Talk:Female reproductive system

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

"Ova created by birth"[edit]

Is there community consensus if I change this statement to make it more precise? Right now it implies the process of child birth created the ovum. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roswell Crash Survivor (talkcontribs) 21:24, 16 September 2006

Other species[edit]

Females are not only human; this article needs info on all other females as well. The current sections should be generalized to cover mammals and further sections added to cover other female reproductive systems. Further, the article needs extensive cleanup, as the intro is currently too long and needs to be incorporated into the article itself. James 19:44, July 17, 2005 (UTC)

And the intro doesn't make sense. It says the female reproductive system is made up of two parts: the uterus, vagina, ovaries, vulva, clitoris... huh? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 03:30, 23 April 2008

"...while the uterus is attached to the ovaries via the Fallopian tubes..." This is manifestly wrong, this is sloppy writing, to put it mildly. Someone should revise the sentence to describe what actually is happening. The Fallopian tubes are attached to the uterus; ovaries flow down the Fallopian tubes to the uterus... Whoever is in charge of this page should revise this sentence.StevenTorrey (talk) 02:15, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


How about moving this to plain old female reproductive system. We're not being any less anthropocentric by redirecting people here from there. Richard001 (talk) 21:15, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Human (and possibly others, e.g. neanderthal, shrew, etc.) should be differentiated by: coming-into-heat vs. mensus; otherwise mensus is more an antithesis and should be dropped--like spontaneous abortion.

Mouselb (talk) 05:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Picture of anatomy[edit]

The male equivalent has a picture that shows the reproductive system
The female one is here , doesn't it seem important to have the picture there?
The picture is a portion of the 'Female reproductive system', as it omits the mammary glands. The whole of the article ignores this. Mouselb (talk) 05:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Fact and Citation Check[edit]

(Part of the WikiProject Medicine effort)
This wiki would benefit from an extensive edit of its content and organization. The wiki is currently unreferenced, but the information is generally accepted and does not require individual references. I have included below my suggestions for the organization and content of this page.

Background section:[edit]

The background section is currently too long and is difficult to read. The background should be a brief summary of the parts of the reproductive system, namely the internal and external parts. The current introduction omits the external genitalia and mammary glands.

  • Here is a possible introduction for the article: “The female reproductive system consists of a number of sexual organs that are involved in the process of human reproduction. The female reproductive system can be divided into three parts, the internal genital organs, the external genital organs, and the mammary glands. The internal organs include the ovaries, oviducts (fallopian tubes), uterus, cervix, and vagina. The external organs include the mons pubis, labia majora, labia minora, Bartholin's glands, and clitoris. The region that contains the external genitalia is called the vulva.”

A good citation for the external and internal genitalia can be found at the Merk Manuals online medical library (

An image with both the internal and external reproductive system should replace the current image. Appropriate images can be found at the Merck site mentioned above.

I clarified the following wording in response to a previous comment on the talk page: “The ova are larger than sperm and are generally all created by birth” was replaced by “The ova are larger than sperm and have generally all formed by the time a female is born”. This sentence should probably be removed, but I changed it for now to avoid confusion.


There are several websites that would be good references for shaping the organization and content of these sections:

and the “External Genital Organs” and “Internal Genital Organs” sections of

Internal Section:[edit]

This section could be renamed “Internal Genital Organs” for clarity.

The beginning of this section could include a brief summary of how the different parts of the internal genitalia fit together and a brief mention of the different functions. This could be similar to the first paragraph of the current introduction, but the wording of this section should be improved.

The current subheadings of this section are appropriate, but more information should be included in each one. See the sites listed above for content suggestions. They should be ordered in the same way that they are introduced in the summary of this section described above.

External Section:[edit]

This section could be renamed “External Genital Organs” for clarity.

The subheadings in this section should include the mons pubis, labia majora, labia minora, Bartholin's glands, and clitoris.

As with the external genital organ section, this section should begin with a brief summary of how these organs fit together and their general function.

Mammary Glands:[edit]

This section is currently missing from the article but must be included before the article can be considered complete.

Because this is a single gland rather than a group of organs, this section does not require any subheadings.

This section should include the anatomy and function of the mammary glands.

See also:[edit]

This section could also link to ovulation, fertilization, menstruation, and sexual intercourse. These topics are mentioned in the current introduction but are beyond the scope of the current article and should be moved to this section.

External links:[edit]

The following websites should be added to this section:

Factcheck101 17:48, May 3, 2010

"Female" Reproductive System?[edit]

I am wondering what to do about the state of all of the articles in this category of assuming people with these organs are female by default. This would not include agender, transgender, and other genderqueer people systemically, thus making the articles biased towards anti-genderqueer perspective by stating that only females can have these organs and/or factually inaccurate. I suggest a simple systematic rewrite towards the following (I would've WikiDragon'd it myself if most of the articles weren't locked):

  • Singular pronouns of "She", "her" -> Epicene pronouns of singular "they", "them", "their", or perhaps modifying the instances where pronouns occur to be plural to side step the issue.
  • "Female reproductive system" -> "Biological female reproductive system"
  • "Woman", "Women", "Female" "Females" -> "Person", "people", "biological female", "biological females"

YEloi (talk) 02:09, 8 May 2011 (UTC)

This seems counter intuitive. While I agree identifying gender along sex lines has become increasingly questioned this is the female reproductive system (aka the sex which produces the larger gametes). Though gender (in humans) is flexible sex is restricted to just two: male and female; outside of this is infertility. This is biology, not identity or sexual orientation. Biologically your system would be the inaccurate and factually incorrect version, and I think lead to confusion. All people with this organ system are female physically/biologically. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 0707034b (talkcontribs) 18:51, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Proper representation of diversity in human sexuality.[edit]

YEloi, your comment that discussing the sexuality of agender, transgender, and other genderqueer people is relevant and important. Perhaps discussion of the diversity of human sexuality deserves more attention than to merely be represented here as a difference of symantics. Let's elevate the presentation of the diverse nature of human sexuality to it's own category within the Wikipedia schema that includes social, cultural, historical, psychological and other important perspectives.

As for your suggestion that the perspective of the articles as written, and more importantly, in this context, is biased and inaccurate, I agree. Most of the information presented here is incomplete and confusing at best. Proper placement within the overall Wikipedia schema, based on the aforementiond importance of human sexual diversity deserving a better prepared and more complete presentation, promises that it should be accurate and neutral.

For the presentation of reproduction discussed here, you must agree that in all life that perpetuates its' species by sexual reproduction rather by the formation of new individuals from a single individual without the involvement of gametes, presupposes that entities with the organs presented here are female by definition, not withstanding variation in development and alteration by human intervention.

Autoandragogist (talk) 21:13, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

File:Female pelvic cavity.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Female pelvic cavity.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests October 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 17:18, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Lower obdominal pain[edit]

Hi, am having pain in my lower abdomen when having sexual intercourse, please advice BSharonH (talk) 21:07, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Extensive cutting of the lead[edit]

Barbara, why did you cut the lead so drastically, especially here? The lead is meant to summarize the article, and it is currently lacking. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:54, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for leaving a message here. I'm still working on it and it will contain the information from my gynecology-anatomy book and other anatomy books that I can access online. I guess this is one reason that I don't like to stop in the middle of an editing session because it seems to look like that I've somehow 'damaged' the article when in fact it will certainly contain more up-to-date information probably by this weekend. Also, we both have to admit that the references are embarrassing and I hope to get those fixed by next week. If you really want to revert, go ahead. What I will do is then not delete any content until I can add better content and references immediately after I delete out-dated or non-MEDRS citations. I just got ahead of myself and didn't have time to replace the deleted content with up-dated, well-referenced content. Best Regards,
Barbara (WVS) (talk) 16:05, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, although I commonly cite WP:Preserve, I don't object to the poor sources you removed. Regarding this, though, wasn't always a porn site; I'm not sure what happened there. It looks like a company bought the domain. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 04:57, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
It appears to be a dating site now, not a porn site. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:00, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Oh, I see that is still up. It's just that the URL for that source was messed up. Either way, is not a WP:Reliable source. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:02, 21 July 2016 (UTC)


Is that section needed in very much detail - seems out of place in page on the reproductive system --Iztwoz (talk) 09:26, 23 July 2016 (UTC)

Given that this topic is covered in the Vulva and Vagina articles, one could argue that it's not needed in this one as well. But since female genital modification (whether FGM or other genital modification) also affects the female reproductive system, one can argue that a bit on it should be in this article. The section, as it currently is, however, is all about FGM when the title is "Female genital modification," so I think it needs cutting and work, and should be moved to the "Clinical significance" section as a subsection. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:08, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Thanks sounds better --Iztwoz (talk) 10:45, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

Removal of the Reproductive rights section[edit]

With this edit, Quisqualis removed the "Reproductive rights" section, stating, "an anatomy article does not need a section on politics which is parasitic and attempts to hijack a medical article."

With this edit, I reverted Quisqualis. And with this edit, I moved the content down. I reverted Quisqualis because, per WP:MEDMOS#Anatomy, it is perfectly fine to have a section about societal views in an anatomy article. I would point to examples, but I don't want Quisqualis removing societal information from those articles as well. Of course information on reproductive rights should be in a Wikipedia article titled "Female reproductive system." After reverting Quisqualis, I didn't create the "Society and culture" heading seen at WP:MEDMOS#Anatomy since that title should be for material that is about more than just one issue. I thought about combining the reproductive rights section with the History section, but that small History section needs work and mixing the theory stuff with reproductive rights seems off. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 12:28, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Your argument is well-defended, and I accept it, while still maintaining my original opinion. However, you reverted my entire edit, which consisted of two parts, one of which you did not argue against, and which I intend to defend. It is the following: "There are also elective surgical procedures which change the appearance of external genitals.", which you reverted to: "There are also elected procedures which change the appearance of external genitals." I am guessing that you did not contribute that sentence, and that it represents a misconstruing of a term in the English language, something I commonly find in WP medical articles. I am changing that sentence back to my version. If you feel you must revert me, please state your reasoning in a reply on this page.--Quisqualis (talk) 20:42, 15 December 2016 (UTC)