get there, ignoring the 98+% of even recent sources (just guessing but if anyone knows a way to get the hard numbers, let me know) that do not talk that way. So when I say "involving change from how the language is used in reliable sources", I mean RS about any particular topic or matter of research as a whole. Cherry-picking those sources is political advocacy in a way that simply using any MEDRS sources on the topic, most of whom will not use such terminology, and writing like they generally do, is not. Do you agree on that point?

And regarding "it will almost certainly be possible in a couple of years", I disagree. WP:CRYSTAL applies anyway. This proposed language change is not inevitable. Many such pushes stall out. Perhaps I should bring up womxn and kindred terms again as an example of that. Crossroads ^-talk- 07:09, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

Why do you keep doing this WP:UPPERCASE thing? We are having a conversation on a talk page and WAID has imagined a hypothetical rewrite of pregnancy in order to discuss whether that would be acceptable wrt the "stick to the sources" approach. And you link to a policy page that is divided into sections clearly covering "Encyclopadic content" and "Community". The crystal ball issue affects the former: it is about article content. It doesn't prevent anyone speculating what might happen in years to come and how we'd handle that scenario. You are welcome not to engage in discussing hypothetical situations and admittedly they can be a bit of a political trap so many politician refuse to play that game, but it can also be a useful tool to explore ideas.

Even if you feel this language choice is unlikely to stick, I think it isn't entirely pointless to consider a situation where an editor has sources saying e.g. "pregnant people" and considering how we'd handle that within an article. It lets us consider whether this "stick the sources" approach actually works or whether (as I suspect) it is more of convenient argument that only seems to work if left unexamined. -- Colin°^Talk 11:40, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

@Crossroads, Google's Ngram viewer suggests that current usage is running around 1 "pregnant person" for every 78 "pregnant woman" (using both plural and singular forms in both cases).

It sounds like you want to use the dominant linguistic style among reliable sources in general, even if that means not sticking to the wording of the cited sources. Is that correct? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:06, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

I feel like I have answered this before. We should use the wording of the sources we are citing on the topic. This is overwhelmingly identical to the dominant linguistic style. Ngram includes mostly non-MEDRS and misses many if not most of them, but this illustrates that this means using "pregnant women". Crossroads ^-talk- 06:41, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

In the Wonderpam example, you accepted the terminology of the source ("pregnant people") could be used, but also that it could "be written around, perhaps by use of "patients" or the like", in other words, that editors could choose to not use the terminology of the source if they did not want to do that. Using "patients" is discouraged per WP:MEDMOS unless it really is discussing the healthcare of sick people by professionals. -- Colin°^Talk 11:02, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I had forgotten about what it says about "patients". Ironically, I have seen a few student editors insert numerous uses of "patients" in articles to avoid saying "women". My offering that as an idea had to do with consistency in an article if that was something local editors desired. It is ultimately beside the main issue here and certainly does not justify using "pregnant people" in the rest of the article ignoring dozens of other sources. And it would be exceedingly rare that such a term was used in the majority of MEDRS about some point. It is still a very uncommon term. Crossroads ^-talk- 16:26, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

So on topics like Canadian public health guidance about pregnancy and covid-19 vaccination, "pregnant people" would be the correct term. Newimpartial (talk) 16:43, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

You know what, this is a good case study. Let's say the text in question were about that - what the Canadian public health people say about COVID and vaccination. In that case, then sure, we can use "pregnant people" if that is the term they are using. We have to represent our source's ideas accurately, after all. Fair is fair. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:11, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

So if the source I'm actually using and citing says "pregnant people, then you actually do want me to be "ignoring the 98+% of even recent sources...that do not talk that way" for that sentence, instead of looking at the "RS about any particular topic or matter of research as a whole"? Right? WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:43, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

For that sentence, if the topic is 'what Canadian authorities say', as it was for what I was asked, then the RS about that topic is a much smaller group than, say, general material about pregnancy, and thus the sources one would be taking into account would be a different and much smaller set. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:57, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

What if the topic is not "Named Organization said something"? What if the topic is, say, Obstetric fistula? Should I follow the specific sources I'm actually using and citing, or should I look at the topic as a whole? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:39, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

It should be the topic as a whole, per DUE. Of course, not every editor who adds text to an article necessarily will check that - many will simply imitate whatever source they are using. In that case, if another editor comes along, looks into it, and finds that most sources on the specific topic are different from this one, they may cite those and change it. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:53, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Okay, so if MEDRS-compliant sources as a whole write ______, then I should use ______, even if (a) the specific source I'm using doesn't say ______ and even if (b) ______ is not the word that you prefer. Right? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:21, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Also, what if the sources are somewhat divided? Like half of them use only one term, a quarter use only another term, and the remaining quarter use both terms? Would you accept either term, since at least half the sources use that term? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:26, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

In all cases editors should be careful to ensure text-source integrity. If a passing editor finds that a past editor cherry-picked a source with unusual terminology, and most other sources with the equivalent scope use other terminology, that editor may cite those and adjust the terminology. Whichever word I personally prefer is not relevant, of course.

In cases where sources are roughly equally divided, then which term to use would be a matter of WP:STYLEVAR - up to discretion when written and not subject to change justified solely by personal preferences. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:48, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I think you are misunderstanding what "terminology" is, which the dictionary defines as "The body of terms used with a particular technical application in a subject of study, profession" or "The terminology of a subject is the set of special words and expressions used in connection with it.". So that would include words for a certain kind of epileptic seizure, or a type of diagnostic test, etc. It really, really, does not include "women", "people", "individuals" and "men". Those are what we call "words". And we are not slave to our sources when it comes to how we construct our sentences and describe things. There is no requirement in policy or guideline to analyse the body of work in order to determine word choice. If we are discussing whether to say "focal seizure" or "partial seizure" then that's a different matter, and requires a bit more consideration that merely adopting a majority-wins approach. -- Colin°^Talk 10:10, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Crossroads, what would you think if COVID-19 pandemic in Canada article said something along the lines of "Pregnant individuals have been given priority for vaccination."? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:35, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

One would have to account for how news media sources report the matter. I can't give a definite answer on that. I suspect many still report it as "women" because that is the overwhelming majority and what people are used to hearing. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:53, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

What if the majority of news sources report it as "pregnant individuals"? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:48, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

WP:DUE

I'm creating this section and moving some comments here from the above section as WP:OR and WP:DUE are different policies. The comments below are in reply to What if a review said "Prostate problems are common in men and trans women who are over 50" and we reproduced that in an article, but the review's research study source was just a study of men. We have the same problem that the reader may think the issue has been studied in trans women, but actually hasn't (let's pretend it hasn't, as I fear WAID's SuperGoogle abilities will find just such a study). Are we ok with that? Could it be legitimately challenged? from Colin. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:47, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Setting aside that it is still extremely rare for reviews to write that way, if one review does write that way, but most other reviews stick with "women", and they all are of basically the same scope (i.e. the one with "people" language never investigated trans people), then we should say "women" per WP:DUE. The one that said otherwise was an outlier and seemingly used the term carelessly because their review never actually examined non-women. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:46, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Crossroads, I can't help get the feeling that you are just flinging random WP:UPPERCASE at this problem. You repeatedly ask that we should stick to the sources, and then when the sources disagree with your position, you demand editors survey the entirety of published thought on the matter to gauge WP:DUE before choosing their words. I simply don't accept DUE has anything to do with word choice, which if true would require French Wikipedians to write in English if the majority of sources were English, and would require many of our medical articles to talk about patients or use over-technical language. It isn't up to us to judge if a reliable source used a word "carelessly" as you claims, or after much expert thought when considering whether the expansion or modification was acceptable. Our sources are allowed to engage in things we would regard as OR. I think editors need to be careful about inventing policy restrictions that happen to suit their case in one example, but are unhelpful when you consider normal editing practice. -- Colin°^Talk 10:15, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Concern for harmony with policy isn't "random WP:UPPERCASE". As I noted above, comparisons to translating a source from another language, or using non-technical language or other terms that do not introduce new ideas, are way off base. This is not equivalent to that at all. And accounting for WP:DUE, and for what the text of a source actually says, is normal editing practice. Per WP:MEDRS, editors are expected to read the source and not simply go off, say, the abstract. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:45, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

But WP:DUE was never intended as a way to settle questions of terminology - this seems to be one of your "creative" interpretations of policy, motivated by the desire to "win" a specific argument rather than by the text or underlying logic of the WP policy concerned. On actual terminological questions, the community has often chosen to adopt principles very different from DUE, such as MOS:GENDERID. Which makes sense, because DUE is intended to address when multiple perspectives should be included in an article, and is not at all directed at the mechanics of paraphrase. Newimpartial (talk) 09:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I've been persuaded that WP:DUE doesn't directly tell us what terminology to use. However, I think WP:DUE is relevant in its directions on balancing aspects: An article should not give undue weight to minor aspects of its subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight proportional to its treatment in the body of reliable, published material on the subject. Non-women can breastfeed, but the fact that non-women can breastfeed is a very minor aspect of the subject of breastfeeding.

When an article on a women's health topic is rewritten to include men in every paragraph, the effect can be like saying, "Men can do this too!" every five minutes. Repeating one aspect of a topic many times throughout an article gives undue weight to that aspect. My main concern about doing this, when it comes to our neutrality policy, is that it becomes less obvious that the topic is a women's issue: The article subtly adopts the stance that the people affected by the topic are individuals of any gender, not women and girls collectively. In criticisms of gender-inclusive language, this concern is often expressed as "Women are being erased." Abortion and period poverty are womens issues because nearly everyone who gets pregnant or menstruates is a woman or girl.

The amount of weight that gets shifted by a gender-inclusive approach varies - I'd say it depends on whether you use explicit terms like "and transgender fathers" versus implicit ones like "they", how much verbal gymnastics is needed, and how unusual the terms are ("chestfeeding" is still flagged as a spelling error on my computer). Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:57, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

There is more than one way of handling DUE. For example, at Midwife the article is gender-neutral despite the profession being almost universally women worldwide. This fact is conveyed by a sentence in the UK section and a "Men in midwifery" section. It hasn't been done by immersing the language choices with female-gendered words. Wrt "is rewritten to include men in every paragraph", I haven't seen this explicitly (mentioning trans men for example) in practice (yet). And remember that those identifying as non-binary don't identify as men either (and may well be AFAB). Despite some of the articles we found supporting an additive approach, I haven't seen this materialise. Perhaps this doesn't work beyond the odd paragraph or sentence? The only examples of article-length material we have are those that take a gender-neutral approach, and those are aimed at professionals, not the public. There are gender-neutral public messages, as we saw with covid vaccination campaigns, but they aren't huge articles. Maybe, for the reasons you have mentioned, keeping explicitly mentioning the minority group is odd.

In a way, the fact that gender is mentioned so often, with words like "woman" or "she", is a consequence of our language. We don't repeatedly use a single word meaning "fertile" despite this also being a key attribute, nor does anyone get upset that "woman" includes those who can't have children or are past childbearing age, which I guess are a fair chunk of that population group. Word choices are important but can also be rather blunt instruments that we are stuck with.

For a topic that is so closely tied to ideas of what it means to be a woman, pregnancy says very little about the subject. Perhaps that's just a feature of how Wikipedia over-medicalises health/life topics. Maybe an encyclopaedic way to avoid women being erased, is to worry less that the article says "people" or "individuals" sometimes, but to actually document the thoughts of society and important writers on the matter. To deal with it the same way as men are dealt with at midwife. I'm not saying that is the solution, but just that there are many approaches to trying to find this balance. -- Colin°^Talk 21:10, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

As I've noted previously, "midwife" is just an occupation that men can do just as much as women, while pregnancy and the like are inherently female, and hence connected to womanhood.

For many sentences with "pregnant women", "fertile" would be superfluous anyway. Also, never-fertile women are also exceptions, and women past childbearing age were usually fertile in the past. Yet, even though such groups have always been socially visible, nobody ever thought that for them we should write as though womanhood is incidental to the ability to get pregnant. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:41, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm aware that midwife is an occupation, though an absolutely vital one that likely most people on earth benefited from. Wrt your "that men can do just as much as women", there you go WP:CRYSTAL again :-). At the moment, they don't and they face a battle to do that, and I rather suspect we won't ever see parity. But Crossroads, you are concentrating on where an analogy is different, for no benefit to the argument, which is about NPOV. And NPOV isn't concerned with occupations vs life events. Us giving the impression that midwives are equally men and women in our language choice (gender-neutral) is a similar argument to concerns that our language choice might imply men do pregnancy just as often as women do. I don't buy your "inherently female, and hence connected to womanhood" argument, which seems rather too much like someone assigned female at birth is inherently female and hence connected to womanhood (i.e. can't identify as a man). The point about changes in our ideas of gender is that these connections are changing. We all got used, in our lifetimes, to the idea that marriage is no longer a heterosexual concept, yet one could claim it is inherently bound by the biology of the male and female of our species mating and producing offspring. Word meanings change, and I don't find arguments that try to find rationale for or against language change to be particularly helpful. Language changes whether I or you think those changes are reasonable or sensible or strange or stupid. When you write "For many sentences with "pregnant women", "fertile" would be superfluous anyway" this is my point, about language. For most of our article, reminding readers that the subject is female is superfluous. It would be like our article on Paris reminding readers that it is in France. We do it simply because there's a handy word to refer to the subject, which happens to be gendered. Being female is a necessary attribute, as is being fertile, and we don't, with our word choices, keep reminding our readers of that. -- Colin°^Talk 09:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I will zero in on Language changes whether I or you think those changes are reasonable or sensible or strange or stupid. Do you think this change has already occurred? How would one reconcile this with the fact that "pregnant women" is still vastly more common in sources? Do you agree that Wikipedia's language should not change unless that of the sources (representing the language in general) has also changed? Crossroads ^-talk- 06:16, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Language change is not a binary "has occurred" / "hasn't occurred". No I don't agree that the "vastly more common in sources" language should automatically determine how we write. How we write is up to us. We can become better informed about how better to write by looking at best-practice, at professional writing, and by guidelines. Ultimately it is a decision we make, and editors make for themselves. How we handle editors who go around changing text to suit their preferences, and equally how we handle editors who watchlist articles largely to revert back to their preferences, is really a user-behaviour issue.

You know it is funny, on the "commit suicide" debate, editors who did not want to phrase to be banned claimed that as long as any reliable sources were using the term, then it was acceptable. But your argument is the opposite. In order for "pregnant people" to be acceptable at all anywhere on Wikipedia, "pregnant woman" has to be effectively marked "archaic" in the dictionary. A conservative approach to language change is a personal political position and some on Wikipedia write as though it is policy, despite all evidence to the contrary. -- Colin°^Talk 10:24, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't know or care about the "commit suicide" debate. My argument is not this strawman of "marked archaic", but that it actually should be somewhat as common first, rather than us jumping in to be the part of the self-proclaimed vanguard of "progressive" language reform. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:34, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Just a couple of quick points, Crossroads: (1) pregnancy and the like are inherently female, and hence connected to womanhood - quite a few trans men and nonbinary parents would disagree with you quite emphatically about your inherently, there. (2) You also them made a clearly false claim: even though such groups have always been socially visible, nobody ever thought that for them we should write as though womanhood is incidental to the ability to get pregnant. That can't possibly be true, as generations of feminists have precisely argued that womanhood ought to become incidental to the ability to get pregnant, and therefore that we should write that way, prefiguratively. Newimpartial (talk) 00:00, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

You seem to be conflating sex and gender. I named the sex in which pregnancies exclusively occur. Contrary to your claim in point 2, I have never, ever seen any evidence of feminist advocacy for writing about "pregnant people" instead of "pregnant women" prior to the mid-2010s, let alone "generations" ago. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:16, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think the way we write about occupations is a fair comparison to the issues we're struggling with on this page. It's a well-established, uncontroversial convention in English to write about occupations in a gender-neutral way, both for female-dominated and for male-dominated occupations. There's a very simple explanation for this: For just about every occupation, English has a term for the person who does that occupation, and those terms are simple to use and understand. A person who does midwifery is a midwife, a person who does auto repair is an auto mechanic - totally uncontroversial. A person who can get pregnant is a... what? In a general-audience reference work, I would generally say "woman". What do you think we should call that person? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:29, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Another comment on due weight: Using gender-additive language throughout an article is not the only way to give a lot of weight to the "Men can do this too!" aspect of a topic. Actually the most common way is adding gender-additive language to the very beginning of the lead, e.g. [9] and [10]. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:44, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Do you think gender neutral job titles are uncontroversial? I wonder how many people know that "midwife" is gender neutral? In the UK, "matron" is a senior nurse position, regardless of gender. That seems to be a case where men wanting the job just had to accept a female word, and own it. In other cases, we have neutralised words so "fireman" is "firefighter", and yet the male term still lingers.[11] I know that the noun "women" or "midwife" is mainly what we are talking about, but it affects "she" and "he" vs "they", and "her" and "his" vs "their" too. I agree that "woman" is highly convenient for "a person who can get pregnant". I think we can agree that some of the approaches made by editors on Wikipedia have been clumsy and aren't going to get accepted. That's why I think we can learn from professional writing (both writing for professionals and writing for a lay audience). If they haven't had any success with alternatives for "a person who can get pregnant" then we learn that approach isn't working (at present). I think there is enough evidence that for some public health matters, "pregnant people" is an acceptable alternative, and as I note above, even the Daily Mail uses it themselves. -- Colin°^Talk 10:54, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree that it's helpful to examine how/when professional writers use gender-inclusive language on health matters. I don't believe it's helpful to examine how writers use gender-neutral language for occupations. Nothing is ever 100% uncontroversial, but gender-neutral language for occupations is a hundred times less controversial than gender-inclusive language for pregnancy and other highly personal matters. I don't think anyone who's uncomfortable with gender-inclusive language for pregnancy is going to be persuaded by arguments about occupations. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:23, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I think we are getting a little side-tracked about occupations. The point of this section is WP:DUE and the overwhelming number of midwives are female. If we claim DUE prevents the use of gender neutral language wrt pregnant people/women then it prevents it also for midwives. Feelings on whether those words are appropriate/accepted by society for pregnant/occupation are separate from the matter of DUE. -- Colin°^Talk 17:17, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

DUE is about (among other things) directing the reader's attention to aspects of the topic. Re: If we claim DUE prevents the use of gender neutral language wrt pregnant people/women then it prevents it also for midwives - that's a logical statement, but I am not claiming that DUE prevents the use of gender-neutral language. I am claiming that DUE prevents using language in a way that directs the user's attention inappropriately. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:32, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

You earlier said "rewritten to include men in every paragraph" and I wonder if you were meaning the additive approach (women and trans men) or the neutral approach (people). I assumed you meant both. Are both directing the users attention inappropriately and how much? We haven't seen any examples of the additive approach being used repetitively throughout a professional article. That would seem to be to be shouting "and (trans) men too". Actually, I've just noticed that Jennifer Lawrence says "actress" almost exclusively whereas Helen Mirren is an "actor". The Guardian's style guide discourages "actress" unless referring to an award with that name. Does MOS have a position on this? Is it up to editors? Are they required to stick to the sources in case anyone complains of activism? I thought that was a battle that was over wrt professional writing, but it seems not. -- Colin°^Talk 20:44, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Good question. I think either the neutral or the additive approach could be DUE problems depending on quantity and context. But whatever guidance we give editors should encourage them to look at the overall effect: If the sources present a topic as a women's issue, the Wikipedia article on the topic should give the same impression. If the sources present a topic as something that relates to whole people rather than the mechanics of body parts, the Wikipedia article on the topic should give the same impression. If the sources present a topic in a body-positive light, (e.g., that breastfeeding is beautiful), the Wikipedia article on the topic should give the same impression. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:58, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Colin, DUE both in policy and in my argument is about the sources, not the number of people. Sources treat pregnancy very differently than they do midwifery in regards to mentioning sex. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:38, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

SAGER Guidelines

From the European Association of Science Editors: "The SAGER Guidelines are a comprehensive procedure for reporting of sex and gender information in study design, data analysis, results and interpretations of findings."

• Full document: https://researchintegrityjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s41073-016-0007-6 . CC-BY-SA licensing.
• Concise form of the SAGER Guidelines: https://researchintegrityjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s41073-016-0007-6/tables/1

Highlights:

• Sex and gender differences are often overlooked in research design, study implementation and scientific reporting, as well as in general science communication.
• In a survey of 716 journal editors, scientists and other members of the international publishing community, only 7% of respondents reported having sex and/or gender policies at their journals.
• As a general principle, the SAGER guidelines recommend careful use of the words sex and gender in order to avoid confusing both terms.
• Gender is usually incorrectly conceptualized as a binary factor (female/male). In reality, there is a spectrum of gender identities and expressions defining how individuals identify themselves and express their gender.
• Where appropriate, data should be routinely presented disaggregated by sex and gender.
• The implications of sex and gender for the interpretation of study results should be elaborated, including the extent to which the findings can be generalized to all sexes and genders in a population.
• I did not find any advice in this document on the issue of using gender-inclusive language such as "pregnant person" or "breastfeeding/chestfeeding".

My takeaways from this are:

• Researchers have a bad habit of assuming that sex and gender differences are irrelevant to what they're studying. Science communicators have the same habit. The main point of this document is to get researchers and science communicators to look for sex and gender differences and make them visible.
• There is a whole lot of silence on the issue of using gender-inclusive language. Most journals don't have any sex and gender policies at all. The SAGER committee could have issued some guidance on gender-inclusive language but didn't.

Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 01:26, 9 January 2022 (UTC)

The Lancet

• Periods on Display by Sophia Davis (Senior Editor at Lancet Child & Adolescent Health) I was reluctant to mention this article but The Lancet controversy has been linked to a couple of times now. If you haven't read the article, I recommend you do and try to spot when the article has avoided "women". Can you spot them all? Firstly, there are 4 "women", 1 "woman" and 1 "girls" in the article. I'll put the relevant words in bold when I quote them.

The article is a review of some books but mainly about a new exhibition. In the first part the author notes a book "Period. End of Sentence. A New Chapter in the Fight for Menstrual Justice" where they write "Weaving together reclaimed traditions with personal accounts from menstruators around the world, Diamant shows just how much our stories matter." If you read the actual book, the book's author describes setting up "The Pad Project", 'grounded in the conviction that "a period should end a sentence, not a girl's education," our mission is "to create and cultivate local and global partnerships to end period stigma and to empower menstruators worldwide."' So the review writer is actually using the language of the book they are reviewing.

The majority of the article concerns "Periods: A Brief History at the Vagina Museum in London". Davis writes: 'according to its director, Florence Schechter. “One of the questions that we always get at the Vagina Museum is ‘what did people do in the past with their periods?'”, she told me.' This is a direct quote.

Next Davis describes an experiment in 1920 in Vienna: "Participants were given bunches of flowers to handle when on their period and Schick reported they wilted and died within 24 h. Here we have gender-neutral "participants" and I suspect we'd find such language in any modern study too. The vital attribute is they are talking about study-participants, rather than needing to remind anyone of their sex or gender.

Then we come to "Historically, the anatomy and physiology of bodies with vaginas have been neglected...This exhibition and the Vagina Museum as a whole aim to redress this lack of attention. I'll come back to that.

Next is "objects are also displayed that help create a rich experience and reveal how people who menstruate have dealt with their periods at different times"

The article concludes "This exhibition is particularly special in its focus on gendered histories, the medical visibility of women's bodies, and the cultural movement against menstrual shame and period poverty." which uses "women".

I think what is relevant here is that the Vagina Museum is "Dedicated to vaginas, vulvas, and gynaecological anatomy" and the exhibition is on a bodily function: menstruation. The museum's twitter feed is very much NSFW. Therefore reducing women, or people, to body parts and functions isn't entirely inappropriate IMO. The "bodies with vaginas" sentence was itself dealing with anatomy and physiology. Further, this is not an article on a medical topic, but a review of an exhibition that only readers who live in or near London could even attend. In that matter, I don't think any style guide on medical writing is relevant nor does it teach us anything about how to write medical articles. I can imagine perhaps some museum dedicated to condoms might be reviewed in an entertaining way by an author commenting on "ejaculators" or "visitors with a penis". On the other hand, the author, Davis, is clearly concerned with trans rights, based on their articles in "Lancet Child & Adolescent Health" and their twitter account.

But what I think exploded this is that some idiot editor at The Lancet decided to quote it on the front page. Compare that approach to the intelligent and sensitive manner that JMWH approached their cover design and editorials on the matter. The editorial that month concerned Covid and there was no attempt to put that quote in context or explain if The Lancet had a new editorial opinion on "women" vs "bodies with vaginas". That vacuum allowed twitter and the press to go crazy and suppose that The Lancet had gone mad. The editor, Richard Horton, was forced to publish an apology, which didn't really convince or satisfy anyone. My guess is that the editor put that on the cover precisely to provoke comment, to get people talking about The Lancet, and possibly without consultation or regard for the writer of the review. -- Colin°^Talk 12:03, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Well, I certainly agree that putting this on their front page was idiotic. The phrase was entirely unnecessary in the article, however, because people would normally just say "women's bodies" or even "female bodies". Yes, those bodies were neglected because they were those of women - due to misogyny, discrimination against women. IMO, "reducing women, or people, to body parts and functions" is not acceptable or necessary. As I will show, many, many people feel the same way. Humans are complex interconnected wholes, not random collections of body parts.

Since it is relevant here, for ease of reference here is The Economist again: “Bodies with vaginas” is an odd way to refer to half the human race. Yet it was the quote that the Lancet, a medical journal, chose to feature on the cover of its latest issue, telling readers that “historically, the anatomy and physiology” of such bodies had been neglected. After complaints about dehumanising language, the Lancet apologised....One reason is that many of the new terms come across as dehumanising. As the Lancet discovered, many people—trans men as much as anyone else—dislike being described as collections of ambulatory body-parts and secretions. More than a whiff of misogyny is in the air.

And here is The Telegraph reporting at length: The Lancet medical journal has been accused of sexism after describing women as “bodies with vaginas” on the cover of its latest edition. A Tweet sharing the front page has provoked a wave of criticism, with academics cancelling their subscriptions and resigning as reviewers, doctors blasting the phrase as “dehumanising” and activists suggesting the term is “unhelpful” for broader debates about inclusivity....While the language is an attempt at inclusivity, it has prompted a furious backlash - with some academics suggesting they will never work with the journal again. “Just wrote the Lancet to tell them to take me off their list of statistical reviewers and cancel my subscription and never contact me about anything ever again,” Prof David Curtis, a retired psychiatrist and honorary professor of genetics at University College London, wrote on Twitter. “Absolutely inexcusable language to refer to women and girls,” he said. Dr Madeleine Ní Dhálaigh, a GP, added: “You can be inclusive without being insulting and abusive. How dare you dehumanise us with a statement like this?” Others suggested the journal has double standards, flagging a post on September 20 which referred to the 10 million "men" living with prostate cancer and suggesting they have never seen the term “bodies with penises” used. “Considering, as the replies highlight, that The Lancet has recently published work on prostates and refer to men, I don’t think the decision to use 'bodies with vaginas' is an attempt at inclusive language,” said Dr Katie Paddock, a lecturer in education psychology at Manchester Metropolitan University, on Twitter....The campaign group Women Make Glasgow added that is has logged a formal complaint “about the dehumanising and straight up sexist cover story”, while feminist Claire Heuchan called that the term is “utterly shameful and totally regressive”. “This framing makes it sound like a coincidence that 'bodies with vaginas' have been neglected by medicine, as if it were not the product of a discrimination and oppression specific to the female sex,” she said on Twitter. “Medical misogyny... exists - and refusing to acknowledge women perpetuates it. Until [the Lancet starts] writing about 'bodies with penises', dehumanising and neglecting research specific to men, I’m going to call this erasure out for what it is: sexism.” There are also concerns that the language will undermine, rather than champion, inclusivity amid increasingly toxic debates.

You yourself also note that the use of this term led to people 'going crazy' in response, as you put it. What this shows is that language of this sort results in extremely negative reactions in significant numbers of people. It excludes far more than it includes. If the doctrine that leads to terms like "pregnant people" were followed when writing about the vagina, that leads to talking about "people with vaginas" rather than "women". It is this reduction to a body part that made people so mad. Unless we want to alienate massive numbers of people, we should avoid this. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:28, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Is that a slippery slope argument? I'm trying to keep up with my fallacy (not phallusy) bingo. Newimpartial (talk) 09:27, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

No. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:49, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure how the quotes above help your argument. I half suspect the editor who decided to run that front page is actually opposed to trans inclusive language and did so simply to provoke a backlash by the easily provoked. It doesn't appear that any of the above read the article, appreciated it was a review of a museum exhibition on body parts and body functions, or even asked The Lancet if they had a new policy on how to refer to "women". Just like the US right have their Owning the libs strategy where the right do something to get the liberals worked up (and then distracted from something more serious), this is just an example of needlessly provoking the conservative right into writing angry stuff. I find it weird how you think the rants of one side in this culture war should influence Wikipedia, when you keep telling us to ignore activists. The world is full of stupid angry people who have to much hate. I'd rather we found inspiration from serious thoughtful respectful writers, than culture warriors in The Telegraph. -- Colin°^Talk 10:22, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

If the doctrine that leads to terms like "pregnant people" were followed when writing about the vagina, that leads to talking about "people with vaginas" rather than "women". It is this reduction to a body part that made people so mad. - That is an argument against using "people with vaginas". Using it as an argument against "terms like 'pregnant people'" - as you appear to be doing - is, in fact, a slippery slope argument. Newimpartial (talk) 23:45, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

I suspect that talking about "people with vaginas" as casually as talking about "women" is unlikely to catch on, outside of an entertaining review of an exhibition at the Vagina Museum. Crossroads, we have some examples of professional midwifery articles that use gender-neutral and say "people who are pregnant" instead of "women who are pregnant", but we don't yet have professional examples of articles that have extensively referred to women as "people with vaginas". Perhaps such exist, and it would be useful to see how well or badly it works. But I think that if professionals have not written any such articles, it is not reasonable to imagine such would get written on Wikipedia, and therefore your concern about this phrase is presently a strawman. Nobody here is advocating for completely erasing "women". I have been trying to see what professionals think and what professionals write. I think this grounded-in-reality approach is better than having an argument where one side claim the other is saying or writing things that they actually are not. -- Colin°^Talk 08:55, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Consensus?

I'm wondering if we might have a consensus that writing "people with <name of sex-specific body part>" is unsuitable in Wikipedia articles (with the exception of direct quotes). This is not a hypothetical question. Does everyone agree that this way of referring to people is unsuitable, even if we don't agree on what the best alternative is? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:58, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Note that this is a narrow question about phrases that name body parts e.g. "people with vaginas". It's not about phrases that refer to activities or states, e.g. "people who menstruate" or "people who are pregnant". It's also not about chromosomes, e.g. "People with a Y chromosome". Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:06, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Strong support on this. Per the above and elsewhere on this page, it is offensive to most and usually confusing, and essentially nonexistent in the professional literature. Also, I doubt anyone could dispute that these truly are neologisms, and hence the principles of WP:NEO and MOS:NEO apply in that Wikipedia is not to be used to increase usage of such terms, and such terms often do not last. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:21, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I haven't seen the "people with anatomy" style recommended in any of the style guides or other recommendations linked on this page.

However, I could imagine a Wikipedia article that said something like "Anyone with a prostate can develop prostate cancer; however, it is most common among older men". I don't think that is unsuitable, and IMO it doesn't have the demeaning feeling that some other uses of "people with anatomy" could. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:30, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

The other day, I was discussing with my wife the outrageous sexist bias at Office for national statistics: Life expectancy calculator. We tried to find out why and came across Why do women live longer than men? My wife was reading out the best bits to me and came to "it seems that people (and animals) without testicles do live longer." Which of course made me think of this discussion. You can read the article to see why it is perfectly acceptable. I can think there are occasional reasons to mention people who have / are absent a uterus or cervix or ovaries or testicles or prostate, just like tonsils, appendix, and gall bladder are often removable items.

I don't think describing a group of people by their body parts is an optimal general approach to solving trans and non-binary inclusivity. I think we here have consensus on that, but whether it is worth legislating as "unsuitable in Wikipedia articles"? I am not convinced. I am a bit tired that Crossroads says every edit with language they dislike is advocacy ("Wikipedia is not to be used to increase the usage of such terms"). It is assume-bad-faith, and I'd rather assume edits were made because the editor genuinely believed it improved the article for our readers. Could we please just agree to disagree on that and not keep repeating this advocacy aspect as it is a distraction on finding consensus. -- Colin°^Talk 09:08, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

I believe in WP:SPADE and WP:SUICIDEPACT. If some editor on a women's health topic rewrites an article to be about "people with vaginas" without any mention of women and justifies it with a blatantly partisan interpretation of "inclusion" - and this has happened - most editors are not going to refrain from kindly but firmly explaining why that is incorrect. We do assume good faith, but we do not willfully blind ourselves as to why someone is making bad edits or refrain from citing perfectly applicable policies. Someone can think an edit improves an article while also violating every policy under the sun. I'll try to not keep repeating myself to the small group here, but sometimes a certain aspect does have to be mentioned again as part of a fresh argument or summary of previous points. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:50, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

You are missing the point. AGF does not require us to retain the edit nor does prevent us disagreeing with the edit on some actual policy grounds, say. It is about motive. You repeatedly claim people doing this are language reform advocates and above said Wikipedia was "be[ing] used to increase usage of such terms". The edit to pregnancy Clayoquot earlier cited was the second of two made by a newbie. The first revert said

Per WP:STICKTOSOURCE and this community consensus.

This correctly cited a current RFC but contained one mistake, in that WP:STICKTOSOURCE (which isn't about language choice) wouldn't make sense to the newbie, as the sentence is unsourced. The second revert of the edit had summary

Again, per WP:STICKTOSOURCE and a community consensus specifically against this sort of WP:UNDUE wording. Wikipedia is not for language-reform advocacy or to right great wrongs. Do not change this again or engage in further edit warring

This explicitly accuse them of language-reform advocacy and trying to right great wrongs. The phrase "right great wrongs" is Wikipedia jargon. Google that phrase in quotes and you'll get mostly Wikipedia pages. To a newbie, it sounds rather like "You might be right about something really important, but we aren't going to fix it. Go away". An editor making a change to words used (with the exception perhaps of some misguided class assignment) isn't advocating for language reform. They are choosing words just like you do in order to write the best article, only their thinking behind the word choice is different from yours or mine.

Btw, per edit warring: An edit war occurs when editors who disagree about the content of a page repeatedly override each other's contributions...An editor who repeatedly restores their preferred version is edit warring, regardless of whether those edits are justifiable. Claiming "My edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" is not a valid defense. There were two editors edit warring there.

Let's look at the newbies edit summary. The first was "I changed this to reflect the fact that men who have a uterus can and have given birth, as well as non-binary folks who have given birth". This is a statement of fact. The editor felt the original text was wrong or incomplete, and in their mind, improved it. Their next edit summary is I am changing this again to reflect the fact that men can and have given birth, as well as non-binary folks. Not just women. This is misleading to already oppressed and underrepresented peoples, it needs to be changed. Again they explain why the original text is wrong and incomplete in their view. Their comment about "already oppressed and and underrepresented peoples" is an emotive comment but nonetheless is factually true. Both in society and arguably on Wikipedia too. It isn't all that different from one of our medical editors reverting some incorrect covid statement with a little rant about misinformation. That they made this change to the lead sentence of pregnancy was their biggest error, but newbies over-rate the importance or balance of some fact or point for the lead sentence all the time.

Their "person with a uterus" line isn't fundamentally all that different to the text at Transgender pregnancy which says "Non-binary people with a functioning vagina, ovaries and uterus can give birth." It seems context matters more than the actual words.

Wikipedia:No personal attacks asks us to "Comment on content, not on the contributor". I don't find that talking about advocacy is helpful to us finding consensus on what words are best for our articles. It just seems to be a tool put writers and other editors into a box and dismiss them, rather than discussing content. -- Colin°^Talk 11:38, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Colin for explaining how things feel for new editors. I'm sometimes amazed that we keep any new editors at all. Crossroads, I appreciate your diligence in reverting poor edits and also sometimes cringe the edit summaries you have chosen. Hopefully the discussion we're having in this page will lead to some friendly-but-firm language that we can link to and/or use in our edit summaries and talk page posts. Ideally, when we encounter editors who want to improve the lives of trans and gender non-conforming people but are clumsy in how they try to do it, our response would help them find something constructive to do on Wikipedia. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:13, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Colin, WP:NOTADVOCACY is "actual policy grounds". It can be linked to when appropriate, which is why it exists. I'm not saying it should always be linked to when reverting such edits, but it does have its uses. STICKTOSOURCE was an appropriate link, because the newbie actively removed a source while also removing "woman" to replace it with their favored "person with a uterus". I don't know why you claim it was unsourced. I'll grant that my use of "right great wrongs" there was confusing jargon. Regarding edit warring, WP:CON favors the prior version of a page in a dispute. Editors are not expected to be so meek in the face of someone forcing a bad edit in that they refuse to ever revert more than once. Let's not create a false-balance there.

Regarding "already oppressed and and underrepresented peoples", this applies to women too. And women are the target of this disadvantage, in many cases, because they are capable of pregnancy. No, I don't agree that "person with a uterus" is comparable to a statement specifically about non-binary people in an article about transgender pregnancy.

Clayoquot, I'll be sure to be both kind and firm, rather than just firm, with the sorts of newbies who make these edits, but at the same time, some of them will interpret any reversion as automatically transphobia, and as you see, some of them edit-war. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:59, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

I was looking at the article at the stage the newbie had left it, which didn't have a source. I didn't spot that they had removed the source. Regardless, I don't think you have consensus in this discussion that STICKTOSOURCE requires us to use the source's language and I've given multiple examples of when that clearly isn't true. I mean, if you had a French source, would you require we gendered half the words in the paragraph?

Regarding Edit Warring, I'll defer to WAID's better policy knowledge than me if they have a view, but no I think "I restored the favoured version" to be exactly what WP:EW says wrt "My edits were right, so it wasn't edit warring" being nonsense. My understanding of WP:CON is that falling back to the prior version is a common outcome if a discussion between editors that seeks a consensus fails to find one. But you were not actually having such a discussion, and were just reverting each other with an edit summary to say why the other editor was wrong. WP:EW only gives limited exemptions to allow you repeatedly reverting the other editor, and obscure MOS RFC conclusions are not among them. There are simply times when one has to say, ok, it is for someone else to deal with this, as I've reverted them once without effect.

Wrt the interpretation of reverts, I think this is where we could provide a better page for them to read than linking six policy and MOS discussions. I mean, anyone involved in trans advocacy reading that MOS discussion would wonder what planet we were on. A long term editor could look at that and try to make sense of the admin closure statement, but nobody sane would want to read all that. It would be like pointing someone at a Daily Mail twitter feed in terms of uninformed opinions freely offered on the internet. -- Colin°^Talk 11:21, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Please stop equating using different English words with different meanings to translating from French. It is a bad analogy because separate languages that are different words for the same meaning are not equivalent to different words for different meanings. English can't "gender" words like French anyway.

Unilateral 1RR by experienced editors gives a massive advantage to disruptive edits. No one who edits even somewhat controversial topics willingly does that, and it is not a policy since 1RR is a special restriction, not a standard.

You equate the thought-out discussion of experienced Wikipedians at the Village Pump with a Daily Mail Twitter thread. Need I say more? This seems to be a minimization and dismissal of the community. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:55, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I really do get that "STICKTOSOURCES" seems very attractive to your argument, as long as you get to choose the sources and can revert people using the wrong sources, but it is not what you think it is, and repeating that line in this discussion isn't taking us somewhere useful. Arguing about edit war definitions is getting off topic. Nobody is threatening you with sanctions, so 3RR and 1RR are not relevant and you were still edit warring. Crossroads, most editors fail to spot and refuse to accept when they were edit warring, so you are hardly alone. And you are not alone in thinking it is justified when Fighting The Good Fight. That previous text "Pregnancy, also known as gestation, is the time during which one or more offspring develops inside a person with a uterus." did not violate any policy or guideline, was factually correct and was a valid summary of the sourced body text. None of us here think it was a good choice of words. But arguing whether "person with a uterus" or "woman" is better for our readers is content dispute that is supposed to be resolved through discussion leading to consensus, not warfare.

I don't think I've seen an RFC on social language usage that would be intelligible to those outside of Wikipedia's in-crowd who follow jargon and who can just turn a blind eye to the usual rants from the usual suspects. The RFC proposed such articles should be entirely gender neutral and clearly that got knocked back. About 16 people over four days gave their comments. Some objected purely on the perceived motives of the proposer and some claimed MEDRS already settled the matter (it doesn't). Some, including your linked earlier comments, were I'm afraid, just using Wikipedia as a forum to attack "A few activists, ultra-woke media outlets, or sex-ed sites", to mock their "nonsense" and include bizarre original-research analogises with limbless people. The poster of the RFC may be misguided but they were respectful and thoughtful and didn't go around insulting people who disagreed with them. The effect of these edit summaries and RFCs like that is to make Wikipedia seem intolerant, to claim (wrongly in my view) that Wikipedia policy adheres to a politically conservative stance, and that any editor trying in good faith to handle the concerns of a minority group will be labelled an activist and told where the door is. Crossroads, we don't persuade people by insulting them, and we don't retain editors by citing essays that ask them to leave. -- Colin°^Talk 10:49, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Regarding your first paragraph, "did not violate any policy or guideline" (P&G) is not really compatible with "none of us here think it was a good choice of words." Editors' opinions on choice of words is supposed to be based on P&G. Discussions are based on how to apply P&G. There's room to disagree on how to apply that, of course, but it's not a free-for-all. And interpretation of P&G is ultimately decided by the community. If the community decides that MEDRS settled the matter against such terms, then so be it. You may not like it, but that is the indication we have.

Wanting wording that matches that which is most common in sources should not be equated to "politically conservative". P&G doesn't recognize "conservative" editing, though it does recognize "advocacy". Take it up with WP:NOT if you think this makes Wikipedia conservative. However, "advocacy" can be either left or right wing, and we don't bow to right-wing advocacy either; for example, we use a trans person's preferred pronouns. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:22, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

"Editors' opinions on choice of words is supposed to be based on P&G". Honestly that is like saying the Highway Code instructs me where to go and what route to take on my holidays. I wonder whether if editors spend too much time arguing about MOS rules they think rules control our every word. That discussion where 16 people voted on an extreme proposition to make such articles entirely gender neutral tells us mostly that such an extreme proposition was not successful. Their actual vote rationales are modestly interesting but mostly from the point of view of what things people might say to justify their opposition to an extreme proposal. That three people voted "per MEDRS" doesn't miraculously make MEDRS a fount of knowledge about how to choose our words in medical articles. And looking their user pages, I suspect they haven't actually read MEDRS or ever written text governed by it. They do have an opinion on gender neutral language, and one that likely isn't based on any P&G. People say things all the time; doesn't make them true. The RFC didn't ask if Wikipedia should ban gender neutral language in medical articles that are mainly about one sex's biology or life events. No policy or guideline was changed and no editing restrictions were imposed on editors. It doesn't have as much weight or relevance as you think it does. If the editor completely changed the article to be gender neutral, you could cite it as the most recent indication of consensus, but not as law, and well, that isn't what the editor did.

The statement you say is "not really compatible with" actually really is. Nearly all disputes over wording come down to editors trying their best and disagreeing and the only P&G that was relevant to those edits is the one about edit warring and seeking consensus through discussion, which both of you broke. That really is the important fundamental here. That editor was not a vandal and edit warring with them isn't permitted. You can cite WP:UPPERCASE and vaguely relevant RFCs if you want, but when actually examined, as we have done here, none of them actually forbid that edit and none of them permit you to edit war over it. -- Colin°^Talk 12:41, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

More bothsides-ism I see. Your opinion that the "person with a uterus" edit was perfectly allowable and that I should have left it be is revealing, but noted. Your dismissals of the Village Pump discussion are also noted. Here's the thing: applying P&G is necessarily based on editor consensus; even if one editor decides it doesn't mean something, if the community does, then that is what it is. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:28, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

That an edit is allowed, is not the same as the edit being ideal, good or poor or ridiculous. That you should not edit war is not up for debate, Crossroads, no matter how righteous in the right you might be feeling. The VP discussion is not what you claim it is and RFCs are not magic wands that can change reality. -- Colin°^Talk 09:58, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I suppose experienced editors feel more confident to exercise their editorial judgement having considered consensus derived from RfCs, policy guidance, and even essays, simply because they are aware that these exist. We try to do what we consider is correct; not because it makes us feel righteous, but because we have usually formed an opinion based on community discussion. Here is a real example which illustrates this sandbox discussion. I believe that gender-neutral language is fine as long as it does not interfere with the readers' ability to understand the material, but in this case I see ambiguity right there in the second sentence. Colin, since you don't accept the village pump consensus proffered by Crossroads, how would you deal with a situation such as this? CV9933 (talk) 16:12, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I am not Colin, but just for clarity, I think not accepting the village pump consensus proferred by Crossroads is overly polysemic, as a characterization. The RfC asked whether medical articles should be written in some kind of GNL. The consensus was that no, they should not. The closing statement said more than that, but was probably over its skis - a discussion held by 16 editors at Village Pump should probably not be considered to have a very high WP:CONLEVEL compared to other GENSEX discussions, anyway, and certainly the closing statement itself isn't especially authoritative in the detail of its wording. So one can accept the essential no consensus of the RfC without accepting Crossroads' specific reading of the closing statement - in his view we should rely on head counts of RS and follow some kind of majoritarian principle but this doesn't follow even from the closing statement of that RfC much less the actual consensus of the discussion it contains.

I for one disagree with Crossroads' account of what the Village Pump consensus actually means, but I don't disagree with the actual consensus (of no, don't do what was proposed). But then again, I'm not Colin. Newimpartial (talk) 19:12, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

(I wrote the text below and then went to get my dinner. When I went to post it, Newimpartial conflicted. It turns out that despite not being Colin, he was pretty close, and I had to look up what polysemic means).

Actually "righteous" isn't the word I was looking for and I've amended it to "in the right" which is closer to what I meant (and what WP:EW says). Being confident-with-good-reason about being right isn't any better. Wikipedia:Edit warring#Exemptions is extremely limited. Having MOS or WP:V or an RFC on your side is insufficient. Wrt the RFC, what I accept is that it was proposed "articles relating discussion of topics that are sex-specific need [entirely] gender-neutral language" and this was rejected. That is the current community consensus on that matter. The RFC didn't ask for anything less than or other than this approach, and so it is unfair to assume it settles the matter beyond the RFC proposal, and of course consensus can change. Among the closing admin's comments is the claim "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". This isn't true, is in opposition to editing guidelines such as WP:MEDMOS and WP:TECHNICAL, and doesn't reflect actual editing practice on Wikipedia. That a handful of peopled claimed this in order to support their opinions about gender-neutral language doesn't make it so, and I wish the admin had thought a bit more before repeating it as though that settled the argument.

I'm sure anyone familiar with MOS language discussions will have come across the essays Wikipedia:Specialized-style fallacy and Wikipedia:Common-style fallacy. The latter's nutshell says "Facts on a subject are drawn from reliable sources, but no particular subset of them dictates how Wikipedia must write" These essays are cited in word-choice disputes at MOS when our sources (and/or the style guides for them) don't align with an editor's personal opinions, but are conveniently ignored when they do. I find both essays tiresomely long and ranty and take much too extreme a position. A shorter summary might be Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/FAQ which says "While specialized publications in a field, such as academic journals, are excellent sources for facts, they are not always the best sources for or examples of how to present those facts to non-experts". This isn't news to any experienced editor who has wrestled with how best to express our source expert's knowledge into words for a general audience. I wish such essays took a less combative middle ground where we sought to learn from our sources and their style guides when appropriate, and learn from non-source publications aimed at lay readers, and learn from general-purpose style guides, and mix all that with our own peculiarities about audience, voice and avoiding original research, etc.

Wrt CV9933's example, I see that an IP editor changed the article to be entirely gender-neutral on the 5th Jan. Another IP has reverted some of this and a new editor has reverted some of that IPs changes. The RFC could be cited by an editor reverting the text back to the gender-specific version. I don't have a problem with that. The newbie might benefit from a message about edit warring (with the IP) and handling content disputes, but it seems from their contribs that they aren't a single-purpose account and are here to help, so that needs done with care and encouragement. I agree with you that "parent" in the second sentence is problematic. I'd hope that the discussion here could produce some guidance with examples of how such substitutions can introduce problems that go beyond a disagreement about which wording is best. -- Colin°^Talk 20:41, 1 February 2022 (UTC) Actually, I think the new editor was responding to "recent changes" edits rather than having targeted the article for change. Most of their other edits correspond with recent-changes vandal fighting and random improvements. I've left them a message on their talk page. -- Colin°^Talk 22:07, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Btw

Crossroads, I'm not happy about the text 'Your opinion that the "person with a uterus" edit was perfectly allowable and that I should have left it be is revealing, but noted. Your dismissals of the Village Pump discussion are also noted.' I wonder if you could strike that. Both times you characterise my position in a negative and inaccurate way, and then state "noted", which sounds threatening to be honest. Like you've saved the diff and at some future noticeboard you'll claim "Colin has a history of not accepting consensus and siding with those whose edits are rejected by the community[diff][diff]". Perhaps that's not how you meant it, but it is how it makes me feel. Yes we disagree but I wish you were trying not always to see the worst possible interpretation of what I wrote. We can surely discuss our disagreement and attempt to understand each others positions without engaging in such adversarial tactics. No doubt some of my own comments are less than perfect too. I hope this is a friendly space where editors can disagree, be critical, make and accept mistakes, learn from each other, and change their minds without embarrassment. For example, I would love it if you felt safe enough to admit "Yes, I was edit warring then" (and not "Yes, technically I was edit warring" or similar). All of us here know that editing in conflicted topics is not easy at all, and we are all human. -- Colin°^Talk 08:57, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

To be clear, I neither meant or had in mind anything more than that I acknowledge receipt of yet continue to deeply disagree with your views in that regard. I don't appreciate that you keep bringing up chastisement of me for "edit warring". If you believe that editors should always be subject to WP:1RR, you can propose that on the policy pages. Meanwhile, it is obviously unfair and detrimental to the encyclopedia to hold experienced editors to rules that newbies and IPs aren't held to. It kneecaps experienced editors while giving free rein to newbies and to those who disregard anything except a bright-line rule. It also turns out that you yourself have engaged in the same behavior less than 55 article-space edits ago; see here and here where the same text was removed, and then here which was just a couple hours after the last-linked one (different material on the same page still counts as reverts in edit warring cases). I completely understand why you made those edits, but by your logic here they were wrong and you should have just let that editor have their way.

I too often feel misunderstood on this page and hope that it can be civil going forward.

Regarding your comments just above the "Btw" heading, I don't think my addressing that again is a good use of page space, other than to say that I don't think this is at all comparable to cases where different words with the same meaning and political salience are being used to avoid technical language, or other such style choices, and that I think we should consider how experts write in practice, not just sources commenting on how to write. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:05, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

For context, you should read WT:MED#Smell training where Abductive came to WP:MED asking for editors to help. He felt that Smell training was nonsense, after reading about it on Slate, and it was a DYK on the main page. Both WAID and I discovered the mainstream view was that it was "a promising new treatment". Between those edits above is a fair amount of discussion, where I twice ask Abductive to revert their edits and expressed my reluctance to edit war over it. You are right, I should not have made those edits on the 5th May. You again misrepresent my view when you say that my position is that I "should have just let that editor have their way". As you will see from that discussion, I posted again to WT:MED asking for editors to review the edits. At this point Abductive made a few further edits and left a comment "I have refactored the weight to be as mild as possible. Please take a look." Although I felt even that text was undue, it seemed we had reached some kind of compromise position. It certainly wasn't my intention to just give up after the first revert, but I'm not happy about those subsequent edits and think I should have continued the discussion at WT:MED instead.

The edit at Pregnancy was linked by Clayoquot as an example of users making a "people with <name of sex-specific body part>" edit. I wish that just like discussing opinions and writings by non-Wikipedians has allowed us some safe distance to comment without getting personal, I wish that the edit war over that change was made by someone who wasn't part of this discussion. Because surely "It would help to have some effective guidance for newbies so that we don't end up edit warring over this all the time" is what we want? I wished your response had been "Yes I got into an edit war then, and I'd really like us to find a way to avoid that". I don't think viewing other editors as advocacy-pushers permits edit warring. Crossroads, I'm sorry that trying to address that issue has made you uncomfortable. -- Colin°^Talk 10:47, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Public Health

This section is to look at information resources aimed at providing health information to the public. These could be considered similar to Wikipedia in some ways. -- Colin°^Talk 16:53, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

NHS

I had a look at www.nhs.uk which is like a health encyclopaedia, though extra accessible and much is written in the second person, so avoiding having to consider the sex or gender of the reader/potential-patient. This is particularly notable in the www.nhs.uk/pregnancy chapter, which neatly side-steps ever talking about pregnant women. They seem to just mention trans/non-binary once: Having a baby if you are LGBT+. The article on Infections in pregnancy that may affect your baby is the only location that mentions chestfeeding.

Other NHS health topics that mention trans but aren't explicitly about gender identity issues:

• Should trans men have cervical screening tests?. This page is entirely devoted to trans men.
• Who should have the HPV vaccine?. This page starts out with "boys and girls aged 12 to 13 years ..." but later mentions two groups each with their own section. The first is "men who have sex with men" who they then refer to as MSM: "MSM up to and including the age of 45 are eligible ... MSM aged 15 and over need 3 doses of the vaccine. Those under 15 need 2.. The second is "Transgender people" which refers to both trans men and trans women.
• What happens at your breast screening appointment. There is a section at the end "Breast screening if you are trans or non-binary".
• Prostate problems. This begins Prostate problems are common, particularly in men aged over 50. The prostate is a small gland found only in men and trans women". This is one of the more integrated of all pages, mentioning trans women in the second sentence rather than a section or paragraph tagged on the end.
• Male sexual problems. "Sexual problems can affect any man, whether he is straight, gay, bisexual or transgender."
• Womb (uterus) cancer / causes. The first section in "Causes" is "Who is more likely to get womb cancer?" and this begins Anyone with a womb can get womb cancer, this includes trans men and non-binary people with a womb. It usually happens after menopause, in people over the age 40. As with the prostate cancer page, trans men and non-binary people are fully integrated and the gender-neutral term "people over the age of 40" is used.
• Cervical cancer / causes. The first section in "Causes" is "Who is more likely to get cervical cancer?" and this begins Anyone with a cervix can get cervical cancer. This includes trans and non-binary people with a cervix.". It goes on to say "All women and people with a cervix between the ages of 25 and 64 are invited for regular cervical screening. Here it is interesting that the first sentence says "anyone with a cervix" and notes that this includes "trans and non-binary people with a cervix" and doesn't explicitly mention women, which seems to be assumed knowledge. The second sentence is also a little odd as women who have had a total hysterectomy that removes the cervix will not be invited for screening, so it isn't really "all women".
• How to decide if you want breast screening In answering the question "Who can get breast cancer?": "Anyone can get breast cancer. This includes women, men, trans and non-binary people." It goes on to say "Most breast cancers are diagnosed in women over 50 years old.". However, the main 'breast cancer' page is titled "Breast cancer in women" and talks exclusively of "women". It notes "In rare cases, men can also be diagnosed with breast cancer. Find out more about breast cancer in men." and the linked page talks exclusively about men. So trans and non-binary are not included in much of the material here. Most of the reason to use the words "men" and "women" are to refer to statistical risk groups or those eligible for screening.
• When you'll be invited for breast screening and who should go "Anyone registered with a GP as female will be invited for NHS breast screening every 3 years between the ages of 50 and 71" It later says "If you're a trans man, trans woman or are non-binary you may be invited automatically, or you may need to talk to your GP surgery or call the local breast screening service to ask for an appointment.". There is a section at the end explicitly about this, which indicates that whether you are registered as "male" or "female" with your GP determines whether you get invited automatically. This section goes on to link to two other sites:
  • NHS population screening: information for trans and non-binary people from Public Health England.
  • I’m trans or non-binary, does this affect my cancer screening? by Cancer Research UK.

Searching for a term of course doesn't find examples where it could have been used and wasn't. I searched for "women" and found

• Menopause Repeatedly refers to "woman" or "women". The related pages on Symptoms and Treatment all exclusively refer to "women".
• Various sexual health pages refer to "men" and "women" without mentioning trans or non-binary. For example Vaginal dryness, What can cause orgasm problems in women?, What can cause orgasm problems in men?, Does a woman always bleed when she has sex for the first time?
• The pages under Women's Health and Men's Health all talk about women or men, and not trans or non-binary.
• Signs of autism in adults. Has a section "Autism in women and men" which briefly explains they may be affected differently but no inclusion of trans or non-binary.
• Thrush in men and women. Men and women are dealt separately but no inclusion of trans or non-binary. Similarly for Chlamydia.
• Loss of libido. Talks about "men and women" but not trans or non-binary.
• Ovarian cancer. Unlike with cervical or uterine cancer, this one does not include trans or non-binary people. Similarly for Polycystic ovary syndrome, Endometriosis, Fibroids, Pelvic inflammatory disease and on and on... there are too many pages to list.

My feeling then is that some of the major public health pages that focus on screening and vaccination, particularly for cancers, have been written to be trans and non-binary inclusive. But the pages that just provide information on what are traditionally regarded as men's and women's health topics just ignore trans and non-binary. -- Colin°^Talk 16:10, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Colin, did you notice any of these pages mentioning intersex people? I suspect that the claim "The prostate is a small gland found only in men and trans women" is wrong, as doesn't mention afab non-binary people and intersex people. What I appreciate about that sentence is that if someone arrives on that page in a misguided "Dr Google" attempt, without knowing what a prostate is, then that sentence will tell half of them that their problem is definitely not prostate cancer.

The PCOS page (the only one I checked in that list) was last reviewed two years ago, and is due for review next year. I read a claim recently that PCOS is associated with greater rates of not feeling like a woman (and therefore more non-binary people). I don't know whether this is true, but if it were, then it would seem like a reasonable page to mention non-binary people on. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:20, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

No I didn't see intersex, but I wasn't searching for it either. I don't know what the reason is that some NHS pages are trans/non-binary inclusive and others aren't. There appears to be a pattern with pages on screening and vaccination for conditions that typically affect one sex. It could be those topics were deliberately chosen, or it could be those topics had the same author(s) who had different priorities to the authors of other pages, or like you say it could be that some pages were revised more recently than others. I think what is interesting about the NHS and charity pages is that for some conditions, the trans/non-binary group of potential patients is not ignored and just expected to work out for themselves whether "men/women" applies to them. The information purpose has two audiences in the NHS, and staff also need to be accurately aware of what patient groups may visit clinics and are entitled to scans and treatments. -- Colin°^Talk 18:26, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

A spot-check on five pages in each list shows that trans people are mentioned in pages reviewed in 2019 and 2021, but not in pages reviewed in 2018 and 2020. It is unclear whether that difference is relevant. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:44, 1 January 2022 (UTC)

About the page that says Anyone can get breast cancer. This includes women, men, trans and non-binary people. I wonder why they decided to say that anyone can get breast cancer regardless of gender identity (women, men, trans, non-binary) rather than regardless of sex (female, male, intersex). Cancer is a biological phenomenon. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:00, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

To spell it out more clearly: Under what circumstances might a good editor decide that emphasizing gender identity was more salient than emphasizing sex? They could have stopped at "Anyone". They decided to say "Anyone with any gender identity" – which is technically redundant, but the redundancy emphasizes the "anyone". (Anyone – no, not just those other people, actually anyone, including you!) I wonder if they decided that it was more effective (~better marketing) to mention the technically irrelevant "identity" rather than the less-personal "biology" in this context. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:12, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Cancer does indeed not know what your gender identity is but many cancers are affected by sex hormones which some trans people will alter or block, and surgery may remove or reduce some of the affected body parts. The Cancer Research page above gives some examples (you have to expand some boxes to see all the text). I guess if you are trying to get a message across, you need to use the thing they identify with rather than the thing they may reject. It would be fairly easy to produce some sample posters with alternate wording and do a test afterwards to see if people understood their cancer risk after reading them. -- Colin°^Talk 16:29, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

CDC

• Pregnant and Recently Pregnant People - At Increased Risk for Severe Illness from COVID-19 As the title suggests, it uses "people".
• Covid Date Tracker - Pregnancy Data. Generally refers to "people" who are pregnant.
• COVID-19 Vaccines While Pregnant or Breastfeeding Uses "people" throughout, with one case of "fertility problems in women or men".
• COVID-19 Vaccine Monitoring Systems for Pregnant People. People again. And sub-pages area also like this.
• Flu & Pregnancy. More people getting pregnant.

And dozens more... I searched for '"pregnant people" site:https://www.cdc.gov/', and '"pregnant person" site:https://www.cdc.gov/'. I'm thinking perhaps pages updated in the last two years are written for "pregnant people" not "pregnant women".

We also have articles like this, which starts off with "pregnant people", but then only uses "pregnant women" after the opening bullet points. All the studies they list below that are on pregnant women. Their own data are specifically about pregnant women. So where are they getting these conclusions about pregnant non-women from? Are they just trying to be "inclusive" and assuming it applies the same? Unless I see evidence they ever studied non-women, I'll have to assume that's the case. We are not obligated to parrot the CDC, which is a part of the US government and has been criticized even under the current administration. We follow all MEDRS, and we should be more careful with our wording like they in general are. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:58, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

And there are many, many articles updated in the last two years that use "pregnant women": [12] Crossroads ^-talk- 18:14, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Crossroads, I don't think your search works. And lots of these articles either use "pregnant women" when referring by title to an old article, and many many of them use "pregnant women" when referring to research studies, so they are using the language of the study. When they are writing new material in their own words with their own opinions, the language does seem to have shifted to "people". -- Colin°^Talk 18:58, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Let's not forget "pregnant individuals", a similar phrase that is also quite prominent in some domains. Newimpartial (talk) 19:02, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

many many of them use "pregnant women" when referring to research studies, so they are using the language of the study. What an idea! Now that's a good example to follow. Especially since, uniquely, we write for a site that forbids OR and Synthesis. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:59, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I think we've already discussed guidelines that if one is explicitly referring to someone else's research in-text then it is best to use their language. Many of those CDC pages have lists of research that they summarise. Although we do sometimes refer explicitly to individual studies, that's not principally what Wikipedia is about. -- Colin°^Talk 11:27, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

American Medical Association (AMA)

• What doctors wish patients knew about COVID-19 vaccines and pregnancy. "Pregnant people".
• Andrea Garcia, JD, MPH, on vaccination for pregnant people "Pregnant people".
• Importance of COVID vaccine during pregnancy & breast feeding "pregnant people" and "pregnant individuals".
• COVID-19 vaccines FAQs: Clinical considerations e.g. "What is the ACIP’s position on the vaccination of pregnant or lactating people?"
• AMA on FDA, ACIP actions on COVID-19 vaccine booster doses for adults. This press release is "attributable to: Gerald E. Harmon, M.D. President, American Medical Association". It says "We continue to strongly urge everyone who has not yet been vaccinated against COVID-19 and is eligible, including children aged 5 and older and pregnant people, to get vaccinated as soon as possible" (my bold).
• Report of actions taken by the House of Delegates at its 2021 November 2021 Meeting Points 7 and 8 cover proposed new policies and both refer to pregnant persons or pregnant individuals.

There are others, though not as many as CDC. Although the 2020 AMA Style Guide said nothing about the issue, we have a statement attributable to the president of the AMA clearly referring to "pregnant people". I think that settles any doubt about the AMA's position on whether such language is appropriate for public health messages. -- Colin°^Talk 17:22, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

We are not a public health messaging service, we are an encyclopedia. WEIGHT covers all types of MEDRS, not just public health messaging. This doesn't negate what the AMA Manual of Style says. And what proportion even of AMA documents use "pregnant people" vs. "pregnant women"? We need to know the denominator to avoid cherry-picking. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:45, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I question your deployment of "cherry picking" in this context. Elsewhere on this page, you have identified the relevant principle as, essentially, using language that is both precise and representative of the recent MEDRS on the specific topic in question. If I have understood this correctly, then the statement WEIGHT covers all types of MEDRS, not just public health messaging seems at best tangentially relevant when it comes to the terms we should use in an articles where public health messaging is relevant to the article's topic. Newimpartial (talk) 18:03, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I will also point out a problem with the crude arithmetic implied by, what proportion even of AMA documents use "pregnant people" vs. "pregnant women? - the "proportion" here is irrelevant, since presumably any sourced document will include both terms (in reference list and main text) when dealing with sources where the relevant term is used in its title or in discussing its findings. It would take a higher level of reading than "it uses one in the title but the other more often in the body" to determine which term a source actually prefers, in terms of usage - this is a question calling more for qualitative than quantitative methodology, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 19:20, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Not sure why "qualitative" would be necessary in that case. All that can be accounted for. Crossroads ^-talk- 07:05, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Newimpartial. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:56, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not "cherry picking" nor am I trying to work out any ratios that need a denominator. I'm just looking to see if they are using this phrase. And they are. Crossroads, we are neither a public health message service nor are we an academic journal for health professionals. Neither of them write like we want to, and I'm not aware of anyone here but you who disagrees with that. There are aspects of academic journal writing style we can find useful (e.g., their rigour, hopefully) and there are aspects of public health websites that we can find useful (e.g., written for a general lay audience). But there are aspects that are not useful (e.g. over technical language, healthcare POV in journals, and overly-simplified language in websites). So please lets not just entirely dismiss usage-examples just because the usage isn't from "A collaboratively written free-content encyclopaedia".

Earlier you were arguing that the AMA would forbid using "person" or "people" when referring to a subject associated with the female sex, and yet here we have one example that disproves your theory, and not just from some random individual, but the president of the AMA. I don't think one or a few examples are sufficient to say that the AMA or the CDC are 100% behind "pregnant people" as a language choice, but they absolutely demonstrate they are not against it either. -- Colin°^Talk 19:12, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think you're cherry-picking intentionally, but it can be an unintentional hazard for anyone, especially when looking only for sources that use a certain term. Big organizations can be inconsistent. The AMA MOS seems to be more focused on scientific writing, for which very careful precision could be more important than web pages which are mainly about getting everyone to get vaccinated. Crossroads ^-talk- 07:05, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm not "Cherry picking" intentionally or unintentionally. Everyone is explicitly aware of the search terms and that is was to demonstrate "the existence of something" not "the proportion of something". I agree that AMA MOS will be concerned mostly about their journals and not about the public facing writing or speeches. But we disagree as to whether AMA MOS gives any relevant advice on the matter at hand here. One attribute we are concerned with, especially in writing for a general audience, is writing in a way that does not distract or confuse the reader from the topic at hand. Some may argue that using a gender neutral term would fail that. And yet here we have the AMA and the CDC giving some of the most important public health messages today and they choose to use a term that includes a "miniscule" portion of their audience. I think it is significant they have done that. -- Colin°^Talk 11:39, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

I emphasize that some of the time they use it, in an unclear proportion. It's doubtful that they are concerned about not distracting readers with unusual terms as we are. We have other policies that they don't as well. They likely more heavily weight a very politically charged interpretation of "inclusion" that is common among activists that weights transgender issues higher than concerns from 'cis' women or concerns that centrist or conservative readers could be turned off, regardless of the absolute size of these latter groups. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:56, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

You really think in a public health message to the US they are less concerned with distracting readers than we are? Given the reaction among the right-wing media, I'm thinking that if they had said that when Trump was president, none of them would have their jobs today. -- Colin°^Talk 08:49, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Colin, I assume you didn't hear about the CDC censorship scandal under Trump. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:51, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

I hadn't heard about that. Seems, as is normal with anything these days, there's a storm of protest by people who haven't carefully read the document. But even then, the document that CNN link to is rather odd with its "General word usage". Perhaps I have overstated the right-wing media comment. I did a Google News search for CDC and "pregnant people" and all the news articles were matter-of-fact reporting the CDC advice and it was only on the third page that a "CDC slammed for Covid vaccine announcement telling pregnant PEOPLE to get vaccinated" Daily Mail headline appeared and nothing like that for many pages more. I had assumed the DM was indicative of the reaction on the right in the US. Perhaps your search results may differ, but it seems mostly that this only distracts from the message if activists make a noise about it, and by "activists", I'm not talking about the same group as Crossroads. -- Colin°^Talk 10:09, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Full Fact: Pregnant People covers two UK stories about "banning" words that are nothing of the sort. Why does the smallest consideration of trans inclusion get misinterpreted as a wholescale ban on "women"? Hmm, I searched for "people with prostate cancer" and while there aren't as many results as "men with prostate cancer", it is pretty common. I wonder if nobody notices "people with prostate cancer". Its a hidden organ not associated in our minds with ideas of what it means to be a man. I bet nobody is complaining in the Daily Male about that. I know you can't compare prejudice/attitudes between the two genders. Does anyone complain about "people with cervical cancer". Is it just pregnancy that gets activists worked up? -- Colin°^Talk 10:51, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

This seems somewhat self-contradictory. You say that this term only distracts if activists make a fuss, but at the same time, you also note that efforts in this direction result in a "storm of protest". Well, it's true that emotions run high on this topic. But the fact that some may interpret some proposals as more radical than they are at face value is not a justification for us to do exactly that and expunge "women" from discussions of female-sexed health. I see why people fear a slippery slope, because once someone has accepted the premise that ordinary statements about sex differences have to each "include" gender identity, then the ultimate conclusion of that logic is replacement of any references to men and women with longer cumbersome phrases referencing trans and nonbinary gender identity, and from there, shortening to "people". I see this happening on this page already. Then the result is articles about health matters that overwhelmingly affect women, and that have across all cultures for millennia been a deep-rooted part of what the typical experience of being a woman is, then no longer making any reference to them. It's bizarre, alien writing.

Regarding "people with cervixes", I'll let The Economist explain: It is notable that Cancer Research UK did not test its “inclusive” approach with a male-specific cancer. Its campaign messages about prostate and testicular cancer address “men”, rather than “everyone with a prostate” or “everyone with testicles”. (Addressing “people with a cervix” is, of course, only inclusive of people who know they have a cervix. Many women do not have that detailed knowledge of their internal anatomy. And those who speak English as a second language may well not know the word.)...But the drift towards gender-neutral language (at least when discussing matters that affect women) makes it increasingly hard to articulate all this. How can you describe the maternity penalty as a factor in women’s disadvantage in the workplace, without committing the “essentialist” faux pas of associating women with pregnancy and motherhood? [13] And: This linguistic shift is being driven by both compassion and fear. Compassion, because organisations are keen not to be seen to be excluding those whose sense of their gender does not match their sex, such as people who identify as trans or non-binary. And fear, because they are worried about attracting the wrath of online mobs should they be deemed to have violated a set of rapidly changing taboos about gender and sex that hardly existed five years ago—and which, outside a few rarefied circles, still don’t....Furthermore, understanding could suffer. Medical advice, for instance, has to be clear and intelligible by all. That is why Britain’s National Health Service often prefers words like “stomach ache” to “dyspepsia”, or “heart attack” to “myocardial infarction”. One survey conducted by a cervical-cancer charity suggested that around 40% of women are unsure about the details of what exactly a cervix is. This implies that asking “people with cervixes” to turn up for screening appointments may not be clear or intelligible, especially to women who have English as their second language. [14]

That same article discusses an incident in The Lancet and another regarding the ACLU: “Bodies with vaginas” is an odd way to refer to half the human race. Yet it was the quote that the Lancet, a medical journal, chose to feature on the cover of its latest issue, telling readers that “historically, the anatomy and physiology” of such bodies had been neglected. After complaints about dehumanising language, the Lancet apologised....On September 18th the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) republished a quote from Ruth Bader Ginsburg, a Supreme Court judge, on the anniversary of her death. The quote was a defence of a woman’s right to have an abortion. But the ACLU’s version—for which it, too, later apologised—replaced every instance of “women” with “people”....One reason is that many of the new terms come across as dehumanising. As the Lancet discovered, many people—trans men as much as anyone else—dislike being described as collections of ambulatory body-parts and secretions. More than a whiff of misogyny is in the air.

So, yes, a significant number of people very much find these neologisms or previously extremely rare terms disturbing. This article and many others show that the people who use these terms are overwhelmingly very left-wing, including organizations whose leadership falls under that ideology (yes, this includes the ACLU nowadays, which is a good example of how many groups have shifted in the Trump era and thereafter). It is entirely inappropriate for Wikipedia to endorse that language any more than the sources do, and thus alienate large portions of centrist and conservative readers (and many who are classically left-wing too). We're not ideologues who at best don't care or at worst take pride in doing that. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:57, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

The "storm of protest" comment was directed at twitter commentary on any social issue. I corrected myself actually, as I had assumed there was more protest than there seems to be. Crossroads, you make a lot of comments about the people pushing for these trans-inclusive or gender-neutral terms, but haven't actually cited any actual activists. And yet we have quotes from those who are angry about those terms. Above you quote Sara Ditum, who is a freelance journalist, and you say this is The Economist explain[ing]. It isn't. It is just a guest opinion piece, part of ten invited essays on transgender identities. I think it is interesting that you keep going on about activists and the only activists we have quoted are not the ones you are thinking about. Are these lefty-liberals achieving their aims via telepathy? Or perhaps it is more grassroots than you think, where professional writers and public speakers are self-motivated to try their best to communicate respectfully to all their audience. I'll also repeat that I'm not really interested in having an argument with you or any Wikipedian to try to convince me of the merits of language change. I don't think language change has to be entirely sensible or rational or need to find myself agreeing with those who are offended. I just have to note they exist, try to understand their point of view, and try to respectfully accommodate all our readers. I have repeatedly said that I find some merit in many of the arguments on all sides. I don't think we have found a solution that is ideal or works in all cases. -- Colin°^Talk 10:33, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

When people are advocating language that differs from that of typical or common usage, that in itself is activism. Same if it were womxn or whatever. We have sources on this page above directly doing this advocacy (and I'm not talking about the ones using it without comment, I mean the ones explaining why to do this). This article in The Atlantic notes how in the UK, use of such terminology is largely from the lobbying of the organization Stonewall. Much the same processes are likely at work in the US. I don't think people who run massive organizations and control messaging at such places could ever be described as "grassroots". And they obviously didn't each come up with these ideas independently all at the same time, but are influenced by organizations who purport to represent minority groups. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:43, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Which organization are the "massive" ones? Stonewall, with its ~150 employees, or The Atlantic, which has more than double that? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:56, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

We have one person's opinion that this is "largely from the lobbying of the organization Stonewall". Whether the article by Helen Lewis reflects the views of The Atlantic is not known. They are a staff writer, but many media publishers employ staff with a range of views. I quoted Helen Lewis's article early in this discussion and thought some of her arguments were reasonable and some were silly. Lewis is however quite a controversial figure with strong views about trans issues. Let's just say her writing falls into the "opinion piece" category that Wikipedia wouldn't regard as a reliable source for anything much beyond what the writer thinks or has said, where facts are secondary to the argument being pushed.

Stonewall have been campaigning for trans rights since 2015 and it isn't possible to read their material published for organisations (I guess you have to pay to get it). This webpage answers some questions such as "Does Stonewall’s Workplace Equality Index require organisations to remove the word ‘mother’ from HR policies?". Their answer aligns with the "additive approach" we've seen mentioned in some guides. Workplace policies are more similar to the legal documents we noted elsewhere that are under pressure to be inclusive mainly from the point of view of not leaving people out of things they are entitled to or are prevented from. In the culture war over trans rights (particularly gender self identification in the UK, which Lewis opposes), Stonewall are a player but also a target. A google search "pregnant people" site:https://www.stonewall.org.uk returns no results. I did find Family leave and pay which for example says "The person giving birth to the baby is entitled to the following maternity leave and pay". I think this kind of language is inevitable in legal explanations. I wouldn't expect an organisation that now addresses trans rights to state that any other way. At the bottom of the article, though, they use "pregnant women" twice. So I don't really get the feeling that Stonewall is policing language very strongly here. -- Colin°^Talk 10:35, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I think you're correct about "The person giving birth to the baby is entitled": that would not apply to adoptive mothers, the non-birthing partner in a lesbian couple, etc., even though they are mothers, and it would apply to birth mothers and surrogates, even though they are not always considered mothers. A policy with legal/wages implications needs to be clear so that different managers don't interpret it differently. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:01, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

I can imagine some trans phobic HR refusing to offer maternity pay because "Look mate, it says here in black and white -- 'women' -- and you're not a woman now are you? Your choice. Your problem!" It matters more here to get it right that to worry if the language uses traditional words. -- Colin°^Talk 18:09, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

HR, at least in the US, is primarily about minimizing the risk of being sued. It doesn't even matter if they might win. Their nightmare is not when they deny someone something, but when one manager denies it and another manager approves it. A consistent response regardless of gender, whether that response is approval or denial, minimizes risk. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:59, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

But aren't those who are outspoken in opposition to the conspiracy "organizations who purport to represent minority groups" also activists? If not, what are they? Newimpartial (talk) 09:32, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

This is an erroneous equivalence. Rejecting advocacy is not itself a form of advocacy. If that were so, then WP:NOTADVOCACY would be useless. As I said before: Regarding the 'every wording is political' argument, no, not everything is political in the same way. Wikipedia is not for advocacy, and hence not for wording that is political in a way involving change from how the language is used in reliable sources. We are not part of the vanguard of self-proclaimed "progressive" change efforts, nor would we advocate older language now replaced in reliable sources by newer language. Otherwise you'd have to say that people saying that writers should use womxn and those who say they don't need to are both activists. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:00, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Crossroads, you are just simply wrong on this, and your recent posts quote activists. Angry people who insist others are wrong and should write the same way and think the same way as they do. Conservatism is not a default. -- Colin°^Talk 10:28, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

'I think we should start using X term in articles.' 'No, this term is rare in sources. Using it would be advocacy.' 'Yeah, well, not using it is conservative advocacy, and the people arguing against it are angry and intolerant people.' This is what I am hearing. Quite a catch-22; by this logic we have no choice but to follow every linguistic fad. Not sure why we even have NOTADVOCACY anymore when everyone is deemed an advocate. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:35, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

If 10% of sources are using X term, then why wouldn't the Wikipedia article use it 10% of the time? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:56, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

First off, none of the terms that are contentious here appear in anything close to 10% of the sources. And secondly, this argument applies to other activist neologisms and phrases too, like Latinx and womxn. Should Wikipedia toss a few of those around? Crossroads ^-talk- 04:59, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

none of the terms that are contentious here appear in anything close to 10% of the sources: [dubious–discuss?]

My search at PubMed for review articles during the last five years gives me 333 articles for the exact term "pregnant woman" without the usual gender-neutral terms and 139 that contain a gender-neutral term but not the gender-specific "pregnant woman" (here's the search string, if you want to check yourself: ("pregnant individual" OR "pregnant person" OR "pregnant patient") NOT ("pregnant woman") You will have to add the usual five-year limit and specify reviews in the side bar). That looks like more than 10% of MEDRS-compliant sources are using gender-neutral language.

Also, Latinx and womxn appear in about a thousand articles right now. Why shouldn't we use them, whenever they seem warranted for the subject matter? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:17, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I should probably be addressing meatier questions first, but thought it would be fun to check this out so... The term "patient" isn't a replacement of "woman", and it's also not a term that we would generally use. When I remove that, so that my search string is ("pregnant individual" OR "pregnant person") NOT ("pregnant woman"), I get only 12 results. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 03:40, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

Of those 12, in one article the term "pregnant individual" is used only with a "non-" in front of it, and when the article discusses people who are pregnant it says "pregnant women".[15]. In another article, the abstract refers to its subjects as "pregnant person" once and "the woman" twice.[16] Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:37, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think this is an ideal way of discovering usage or rationale for usage in articles. Firstly, while I agree "patient" isn't necessarily being substituted for "women" for gender-neutral reasons, it might be (per JMWH editorial). As with other debates about language usage, we can't spot when someone would have used a term but chose not to, nor can determine why they used or didn't use a phrase. We can't know if they take the "talk about the organs and disease rather than the person" approach. The search tool has quirks. For example "men with prostate" finds no matches for that exact phrase, but the first inexact match returned has exactly that phrase. It seems "with" is removed. Searching "men prostate" finds that paper but also finds "... the second most commonly diagnosed cancer among men. Prostate cancer develops in..." But the biggest problem is that it can only search titles, keywords and abstracts. For example, Abortion with pills doesn't turn up in WAID's search, because the abstract doesn't use that phrase, yet the body does. Further the body uses "person/people" in other ways while clearly talking about a pregnant person or someone seeking an abortion, so worrying about "pregnant person" appearing together only finds some of the ways that women->people can be substituted for gender neutral reasons. And we know that many articles will use the gender neutral approach for most of the text, but have to occasionally write "pregnant women" at times.

I think that comparing the size of search results is rarely wise for determining what language Wikipedia should use. It has only limited value. We can see that this phrase is used but probably not widely. Who decided we can only use words if 51% of PubMed abstracts use them? Really, let's not participate in this nonsense. Coming back to what I think Clayoquot said a while ago. There are reasonable professional people writing "pregnant women" and there are reasonable professional people taking alternative approaches like "pregnant person". There are valid published arguments for and against each of those. I think we have spotted some trends about where the gender neutral approach has been more accepted/successful and areas where it doesn't seem to be used at all. For example, nobody has found a public health website who's pregnancy pages are entirely gender neutral. I think this should tell us that the gender neutral approach shouldn't be forbidden on Wikipedia but is likely to only be accepted in certain places. -- Colin°^Talk 10:15, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

If it is mentioned in MEDMOS as not forbidden, people will try to force it in anywhere and everywhere.

Might it not be relevant in what proportions reasonable professional people decide to use one phrase over another? I mean, if it were, say, only 1% of them, should that not impact our decisions? They are the experts after all, the ones who can best evaluate the arguments. I also see no reason to think abstracts as a group are not representative of articles as a group, phrasing-wise.

WhatamIdoing, Latinx is disliked by seemingly a majority of those to whom it is intended to refer, and womxn has well-documented issues of its own. We do not need these terms when "Latino" and "women" exist. If "womxn" is not too absurd a neologism for you, I really do wonder where you do draw the line. Crossroads ^-talk- 07:16, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Speaking of "a majority of those to whom it is intended to refer" requires understanding the nuances of that large and heterogenous group of people. The different words have different meanings (e.g., Brazilians can't be Hispanic but they can be Latinos). Latinx tends to be preferred by young people born in the US whose families are historically connected to Latin America. The immigrants themselves generally want to identify as being from their specific country. These are people who are from Argentina or Brazil or Colombia specifically, and not just from some undifferentiate spot in Latin America. Note, too, that I'm not saying that these terms should be used; I'm saying that they are used in Wikipedia articles.

I don't think that it is a good idea to write advice from the viewpoint of fear. We should not be afraid to say that it's not forbidden out of fear that people will try to force it in anywhere and everywhere.

Firstly, aren't a few people trying that now? I was looking through the history of Premenstrual syndrome yesterday, and it appears that someone has been trying to remove the word women from all medical-related statements in that article, off and on, for more than five years. The problem there isn't the attempt at gender-neutrality per se; the problem is that this person is screwing up the math. "80% of women report symptoms" is not the same as "80% of individuals report symptoms". "80% of individuals" would involve every person, male, female, and intersex, on the planet over the age of 13, and the billions of "individuals" who don't have ovaries should not be reporting any menstrual symptoms. So if we say that it's not banned, that should have no real effect on what people are trying to do, because they're already trying to do it.

Secondly, isn't it true? It's currently not banned. There's no rule that says you have to repeat sex-specific or gender-specific terms in every possible sentence. The occasional variation from "women who have symptoms" to "those who have symptoms" or "individuals who have symptoms" might even be an indication of the Wikipedia:Brilliant Prose that our best articles use.

I think the more likely "problem" is that editors will have to discuss and negotiate and compromise, instead of reverting. It would be harder to justify reverting a change from "woman" to "person" in a single sentence when there is a guideline telling the truth, which is that at least the occasional use of a gender-neutral word is not banned. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:28, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't know of any WP article where Latinx, let alone womxn, is used, except to discuss the word itself or as part of a quote. Do you really think if some editor decided to rewrite an article to speak of "womxn" even when the underlying sources don't use it, that's just a valid style choice that we don't have grounds to revert?

This has nothing to do with "fear". It is a realistic consequence. If MEDMOS adds text permitting such phrasings, more editors who strongly prefer it and believe using it is vital for social justice will try to insert it. Do you deny this?

Of course a few people are trying it anyway. People will try anything. However, people can see that articles aren't doing it now, and they don't see MEDMOS permitting it; if that changes, we would naturally expect to see a lot more of such changes. Of course specifically permitting it in MEDMOS will increase it. Your logic is like saying that it doesn't matter if we forbid original research because people will try it anyway.

Not currently banned? Per the consensus at the WP:Village Pump, 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. I also don't believe treating "women" like a dirty word we should avoid as much as possible is in any way "brilliant", natural, or WP:PLAINENGLISH.

More "discussion" over this would be a massive waste of time as editors wrangle over how much to expunge "women" at article after article, and again and again as new editors pass by and try to change the proportion. Any such addition to MEDMOS permitting such disputes would be a bad idea. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:43, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Latinx is used in Jopwell, The Garden Left Behind, Jeanine Cummins, Henry R. Muñoz III, Lily Anderson, The Linda Lindas, Aiden Thomas (author), and more.

In this and (many) other comments, you seem to be worried about complete and total removal of the word woman ("expunge 'women' at article after article"). This contrasts with my sentence about an "occasional" sentence, or not needing "to repeat sex-specific or gender-specific terms in every possible sentence". Do you believe that it is necessary to use the word woman as much as possible, or just to use it (e.g., to use it in a majority of sentences, but not absolutely every single possible sentence)? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:06, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't accept that RFC has banned gender neutral language in human sex-specific articles. The summary by xaosflux goes rather beyond the question asked and doesn't, as I have explained many times in this discussion, stand up to scrutiny. It vaguely handwavy kinda sounds like it is a reasonable position, and it appears to solve the problem the proposal asked for (that such article should be entirely gender neutral) but it really isn't true.

Some examples: analgesic/pain, febrile/high temperature, rhinorrhea/runny nose, nasal congestion/blocked nose, hypertension/high blood pressure, patient/person, convulsion/vigorous shaking. Those are all medical terminology we choose not to use. Consider the disputed lead of Pregnancy, which says "the time during which one or more offspring develops inside a woman". No, the problem isn't "woman/person". The term "offspring" is absent from either cited source (one says "a new individual" and the other says "fetus" even though that term strictly doesn't apply for the first 8 weeks). I've never heard anyone use the term "offspring" to refer to contents of their pregnant belly or their children, other than in jest. The last time I recall using that word was singing Hark! The Herald Angels Sing (a song not notable for its modern terminology). The word was added to the lead in 2007 and remains undisputed since. How very odd. None of our medical or lay sources use "offspring". I searched NHS and found one article which explains that the word foetus means offspring (note the correct spelling, folks). I googled offspring and, well, after pages and pages, I gave up trying to find any link related to pregnancy or children. Crossroads, the word choices in our medical articles are not dependent on our sources, nor on lay-focused health information articles, nor it seems at times on everyday language in the 21st century. Wikipedia's pregnancy lead sentence has, since 2007, been proudly ploughing its own furrow wrt the terminology for the little human form developing in a pregnancy.

You know the saying, ask a stupid question, get a stupid answer. Making an extreme proposal and then worshiping the 16 votes as though they were oracles isn't a good foundation for an argument. It isn't a substitute for a thoughtful analysis of the issue, as WAID has tried to do here. The biggest problem that such politically loaded topics have is that if you start with a naive RFC then all you get is that the politically active editors will vote and try to justify their vote with whatever comes to mind. We saw that with an RFC about covid origins, where a weird meme took hold that MEDRS was only about medical advice. It suited people's argument that this might be true, but it isn't. This is why, Crossroads, I think the best way out of this mess is to firstly stop just saying "Those who disagree with me are advocates and should leave now" and secondly to distance this from being an argument between editor's own political positions. Which is why I've tried to discover what other people think and do.

There's another quote: "Someone once said that for every problem there is a solution that is simple, attractive ... and wrong". I think that sort of sums up a comparison between that RFC and its closing remarks, and any serious examination of what words we should choose in our biomedical articles. -- Colin°^Talk 14:46, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, the point is that people should not be removing "women" based on their personal belief that articles on female anatomy should mention them as little as possible. It isn't what the undelying sources do, and it creates awkward wording to try to write around it. Permitting it in MEDMOS means they will do it.

Colin, words that mean essentially the same thing are not valid comparisons to replacing "women" with the much broader and extremely politically charged "people". I don't agree that trivial things like saying "offspring" mean that we can write in any style we want, regardless of what sources or language speakers typically do.

Dismissing the RfC as politically active editors really needs no response from me. Your own arguments on this page even make political points, such as under #Effective communication about pregnancy, birth, lactation, breastfeeding and newborn care: the importance of sexed language, where you equate certain wording to using "he" to describe women, and this very section, where you describe certain wording as "conservative". Crossroads ^-talk- 05:50, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Crossroads, if you think the word we use to describe an embryo, foetus or unborn child are "trivial" then clearly you have't been paying any attention to the abortion debate. But really you are missing the point. You keep claiming that we must follow the terminology of our sources, and that RFC closer thought that also was a solution to their problem. We don't and it isn't. These are actual hard facts, Crossroads, not something you and I can have opinions about and choose to disagree on. You are simply wrong that we must follow the terminology of our sources, since we actually don't, and it seems that even providing an example that is not used by any of our sources, of terminology that is not used by experts or in lay-focused writing, can't convince you that this particular approach to solving the problem of what words to pick isn't founded in reality.

I don't know what you aren't getting about the "he" comparison. You know, I really have read a preface explained that the author would use sexist "he" to refer to "people" and that he found using gender neutral terminology awkward and intrusitve and so the reader just had to accept it. This is absolutely identical to NICE saying they are going to use gender-specific terminology to describe sex-specific matters, and the reader is just going to have to accept that. But you know that I also note that the solution to sexist language was easier than finding any solution to trans-exclusionary language. I don't think my description of certain approaches as "conservative" is in any way controversial or is a political point on my behalf. -- Colin°^Talk 10:17, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I never defended the use of "offspring" in that sentence, just that it doesn't bear on us here as much as you think. I think what you describe as "actual hard facts" contains a great deal of opinion. "That we must follow the terminology of our sources" is an oversimplified version of my position; it isn't that I demand this as a principle for every word choice ever, but rather that what sources do in practice is highly illuminating, since they are the experts and more qualified than us to pick wording, and that this is the way to avoid original research when different wordings mean different things.

As I asked you above and which you haven't really answered, "Might it not be relevant in what proportions reasonable professional people decide to use one phrase over another? I mean, if it were, say, only 1% of them, should that not impact our decisions? They are the experts after all, the ones who can best evaluate the arguments."

I see little valid comparison between cutting out one-half of the population, an entire sex, by using "he", and using "men" or "women" without needing to account for a small minority of people with gender dysphoria. Additionally, the former is very rare in recent RS, and the latter remains extremely common. The common language operates similarly, per dictionaries. The two are not "identical" at all. I also don't appreciate the continued politically charged framing of this as "trans-exclusionary", when there are other ways to include trans people without removing mention of men and women from their own sexes, such as by specialized sections and articles (like transgender pregnancy). Crossroads ^-talk- 06:36, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Crossroads, we agree in practice nobody on Wikipedia is required to follow the terminology of our sources for all word choices and we agree they influence us. It is just that when people make different word choices to you, and you want to revert them, you yell STICKTOSOURCES at them. Do you not think it is unreasonable that this fictitious word-choice policy coincidentally applies only when convenient to your case?

I've made many observations that professional writers do or don't seem to be following certain approaches to this matter. And I think we can learn from that, about what works and what is likely to be accepted. That an approach is uncommon or common is influential to some degree. I'm not really interested in trying to come up with some algorithm, as so many MOS discussions appear to do. We share some values with the the articles and publications we've examined, but we also have different values. Some of those values are rooted in the kind of publication we are (for the general reader, neutral, etc) and some may reflect the values of Wikipedians. For example, every one of us has decided to contribute to a free content project with our writing and photographs, etc. In contrast, most of our sources and most health information websites are fully protected by copyright, and some require payment to read. Unlike any of the journal articles we agree we don't own the work and accept our own edits will themselves be mercilessly edited. Crossroads, I don't think taking a "strictly follow the experts" / "strictly ignore the experts" line is helpful, and I've seen enough MOS discussions to know that the same editor will pick whichever of these lines helps their case. That tells me really that the editor has an opinion and is just clutching at whatever rationale they think they can get away with, rather than starting with some fundamentals and exploring how that might shape our opinions. -- Colin°^Talk 14:15, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that anything "coincidentally applies only when convenient to [my] case". What I do think is that other cases of not wording things like the sources do are of little to no relevance, because those alternatives are (1) the same in essential meaning and (2) no different in sociopolitical salience. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:16, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

Do you check your claims before you make them? The word "patient" is not the same essential meaning as "people with X". The word for an unborn child very much has sociopolitical salience. I'm sure I can find other examples. The defining feature of when you don't shout STICKTOSOURCES is that you personally are ok with the word choice. Nothing more. -- Colin°^Talk 08:32, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

The matter of unborn children hasn't really come up before. But suppose we imagine a parallel universe where Catholic values hold as much sway in the media and academia as "American Progressive" values do in ours. And there, a small minority of outlets and papers began to argue that all references to human embryos, zygotes, and so on should instead be "embryo children" or otherwise emphasize "child" because of what proponents see as the essential humanity of these entities, as part of their belief that abortion is murder. Would you then argue that it's okay for Wikipedia to permit these terms? I'd say that we should stick to what the sources in general were saying. That ideologues dislike it is not relevant. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:33, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I've no idea why you think a parallel universe is required. The first sentence of abortion has a note about terminology at the end of it, and the talk pages have plenty discussion about "unborn child" vs "embryo or fetus". How pregnancy ended up with the entirely unsourced "offspring" I don't know. But I do know it is a fine example of editors freely choosing language that doesn't appear in the source, and happily ignoring Google ngram when writing sentences. -- Colin°^Talk 10:09, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to go back to this bit: people should not be removing "women" based on their personal belief that articles on female anatomy should mention them as little as possible

Let's imagine that an article uses the word woman more than 100 times, and you edit it to make one of those sentences gender-neutral, somewhere in the middle (and definitely not the first sentence). Let's imagine, too – although I realize this is not the least bit realistic – that all the reviewing editors realize that they can't read minds, so they refuse to believe that they know this edit was based on your personal or political belief about mentioning women as little as possible (rather than, e.g., your personal belief about what reads smoothly in the specific sentence, or what supports parallel construction, or because you noticed that the specific source that someone else cited happens to use the word patients or mothers or females instead of women).

Is removing less than 1% of the gender-specific words from the article okay? Or is that edit wrong because we need to avoid gender neutrality 100% of the time, rather than only 99% of the time? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:14, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Where has anyone here said anything close to "I think we should start using X term in articles". We have examined what would happen if X was used (even just once), but I don't think anyone here has proposed we "should" use anything. I don't think using it or not using is advocacy of any kind but as WAID notes in the "All of the language options are politically charged" paragraph, some readers may interpret a political stand, if they are a politically minded sort of person. Many will not. I have already noted that even the Daily Mail are happy to use "pregnant people" in their own voice, very likely because they didn't spot it when copy/paste from CDC. But someone can use any of these forms naturally (like Kate Middleton very likely did) without any conscious position. I think you are confusing advocacy with values. We can see here all sorts of competing values. Some will give a high value to easy language. Some will value precision. Some will value including stigmatised minority groups. Some will value keeping things simple. Some are concerned with emphasising the person. Some are concerned with (mal)functioning body parts. Some are conscious of women being forgotten (erased). Some are conscious of trans people being forgotten (don't even exist, perhaps). And so on. Most of us here will have most of those values but to varying degrees, and in fact the consequence may be that some languages choices might be ok at X but not at Y or in the body text but not the lead and so on. You seem to want to make this an all or nothing issue, where giving an inch compels us to "follow every linguistic fad". I think instead that editors are humans in a world undergoing change, and I'd expect Wikipedia to reflect that change more or less. Not everything has to be ruled on by MOS. I don't think that when the NHS, cancer charities or US CDC are referring to "pregnant people" or make an effort to add a paragraph or page discussing trans men or women, they are engaging in advocacy. They may well have listened to advocates on both sides. But then come to a decision and try to write in the best way they can for their audience. Surely that's what we should do to. Your best way might be different from mine. -- Colin°^Talk 18:41, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the term "pregnant people" and other ways of obviously avoiding saying "women" where people normally would stick out to me like a sore thumb and are very distracting. Examples have been given elsewhere on this page of how controversial some of these terms have been. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:59, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Crossroads, you keep forgetting that when you remind us "how controversial some of these terms have been" you asking us to pay special heed to those language advocates you agree with. We are all aware that it is difficult to please everyone. I would suggest you are particularly sensitive to this issue, so your own view on what sticks out like a sore thumb isn't really valuable to us determining what our readers may think. I have already mentioned evidence that even media publications that are editorially hostile to such language, can both use it themselves and report people using it (Kate Middleton) without raising even an eyebrow. -- Colin°^Talk 11:51, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't know whom your STRAWMAN every wording is political argument is intended to address, but that isn't what I'm saying - but at least that's another square in fallacy bingo :p. Active opposition to linguistic change can be, and often is, activist in orientation, as is your insistence that "pregnant people" is a controversial neologism and that "assigned female at birth" is a euphemism. There is a difference between using terms and being an activist for specific terminology, and the difference is not based on whether one prefers old or new language - at least, not in most cases. Newimpartial (talk) 23:52, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

In addition to the linked sources above, the term "pregnant individuals" appears on ~25 pages. "Pregnant women" is used on about 600 pages vs "pregnant people" on about 30; about 10 pages use both. That's less overlap than I expected. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:46, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

UK Government

• Get help from Maternity Allowance. "It is paid to: Pregnant people or People who have recently given birth". This is the "easy read" version. The standard version uses second-person.
• Coronavirus: Health Protection (Coronavirus, Restrictions) (England) Regulations 2020 effective from 13.00 on 26 March 2020 – 3 July 2020 A web page that I suspect Boris Johnson has had need to re-read recently. It has "pregnant people".

These are just two of many examples I browsed and what struck me was how many concerned legislation. If you read the earlier-posted midwife article, you'll know "The 1902 Midwifery Act prohibited uncertified women from working in the role, but because it assumed the job was only ever carried out by women it took a 1926 law to close the loophole and exclude unqualified men too." So possibly those writing legal documents are adopting "pregnant people" in order that it covers all possibilities. -- Colin°^Talk 15:59, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

This was something that struck me in looking for old uses of the term pregnant person. Many of them were quite formal in tone, and many of them were either legal or medical in nature. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:23, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

For clarity: In newer sources, there are ciswomen casually identifying themselves as being pregnant people. But in the older ones, it was mostly some sort of formal context, usually speaking in general, rather than about a specific individual human. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:55, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

Consistency

On the other side of this page, Clayoquot asked:

Should each article use consistent terminology throughout? What are good reasons for terminology to be inconsistent within an article? (Examples of real-world works that use a mixture of gender-inclusive and single-gender terms within a single short article: UNFPA, CDC)

Something I noticed when looking at the professional examples was how inconsistent they often were. I think this may reflect that what we are talking about is not really "terminology" outside of a discussion of language used for gender and sex in medical articles. At pregnancy, the terminology is "gestation", "live birth", "last menstrual period", "spontaneous miscarriage", "induced abortion", and so on. There's even a section on "Terminology". These are the specialist terms for that topic which require accurate definition and consistent use. Per my earlier epilepsy example, the reader would be confused if some of an article said "focal seizure" and the next paragraph said "partial seizure" about the same thing. On the other hand, we might substitute difficult terminology with a lay-reader-friendly equivalent at times, such as the lead. But the words "woman", "person", "individual" are everyday words that don't meet a dictionary definition of terminology. They can sometimes be very import, such as we have seen with the writing of laws, but these components aren't what we are teaching the reader or words that only experts use. Typically, reader won't be paying any attention to them. I wonder they if that is why these articles get away with being inconsistent.

On a practical level, we have seen times where it may be necessary to write "women" because that is what the data is for, so any writer taking a "pregnant people" approach would have to compromise. And we haven't found a convenient alternative word for the person who can become pregnant. -- Colin°^Talk 16:15, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

I have wondered whether articles about women's health issues could use a mix of language (for general statements, not for statistics that only apply to a specific group). For example, Breast cancer contains a sentence that says "Multidisciplinary rehabilitation programmes, often including exercise, education and psychological help, may produce short-term improvements in functional ability, psychosocial adjustment and social participation in _____ with breast cancer." Does it really matter whether we put women, people, patients, or survivors into the blank? I think it probably doesn't. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:37, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Bamboozle the reader with long sentences, and they are just glad when it finishes :-). You could put those in the blank too, and that somehow doesn't seem as explicitly neutral. -- Colin°^Talk 20:12, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Aren't "patients" and "survivors" already discouraged by existing guidelines? I don't think this example is particularly useful for handling trans issues, since cis men can get breast cancer too. The article says "people" there probably for that reason. And, in fact, there is an article dedicated to that: male breast cancer. Meanwhile, the main article is overwhelmingly about women. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:24, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

While "person" is an everyday word, "pregnant person" is not, and will stick out quite a bit to many, because it is clear what is being avoided. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:24, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Context

Above, Clayoquot asked about the "people with body part" approach, and WAID and I thought there were situations where that language would be fine, even necessary. And continuing the thoughts about all the different values we are trying to weigh up and that each of us bring when editing/discussing, I thought it could be worth considering how much the context affects the values. For example, consider the following parts of an article

1. The lead sentence.
2. The initial part of the lead paragraph that a smart device reads out.
3. The lead paragraph.
4. The rest of the lead.
5. The body text.
6. A specific paragraph/section dealing with trans/non-binary issues.

And then we also have different kinds of articles

1. A topic that people closely align with traditional ideas of womenhood, such as pregnancy or breast feeding.
2. A topic that is sex-related but in a less emotional way, such as cervical cancer or prostate cancer.
3. A topic unrelated but that mentions something related to sex, such as pregnant women/people and covid vaccination or infection.
4. A topic focused on transgender or nonbinary medical issues.

For example, at Transgender pregnancy, it says "Non-binary people with a functioning vagina, ovaries and uterus can give birth." I would not expect that language in the lead sentence of Pregnancy any time soon. Although we have seen public announcements from the CDC about "pregnant people" and covid, the CDC's information pages about pregnancy tend to use "women". On the NHS pages, they write "Anyone with a womb can get womb cancer, this includes trans men and non-binary people with a womb. It usually happens after menopause, in people over the age 40." but the NHS currently mostly uses "women" when dealing with women's reproductive health issues. While some things we have discussed, such as OR and V, don't change contextually, the values we might emphasise likely change depending on where we are writing. I would fully expect articles and sections on transgender/nonbinary issues to use language more sympathetic to that population group. I would expect resistance to that approach in the lead of a topic women would identify with. In between, following the examples from CDC/NHS, it may be more acceptable to use e.g. gender neutral / people with an X / adding-trans/nonbinary approaches when dealing with the sex related aspects of topics such as cancers and infections. -- Colin°^Talk 17:45, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Let's begin with the important part: The trans pregnancy article is wrong. You don't need a functioning vagina to give birth (by C-section). Or even to get pregnant, as surprising as that may sound, although AFAIK the rate of spontaneous pregnancy among female humans with complete vaginal agenesis stands at exactly one ever. I'm not entirely sure that ovaries are necessary either, especially in the second half of pregnancy when the placenta produces most of the necessary hormones. (Only one ovary is ever necessary.) The uterus, however, is not optional.

On to the other parts:

• I agree that context matters. A strictly gender-neutral approach to a heavily gendered subject is not appropriate; using cisgendered language for any trans-specific content is not appropriate.
• Not matter what the dispute is, the pressure is always the highest on the first sentence of the article.
• I think that "what sources support" and "what editors will tolerate" are different. As a practical matter, the second is necessary.
• I'm not sure that absolute consistency throughout an article is necessary.
• We may need to educate editors about the multiple meanings of some common words (like mother, which can mean human who gave birth, but can also mean other things, such as an egg donor, a woman who raises a child, etc.). We may need to advise editors that writing what is meant, using plain English (regardless of whether that plain English is "familiar" or "unfamiliar"), is not a NOR violation.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:46, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Btw, I don't think the sentence in the trans pregnancy article is "wrong". It is technically true. It didn't say "Only..." or that these people "must have a .." The "functioning" (or present) aspects are overly restrictive in that there are rare exceptions, but then part of the reason we are having this discussion is that "women" is viewed by some as over restrictive and neglects rare exceptions. The sentence isn't actually support by its source, which doesn't address non-binary except to note the rarity of literature about that group, and the assumption they are asexual. -- Colin°^Talk 12:34, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "unfamiliar plain English". The only way to write "what is meant" is to WP:STICKTOSOURCE. If editors are adding reference to trans people that is not in the source, they are adding unsourced claims that can be challenged as OR and removed. Editors who misrepresenting sources and persist in that can be and have been topic-banned for disregarding MEDRS and policies. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:38, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Sources on sex-related aspects of cancers and infections overwhelmingly refer to "men" and "women" all the same. Those articles too need to be clear and not off-putting to the vast majority of people.

For example, as quoted above: Addressing “people with a cervix” is, of course, only inclusive of people who know they have a cervix. Many women do not have that detailed knowledge of their internal anatomy. And those who speak English as a second language may well not know the word. [17] And: One survey conducted by a cervical-cancer charity suggested that around 40% of women are unsure about the details of what exactly a cervix is. This implies that asking “people with cervixes” to turn up for screening appointments may not be clear or intelligible, especially to women who have English as their second language. [18] The same applies to many parts of sex-specific anatomy. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:38, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Can't you find any better sources than some magazine article getting upset about a single tweet? At Cancer Research UK: Cervical cancer it says "Cervical cancer is when abnormal cells in the lining of the cervix grow in an uncontrolled way. The cervix is part of the female reproductive system. It is the opening to the vagina from the womb." This not only addresses the body-ignorance problem, but doesn't say "women". Most of their pages on cervical cancer occasionally mention "women" but their screening page does also say "Cervical screening is also for anyone within this age range who has a cervix, such as trans men and non-binary people" and links to I’m trans or non-binary, does this affect my cancer screening?. I'd really rather discuss health information pages that are in some way similar to Wikipedia's mission, and professionals thoughts on medical writing, rather than a tweet and a opinion piece in a conservative-right political magazine. -- Colin°^Talk 12:08, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Further, nobody here has recommended "people with a cervix" as a general approach, nor do any professional guidelines nor professional writing for lay people substitute "people with a cervix" for "women". Yes, some misguided people have tried to insert this language into the lead of pregnancy, or tweeted it, or other brain farts, but essentially this is a strawman for conservative writers to attack. And they attack it dumbly. The above survey (limited details here) only tells us 44% of the female participants didn't know the cervix was the neck of the womb. The charity goes on to say "One in six could also not name a single function of the cervix", which suggests five in six could name at least one function of the cervix. It is entirely unknown what percentage of grown women are unaware that they have one. I'm quite sure you would get similar figures if you asked people to name all the functions of the liver, where it was and what it was connected to. Yet I doubt very much that anyone would assume from that that people didn't know they had one. Really, this is one foolish writer being paid to rant about other foolish writers. It is a waste of our time, unless one is particularly fascinated by foolish people. -- Colin°^Talk 15:03, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Colin, I don't think it's helpful to say that "people with a cervix" is a strawman. It's real life and it's been draining a lot of the fun out of editing articles on women's health topics, which are already dismally underdeveloped. A lot of it comes from students who are here not to brain fart but to do university assignments. You might recall the editor who wanted to change "breast milk" to "human milk", thinking it would be more inclusive because some people are unhappy that they that have breasts. This editor thought this would get them marks. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:40, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Clayoquot, by "other brain farts", I was thinking of the Lancet front page. It seems like a strawman in this discussion where I've been particularly focusing on external content. The only recommendation I've seen to consider such language is the article I only just added below, where the author mocks it themselves. If that guideline author thinks it would likely provoke "amusement", that really isn't selling it to anyone for the lead sentence of pregnancy. Outside of reverted edits, tweets that require apologies, and provocative journal covers, is "people with a body part" being actively pushed as a generally approach or seriously used by anyone authoritative or professional? Both the Cancer UK tweet and the Lancet cover are remarkable for the brevity of the seed remark and the verbosity of the opinion columns about them. In both cases, authors are free to invent what isn't there. For example, that the Lancet is no longer saying "women". Or comparing Cancer UK's online campaign about male-specific cancer to a single tweet on cervical cancer which isn't at all representative of their extensive online material on female-specific cancers. From this tweet alone, the author is concerned some readers might not know they have a cervix, citing a study that doesn't in fact support their argument at all. Crossroads cites this as though it is relevant to Wikipedia. The only place we have so far considered that such language might be appropriate is in the trans section of cervical cancer, or perhaps a section describing at-risk groups. It is mind-bogglingly hard to imagine that our reader might get to that part in the cervical cancer article and not know what the cervix is. That's why I attacked this as a strawman.

But you are right that editors are making such edits, and perhaps they are not always easily swatted away without heart-sinking discussions, and some of them are encouraged to do by class assignments. Would it be helpful if you (and Crossroads and WAID) could give some examples (in a new section) and also link the class assignment pages? I know it is hard to search for reverted edits. Perhaps I'm too optimistic, but I wonder if a positive and informative page would be useful for such people who are typically newbies, vs just hitting them over the head with WP:UPPERCASE that don't actually say what it is assumed they say. And as you note elsewhere on newbie retention, I wonder if this is more likely to make them stick around, than to think Wikipedia is full of shouty transphobes where they never want to edit again. Somewhere where they learn we appreciate and are trying to understand their concerns, but need to balance them against competing concerns, rather than just call them advocates and show them the door. -- Colin°^Talk 20:49, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm relieved to see agreement around the idea that a strictly gender-neutral approach to a heavily gendered subject is not appropriate. As we discussed earlier, a section within an article such as Breastfeeding to address specific populations such as LBGTQ+ would be appropriate. For #2 and #3 I'd be interested in seeing how this would look, if someone is willing to draft some examples. W.r.t. these four categories, I'm wondering how we'd place the very large number of articles that talk about sex/gender differences in terms of simply men/women and boys/girls, e.g. articles that describe differences in developmental milestones for boys/girls, or differences in COVID mortality for men/women. I'd hope that we keep the men/women and boy/girl language when that's what the sources use. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:06, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

"Transgender language reform" by Lal Zimman

• Transgender language reform: some challenges and strategies for promoting trans-affirming, gender-inclusive language by Lal Zimman

I came across this academic paper, which I think has some value to our discussion. The author is Lal Zimman, who is trans and an academic on linguistics, specifically running a "Trans Research in Linguistics Lab". I guess if Zimman edited the lead of Pregnancy, it would be not be unfair to describe him as a language reform advocate! Here are some points I noticed.

• Although there are relatively few words that indicate gender (third-person singular pronouns: he, her. Nouns: man, female, girl) they "are high in frequency; it is unusual for a person not to be gendered if they are to play any kind of significant role in a speaker’s discourse. We have seen this in websites (NHS, CDC) that use second-person, or the midwifery articles that use "pregnant people", that eventually you come unstuck and have to say "women".
• Words that can be used to refer to a person of any gender, such as person, human or individual, arguably carry their own gendered implications specifically because they refuse to specify their referent’s gender. In the Context section above, there are areas where this approach varies in the degree it is noticed and surprises or is expected by readers.
• Sometimes the gender is presupposed and not being asserted in a sentence. For example, if one asked "Is she is a professor?" or stated "He is a great footballer", the gender of the subject isn't being questioned or claimed. At Pregnancy, "the woman's last menstrual period", "if the woman has been pregnant before", "A woman is considered to be in labour when she begins experiencing regular uterine contractions" are all focused on something other than the gender identify of the subject.
• "At times, the gender neutral option may feel clunky or unnatural..., the perception of speech as sounding natural, articulate or aesthetically pleasing derives from a long history of socially informed norms of use." This kind of opposition to a language form is common, with its own long history of use wrt alternatives to sexist, racist, homophobic and words other minority groups find offensive. Typically it is employed by someone outside of those groups and is I think the weakest argument. As Hofstadter noted above, "sexist English" was his native language. Earlier the author notes "when I speak about you I am not just representing my own point of view; I also bear some form of responsibility towards you when it comes to the way I represent you linguistically." and here they mean respecting how the subject or reader wishes to be represented linguistically, and not focused entirely one one's own views about language or how one was taught as a child.
• Section 4 of the article is particularly relevant to our discussion, dealing with situations when gender or sex are relevant. Zimman gives three examples (the last of which concerns cervical cancer screenings), and discusses the effect of the word women in each. This perhaps is relevant to our ideas of whether or not it is OR to change that word, but also whether the sentence is indeed factually correct and complete. Zimman gives two strategies for dealing with this. The first is to "hedge all generalisations about gender" and I think that relates to our discussion about our several Mothers/guilty/Haemophilia phrases. Precision is not always necessary and being less precise gives one flexibility. The second approach, awkwardly for me, advocates using extremely precise language about the people-group you are discussing. So "women" in the three examples is replaced by "People assigned female at birth" or "people who are perceived as women" or "Everyone with a cervix" (wrt cervical cancer screening). Zimman says "To the uninitiated, these phrases can seem wordy, complex or even amusing (particularly in the case of [the last example])", so I think Zimman does accept that this approach would be ridiculous if attempted generally without regard to context. But we can see from some of the academic guidelines that authors of papers and conductors of studies are being asked to be much more precise about their people groups, and to avoid just dividing everyone into "women" and "men" and thinking that assumption is good enough. I can see all three phrases being used on Wikipedia when precision is highly valued in that context. And we have seen such language used on public health websites, specifically in the sections or pages dealing with trans + medical issues (coincidentally also on cancer screening and risk). In the right context, it can be appropriate. In the wrong context, likely unacceptable.

-- Colin°^Talk 18:28, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

Effective communication about pregnancy, birth, lactation, breastfeeding and newborn care: the importance of sexed language

• Effective communication about pregnancy, birth, lactation, breastfeeding and newborn care: the importance of sexed language Frontiers in Global Women’s Health. (provisional version). -- Colin°^Talk 11:44, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

First thoughts are that it is a shame this provisional version lacks sources (170 of them) as it would be good to investigate those. I am a little suspicious when I saw opinions worded similarly to those we have seen already and wonder if the "source" for this claim is merely an opinion piece in The Economist or Daily Mail, rather than something serious. The paper seems to be essentially, "We think de-sexed language is a bad thing, and here's all the reasons why" rather than something balanced where perhaps some of the authors represented trans groups. Which is fine, but has to be viewed as an opinion piece by a bunch of like-minded friends, rather than some authoritative work of a committee examining all sides.

They conclude with a bunch of questions but little in the way of practical advice (though there are some referenced supplements which are currently absent). For example, they say to be clear when referring to sex vs gender, but already admit that different people view "woman" as "adult female" or "adult who identifies as a 'woman'". So can I used that word or not and still be "clear"? They cite an approach by NICE with a disclaimer "The guideline uses the terms 'woman' or 'mother' throughout. These should be taken to include people who do not identify as women but are pregnant or have given birth". And their own paper declares that they pick the first (sex) definition. Requiring all writing to include such a declaration is hardly practical and I don't find that much different to "This book will use "he" and "him" to refer to individuals of both genders. Women should, you know, just deal with it and stop moaning". Aside from these declarations, their other suggestions are of course using the person's preferred language on an individual basis (something relevant for us only in a biographical piece) and creating separate works/sections for trans people that use "their" language (as we have seen by some charities and NHS). I don't get the feeling that they have any solution at all for writing to a general audience in a way that will please all sides, and so have chosen the gender critical side (i.e. the person with a uterus or person who gives birth is a "woman"). This may well just reflect that the limitations of English are greater here than the obstacles feminists faced when removing sexist language. It remains frustrating though, that there seems no solution but to tell one side you have lost. Is inclusivity "Here's a leaflet we wrote specially for trans people, because you guys are so odd and talk weirdly"?

I found the question "Am I engaging in cultural imperialism or improper use of privilege by requiring others to use language in a particular way?" somewhat ridiculous for a paper whose whole purpose is to require others to use language in a particular way (of the 11 authors, 9 are from highly developed nations). Anyway, I await the final version with all its sources and supplements. -- Colin°^Talk 12:38, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

I find it quite illuminating to contrast your disparagement of this paper (e.g. an opinion piece by a bunch of like-minded friends) with your receptivity to the Lal Zimman article in the previous section, which was quite radical in some changes it advocated for, and certainly was not by some 'balanced committee'. As for Is inclusivity "Here's a leaflet we wrote specially for trans people, because you guys are so odd and talk weirdly", I certainly don't think inclusivity is deprecating the language of the vast majority in favor of that of a small minority. Material specifically for trans people makes sense. Also, most academic work on cultural imperialism and privilege is by people from developed nations, so I don't see why that matters. I will read the final paper when it comes out and point out highlights here. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:20, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Well you are missing the bit where I reviewed Zimman and noted that I found one of their suggestions "awkwardly for me" as till that point I had not found any serious recommendation to use "people with body parts" approach, and here was one. I'm still a bit confused why they recommended it and then instantly discmissed it as resulting in amusement by the reader. We don't want the lead sentence of pregnancy to be amusing. I think the writer of that Lancet review was interested in entertaining the reader with word play, and the editor who decided to place it on the front page was an idiot. I was enormously disappointed that the very first sentence of this paper here brought up the Lancet front page as "part of a trend to remove sexed terms such as ‘women’ and ‘mothers’ from discussions of female reproduction." I don't think any serious discussion of the language of female reproduction would involve the Lancet front page, any more than a discussion of whether men can be thoughtful and sensitive would cite Trump. That really is the sort of argument I'd expect in the Daily Mail, not an academic analysis of language. Let's see what the sources are for this, but if they are opinion pieces in the right-wing press and tweets, then I'll continue to be disappointed. -- Colin°^Talk 10:26, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

I think it is a bit unfair to say I didn't complain about Zimman's article being a "balanced committee" but did on the above. I made it clear Zimman was an "language reform advocate" with opinions. Perhaps I came to the above with unreasonable expectations about a "ten-author paper". I really hoped that perhaps some publisher had arranged a conference or meeting to hammer out a consensus of disparate experts on a workable approach. I do think there are some useful parts to this paper, though want to get the sources before going further. Btw, I noticed from Karleen Gribble's twitter that they took pain to say "desexed language" and is upset that The Telegraph said "gender neutral language". I'm wondering if this is splitting hairs on a practical level, but important to them for making-a-point. Their article is noteworthy for 25 instances of "desexed" (and variants) and none of "gender neutral". The ABM guide above nearly always uses both terms together as though they are equivalent. Googling desexed turns up either neutered animals or news coverage of this paper. What do you think their point is? -- Colin°^Talk 21:05, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

The sources for this are now available. I checked the claim "They may not know, for example, that “a person with a cervix” is a woman and refers to them". This is sourced to a study about cervical cancer leaflets (18 in English and 4 in Spanish) and their accessibility to Mexian women living now in the Kansas, USA. The 20 study participants were Spanish speakers and they were interviewed in Spanish. The women had low health and educational literacy levels (some were illiterate). The study did not address whether the women knew that women had a cervix and its relevance was further compounded by the various ways to describe the cervix in simple Spanish. As I noted earlier about a magazine article making a similar point, you'd likely get similar results asking about what the liver did and what it was connected to, but few people would be ignorant that they had one. I'm sure we all agree that "woman" is far more accessible than "person with medical-term-for-body-part", but I can't really imagine any serious usage of this appearing outside of an article that contained a big diagram of a female form and labelled body parts. We have only ever seen naive usages of this approach except for very targetted material (i.e. a web page on trans people reminding the reader that "anyone with an X may get Y"). It is one thing to see these kind of baseless claims in an opinion piece in a magazine well known for conservative views, but disappointing that an academic journal didn't fact-check. I wonder if this opinion piece was actually fact checked at all? -- Colin°^Talk 15:16, 8 February 2022 (UTC)

Academic journals never fact check anything. Fact-checking involves paying someone to phone up all the quoted individuals in a planned article to ask them "He wrote here that you said 'Diddly squat'. Did you really say that, or did he misquote you? Is your actual title Grand High Pooh-Bah, spelled capital P o o h hyphen capital B a h?"

Opinion pieces (of which this is an example) are not peer-reviewed, either. This means that no researcher is considering whether this opinion piece has a scientifically sound basis (an obviously sensible decision, given that this is non-science writing, just like every other style guide or stylistic recommendation ever published). WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:10, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

This isn't an "opinion piece" of the sort published in a newspaper. Regardless of what the journal calls this sort of article, at the bottom it states, Edited by: Jennifer L. Payne, University of Virginia, United States and Reviewed by: Lauren M. Osborne, Johns Hopkins University, United States, neither of whom are authors (of which there are already ten). More on this article coming soon. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:21, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

I call it an opinion piece because it says OPINION article in bold-face text, right at the top of the page. The fact that the opinion piece was reviewed by someone and selected for publication by someone else (i.e., the editor) does not change the fact that it was neither fact-checked nor peer-reviewed, and that it is intended to express an opinion. Presumably much like the opinion pages of reputable newspapers, it is even intended to express a well-informed opinion by people who have gone to some trouble to learn about the subject matter they're discussing.

The journal itself seems to be less than two years old, so I can find no information about its reputation (apart from its publisher's reputation, which is rather mediocre). It's not included by PubMed, much less MEDLINE indexed. But that's not really important, because none of what they're writing about is WP:Biomedical information, so we don't need to worry about what MEDRS thinks about it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:24, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

General thoughts

• For the record, I read every single word of https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fgwh.2022.818856/full.
• Why is this always about women's health? Where's the equivalent article complaining about "people with a prostate"? Well, now at least we have a source that says it's not happening for men's health.
• Seems to agree with AMA on individuals' self-identification and avoiding unnecessary references to sex/gender (e.g., police officers, not policemen). There's a section at the end about providing information and care specifically to trans people.
• Nicely brief summary of the main options (i.e., de-sexed/gender-neutral; gender-additive; removing all references to the people involved; and using a variety of terms interchangeably). They later mention NICE's Postnatal Care Guideline, which takes yet another approach, of simply stating “The guideline uses the terms “woman” or “mother” throughout. These should be taken to include people who do not identify as women but are pregnant or have given birth”, but this isn't mentioned in the summary.
• So that's five different approaches, but most if the piece is complaining about the de-sexed approach, except for one paragraph complaining about the gender-additive approach and a single sentence saying that varying terminology can being confusing sometimes. (They also endorse the de-sexed approach for targeted marketing to trans folks, in a sort of Separate but equal style.)
• Some of the sources they cite are embarrassingly weak (e.g., press releases from tiny pressure groups, unverified posts on anonymous blogs).

On the sex–gender distinction

The key sentence might be "Crucially, words such as “woman,” and “mother” can have both sexed and gendered meanings."

We have editors accept this without complaint, and editors who try to enforce the sex–gender distinction (e.g., by confining woman to non-biological subjects, or by insisting that woman be used because the cited source used that, even when it's perfectly obvious from context that biological female is the relevant meaning). We tend, overall, to reserve female or male for biological subjects (one would not expect a Wikipedia article to write about "female clothing"; we'd write about "women's clothing").

However, I'm not sure that the authors quite grasp what they wrote. The one paragraph that complains about the gender-additive approach is complaining that the gender-additive approach uses woman in the gender-identity sense, and they want those words used (exclusively?) in the sexed sense. So they say in one paragraph that "woman" has both sexed and gendered meanings, and then they complain in another paragraph that other authors write apparently accurate sentences using the gendered sense. And some of their complaints are over the top. They say, for example, that a cis-gendered biological adult female who doesn't "believe in" (those are scare quotes) the existence of gender identities will read a sentence about "women and birthing people" and feel like the "women" doesn't refer to her, and that she's being dehumanized by being referred to as a birthing person. Life must be very difficult for English speakers who feel objectified and dehumanized when they're called people. (This claim is sourced to a blog.)

I am curious about one discrepancy. They prefer to use woman with its biological/sexed meaning, but they expect girl to be used to refer to a female below a culturally chosen and legally encoded calendar age, regardless of biological status. In biological terms, there are no pregnant girls; there are only pregnant women, some of whom are dangerously young to be giving birth.

On knowing words for body parts

This is a minor detail, but it annoys me. The authors of the opinion piece should be ashamed of writing "However, even women with high levels of education may not be familiar with female reproductive processes and terms of female anatomy and physiology and so may not understand some desexed terms (63–65). They may not know, for example, that “a person with a cervix” is a woman and refers to them (59)". They jumped from a claim about "women with high levels of education" to a specific example in a study that does not involve women with high levels of education. A Wikipedia editor who wrote such a thing would get reverted on grounds of WP:SYNTH, because this is implying claims that are not present in the source. That second sentence should instead say something like "English language learners and people with low literacy may not know English-language terms like cervix (59), so some people might not recognize that 'a person with a cervix' is a woman and refers to them" (or that it doesn't refer to them, if the potentially confused reader is not female).

Here's the relevant sentence from the study: "the terms cancer del cuello de la matriz or del utero (cancer of the neck of the uterus), or del vientre (of the abdomen, or womb) were used, but the women rarely used or recognized the [NB: English-language] term “cervix.”" About this, I have several thoughts:

• Guess what? Most people don't recognize the word for cervix in a language that they don't actually speak well. That's normal. I recognize the word for that body part in exactly one (1) language. It's a problem if you're a healthcare provider who is trying to using English terminology when talking to a patient who doesn't speak English well, or who hasn't finished a basic level of education. Meeting the needs of low-literacy and limited-English patients is what the study author is advocating for. I'm not certain, however, that the editors of the English Wikipedia will tolerate writing articles to meet the educational needs of poorly educated people. If you want to have an idea of what that would entail, note that this study also complains about patient information pamphlets that don't explain what a cell is, and that images that show a zoomed-in detail section of a drawing, such as this image, which is used at the top of Female reproductive system, are too confusing for under-educated people and people with intellectual disabilities.
• The cited study does not contain the phrase "a person with a cervix", or anything remotely like it. The cited study does not address questions of gender neutrality at all.
• The cited study does not ask the Spanish-speaking women something like ¿Sabe Ud. lo que es el cuello uterino? It only comments in passing that the Spanish-speaking women did not use or recognize the English-language word for this body part. (The study spent far more time talking about the women's tendency to talk about cervical cancer and uterine cancer as being the same thing.)

On writing clearly

You've just got to admire this:

"Those who do not identify as women or mothers, and yet become pregnant and give birth, are most benefited by a culture and health service that recognizes and deeply understands the underlying molecular, cellular, behavioral and organismal aspects required to reproduce. Included in such understandings are adaptation and possible accompanying allostatic load with maladaptation when the biological expectation is not met (166–168). Such maladaptation can be averted and managed if it is properly characterized from the basic biology and use of clear terminology (169)."

The first half says that trans people benefit from educated healthcare providers and non-stupid neighbors. The second half says that chronic stress is unhealthful. I'm still not sure what "when the biological expectation is not met" refers to – infertility, perhaps? But I think that we can take this as an excellent bad example. Do not write like that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:09, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

Wrt 'Why is this always about women's health? Where's the equivalent article complaining about "people with a prostate"? Well, now at least we have a source that says it's not happening for men's health.'. Is the "source" this article? It says "Notably, desexing language in relation to males occurs less frequently" but their evidence for that is Do we need the word ‘woman’ in healthcare? which we've already discussed. That article says "Arguably, discussions around gender neutral terminology appear to focus mainly on alteration of female-specific language, rather than amending male-associated words. Now that sentence doesn't claim male-associated words are altered less often, but that the female-specific language generates the most discussions. The article does go on to offer two anecdotes (comparing Irish health service cervical cancer screening information with prostate cancer, and noting Prostate Cancer UK refers to men on their information page). The first is unconvincing as we've seen variation of approach within the NHS pages on women, so seeing variation overall, with a sample size of two, doesn't tell me anything statistically meaningful. The second is absurd as there's no counter example for women, and seems basically "I found a web page on the internet where adult males were referred to as 'men'".

So I don't think we have anything solid to cite about this ratio imbalance. Which is a shame because I'm sure it exists. But how much of this imbalance is due (a) to there simply being more literature about women's health issues related to their unique body parts and abilities, (b) that the question about whether a trans woman is a woman is a hot topic in feminist debate, and (c) that women have historically been marginalised and an argument claiming women are being "erased" sounds like a winner.

I read somewhere that if you want to make a powerful argument, then minimising the "reasons why" is a good strategy. Instead we often tend to fall into the "and here's twenty reasons why" trap. It fails because you could have made three powerful arguments with solid evidence, that was hard to attack. But instead you make lots of weak arguments with embarrassing evidence. Your opponent will ridicule those weak arguments and cast doubt on your intelligence for even making them. Evidence that fails to support an argument (like, I don't know, a study interviewing a handful of Spanish women in Spanish as proof that readers may have difficulty identifying the English term for one of their body parts) accumulates to the point where you start to distrust any of the assertions. Well, that's the intellectual reason for not giving twenty reasons. On a political level, giving twenty reasons, eighteen of which range from dubious to outright lies, is a very effective strategy. Throw enough mud at the wall and some of it sticks. And Brandolini's law means busting twenty myths takes a lot of effort and only really convinces people who were sceptical to begin with. -- Colin°^Talk 14:58, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

In the case of the people-with-a-prostate claim, it's possible that the authors are reporting their own experience and merely citing someone else who mentions a similar subject, rather than reporting what someone else said. Journals don't seem to require as strict a level of source–text integrity as Wikipedians prefer for contentious subjects.

I think that the body-parts claim, though poorly sourced, is fundamentally an argument about writing for different audiences. They seem to prefer that healthcare providers communicate, by default, at a level suitable for people whose educational level is approximately that of the median 11 year old kid. If it can't be understood by a typical adult with Down syndrome, they think it's too confusing. Their idea is that if you say "woman", then it will be easier for under-educated and intellectually disabled people to understand that cervical cancer happens to people who were born female. This is probably not an audience that fully grasps the sex–gender distinction (regardless of which one they would consider primary).

They're probably not wrong. If you consider all the circumstances for a doctor's office visit – the illiterate adult, the Down syndrome patient, the mother who hasn't gotten a full night's sleep since the baby was born, the woman who can barely function because she's panicked about the possibility of cancer – then writing for a below-average education level is probably a reasonable public health recommendation. However, the English Wikipedia is not a doctor's office, we don't cater to illiterate or intellectually disabled people, and I suspect that if we did that here, we'd be told to take it to the Simple English Wikipedia. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:50, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

"reporting their own experience". If you find something really really annoying, you'll notice it. And if you are involved in women's health (as nearly all the authors are) you might be unaware of the language in men's health. So I don't rate this as as a useful source for that. At times, this complaint does feel like its about sexism, that it is the patriarchy that is desexing women. It may be a valid statistical observation, but so what? Is there a valid point being made?

I think a better argument about the body part language was made by Zimman who thought readers would find it "amusing" (and we laugh when something is surprising, shocking, out-of-place, ridiculous). I'm sure there are plenty feminists who have wryly referred to men or women via their body parts and we enjoy the word-play when being entertained.

The two pieces of supplementary material are worth looking at (they are Word documents). One is mostly examples of authors using the NICE approach (We thought about trying to accommodate trans people in this work but decided not to. We hope you won't be too upset about that.) The other document has more examples of writers making mistakes when "desexing". That, and the few examples in the article body, are useful.

Their footnote explains why they (and very few other people) use the term "desexing" rather than "gender neutral". I don't think their argument that those (the vast majority) who use the alternative term are "misleading" is convincing. It seems to come down to how you interpret "woman", and they fall quite solidly into the "biologically adult female" box. I don't get the feeling they accept gender identity as much more than a strange cult that other people believe in. -- Colin°^Talk 18:08, 9 February 2022 (UTC)

How would you say that medical dictionaries define "woman" for typical medical contexts? Are they really so out of line in writing accordingly? Crossroads ^-talk- 02:16, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Medical dictionaries specialise in medical terms, and all dictionaries focus on common meanings of a word. Are you trying to tell me that a trans woman is not a woman because the dictionary doesn't mention them under its entry for "woman"? How about Webster's trans woman: "a woman who was identified as male at birth". Crossroads, if the argument that we should not consider the effect of using the word "woman" wrt trans women on Wikipedia is that one's dictionary doesn't either, and therefore they don't exist outside of their own mental illness, then come out with it please and say so. If not, then what do you accept? -- Colin°^Talk 08:57, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

The idea that saving desexed language for contexts that have to do with trans people is a form of "separate but equal" is a bad analogy. Racial segregation is nothing like judicious choice of writing styles. I see no reason that one small community preferring one sort of language justifies the use of that language for everyone else, even though that language is alien to that majority. That is the opposite of inclusionary.

Frankly, if one believes that analogy, then it follows that "woman" should be purged from any article that isn't specifically referring to an identity group. Yet, I don't think anyone has been in favor of that, so perhaps such emotionally and politically charged analogies are best avoided.

I will have more to say on this article soon. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:16, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Teenage pregnancy

The AMA Style guide above says "Adolescents are persons age 13 through 17 years. They may also be referred to as teenagers or as adolescent boys or adolescent girls, depending on context. Adults are persons 18 years or older and should be referred to as men or women".

According to ONS Conception and Fertility Rates, there were nearly 15,000 conceptions in England and Wales to those under 18 in 2019. And according to ONS Births by Parent's Characteristics, there were 3,600 births in 2020 in England and Wales to those under 18 (and 4,500 to those age 18, many of whom would be under 18 when they conceived). WHO says "In some African countries 30–40% of all adolescent females experience motherhood before the age of 18" and "25– 35% of adolescent girls in Pakistan, Bangladesh, India and Nepal begin childbearing as early as 17 years". That's a lot of "people" who are by definition "girls" and are being excluded by the use of the word "woman" when considering aspects of pregnancy.

I don't know if this helps or hinders the case for including trans and nonbinary people. Teenage mothers are another disadvantaged and stigmatised group, and teenage pregnancy is regarded in our countries as a negative thing. I guess the teenager may prefer to be regarded as a grown up "woman", rather than a "girl". Is that the case? But this awkwardness where neither "girl" nor "woman" seem accurate may be enlightening if we look at Wikipedia articles and professional literature about teenage (or adolescent) pregnancy.

The lead of teenage pregnancy says "Teenage pregnancy, also known as adolescent pregnancy, is pregnancy in a female under the age of 20, according to the WHO". I looked up the source. It says "The term “adolescent” is often used synonymously with “teenager”. In this sense “adolescent pregnancy” means pregnancy in a woman aged 10–19 years. In most statistics the age of the woman is defined as her age at the time the baby is born. Because a considerable difference exists between a 12- or 13-year-old girl, and a young woman of say 19, authors sometimes distinguish between adolescents aged 15–19 years, and younger adolescents aged 10–14 years." They sometimes use "woman" to cover an age range that includes children and adults but do use "girl" if the age range is entirely sub-18. I note our lead does not "STICKTOSOURCES" here, as the source says "woman", not "female". I'm probably not alone in finding the source wording uncomfortable. I suspect "pregnancy in a woman aged 10–19 years" would not last long on Wikipedia, with editors rightly feeling that a 10-year-old is a girl.

The article and literature is comfortable using the phrases "pregnant teenager" and "adolescent pregnancy". There is nobody jumping up and down about how ridiculous it is to use gender-neutral terms "teenager" or "adolescent", nobody complaining that these girls have been desexed. Of course, the articles do use the words "girl" and "women", so they aren't entirely gender-neutral and it would be impossible for them to be so. But it shows that one can write gender-neutral sentences about this topic. Perhaps here the vital attribute in those sentences is that the person is under 20 and pregnant, and not that they are female or identify as a woman. There is a connection with Zimman's comment above that at times, the fact that the subject is described with a gendered/sexed term isn't being asserted, it isn't important, and could then be described instead with gender-neutral language with no loss or change of meaning. -- Colin°^Talk 10:44, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

There is nobody jumping up and down about how ridiculous it is to use gender-neutral terms "teenager" or "adolescent", nobody complaining that these girls have been desexed. Well, would you agree that these terms are much more common in sources about teenage pregnancy, proportionately speaking, than "pregnant people" is in sources about pregnancy in general? That right there is the reason - people can see that "pregnant teenager" is emphasizing the age, whereas "pregnant person" is removing sex where normally it would be mentioned. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:23, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not interested in arguing about usage proportions. You've already asked me about it and I replied. I think, Crossroads, you have to ask yourself "Why am I inventing obstacles for people to pick words I would not pick or that I don't like?" In what world do I think "Hmm, do I write 'small' or 'tiny'? Oh I better do a Google ngram search to ensure I pick the most popular word". MOS contributors are obsessed with this algorithmic method for word choice, as if it is how actual writers work, but which AFAIK doesn't exist outside of Wikipedia. It kinda makes sense for article titles but not for words in sentences.

Authors here could write "pregnant teenage girls" and "adolescent-girl pregnancies" but they seem mostly happy to "desex" the subject, as the above article would complain about. It happens that the English word for an adolescent isn't gendered, or has no gendered variant. Neither "girl" nor "woman" adequately identify this age range. But English doesn't need to just have one word for something and "teenage girls" is most definitely an everyday compound. Yes, one reason for getting away with desexing the subject is that sex and gender aren't the priority for each sentence, but then absolutely the same argument is true for most of "pregnancy". Unless specifically writing about the woman as a person or as a representative of a sex or gender category, the article is about the events and hazards and body parts and processes involved in a pregnancy. A baby is born premature at X weeks regardless of the gender identity of the person carrying it, so there isn't any fundamental as to why their gender identity should appear in a sentence about this.

I think this topic, teenage pregnancy, kills the idea that we choose "women" over "people" because "women" is correct for all but a miniscule number of pregnancies. It clearly isn't, and possibly we avoid being accurate because we don't want to keep reminding ourselves that girls can become pregnant too. -- Colin°^Talk 10:02, 7 February 2022 (UTC)

It's interesting that the AMA uses the narrowest definition of adolescent, and one that is purely social rather than biological. The biological definition runs from puberty (which can start as early as age 8 in healthy children) to adulthood, which can be as late as the early-to-mid 20s (depending on health, sex, and exactly what you choose to call "adulthood"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:52, 9 February 2022 (UTC)