Talk:Transgender pregnancy

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 August 2021 and 21 September 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Narutolover47, Chillcah, Nigelpanderson.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 August 2021 and 10 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Annegphillips, Kjuliette, Kaitplum, Amayfarr.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 04:24, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Language Confusing

I think the language (usage of trans, cis, etc) to be confusing and unnecessary. Case-in-point a man (biological and anatomical male, with XY chromosomes, who identifies as a man) may wish to carry a pregnancy. This in-of-itself does not make that man transgender. Similarly a woman who identifies as a man may choose to carry a pregnancy and that in-of-itself does not affect her gender.

So why introduce this terminology at all? It makes the article less understandable, less transparent and less accurate. 80.0.251.1 (talk) 16:52, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

This article is about transgender pregnancy, not men who are "biological[ly] and anatomical male, with XY chromosomes [...] who [...] may wish to carry a pregnancy." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:39, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

This article is about transgender identity. Terms like "trans women", "trans men" and "cis" are common terms with discreet definitions that are well accepted at this point. If a reader does not understand them, they can find the corresponding Wikipedia pages or Wiktionary entries to learn.CodexFelinus (talk) 19:35, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Non-binary Pregnancy Section

I restored changes that included a new section on non-binary pregnancy that was deleted. This section needs editing to have less biased language and more citations, but this is a valid topic about transgender identity and pregnancy. CodexFelinus (talk) 19:33, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Contraception/avoiding pregnancy

Would it be appropriate to add a section on the use of contraception by trans people here? --Equivamp - talk 23:19, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

added a line about self-induced abortion in unintended pregnancies of trans people Feralcateater000 (talk)

Trans Woman Pregnancy

Please add recent news regarding trans woman pregnancy; that Dr. Jacques Balayla, who participated in making Montréal Criteria, has now written recent article published in February 2021 which supports trans women's uterus implant and pregnancy.

Source: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/bioe.12832 11nedved (talk) 07:35, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 10:49, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

@11nedved: Do you have access to this article in Bioethics? If so, you can write a draft version of what you think Wikipedia should say about it, and post it in this section. I don't have access to it so I wouldn't be helpful in adding it for you I'm afraid. --Equivamp - talk 13:46, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

Please append the following (taken from the uterine transplantation article) to the bottom of the section:

In 2021 a revision to the Montreal Criteria was published in Bioethics with an ethical framework for consideration of genetic XY individuals to be eligible for uterine transplants. 193.116.243.119 (talk) 06:49, 10 April 2023 (UTC)

I'm able to access the article and would be happy to help. Currently the draft version appears to state that the paper revises the Montreal Criteria, but it appears to me that the article only suggests such a revision, rather than explicitly altering the criteria. I would also suggest 'genetic XY individuals' be changed to 'genetic males' for consistency with the rest of the section - is "In 2021, a proposal for a revision to the Montreal Criteria was published in Bioethics with an ethical framework for consideration of genetic males' eligibility for uterine transplants." an acceptable version? Tollens (talk) 02:06, 18 April 2023 (UTC)

The lead author on this paper was also an author on the original Montreal Criteria paper. As peer-reviewed publications it's not clear to me that there is any specific extra step required to officially "revise" a framework other than that its authors publishing subsequent papers updating them - presentation to an international congress does not constitute any formal recognition beyond that of peer review. The 2021 paper's recommendations would fall to national, state or local organisations to adopt - possibly to the level of individual hospital ethics committees, depending on jurisdiction.

The terminology used in the paper was "genetic XY individuals". My understanding was that was to be inclusive of androgen-insensitive cis-female people with XY karotype.

To harmonise with the rest of the article, I would propose:

"In 2021, authors of the Montreal Criteria published a revised set of criteria in Bioethics with an ethical framework for consideration of genetic males' (and other genetic XY individuals') eligibility for uterine transplants."

130.102.10.75 (talk) 03:58, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

 Done - looks good to me. Tollens (talk) 04:17, 19 April 2023 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 10 September 2021

I would like to add the following text to the end of the "Trans Men" section.

Although surveys have shown that many trans men have expressed interest in gender affirming surgery, the majority of trans men have yet to undergo this procedure. Among the surgical options available, some offer the option of preserving fertility.

Grant JMML, Tanis J, Harrison J, et al. Injustice at every turn: a report of the National Transgender Discrimination Survey. Washington: The National Center for Transgender Equality and the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, 2011. Chillcah (talk) 06:30, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. This looks like it's from a lobbying group or something. That's not exactly an ideal source on which to write an encyclopedia article. Please go take at look at WP:RS and at WP:BESTSOURCES. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:00, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

School of Medicine Peer Review

IB: I definitely think your group should go forward with the plan of adding more information about the impact of Testosterone. It’s important to highlight it as a teratogen in early pregnancy as well as a common misconception of it being an efficient method of contraception. I skimmed through the existing article now and realize that much of it is lacking this pertinent information. I also think the idea of highlighting postpartum care of the gestational parent is highly important including discussing more about postpartum depression/physiologic changes that can occur.

I know your group had mentioned that a lot of the editing process has been slowed down due to a hard time of getting edits approved. One thing I would suggest is to find sources that are reviews of multiple scientific articles and present information in a manner that represents several relevant opinions of others rather than taking one strong stance. Another suggestion that I thought of was to focus on one section at a time to make it as informative as possible with relevant sources before making/starting edits on other sections. Overall, I think your group has a very well thought out plan to make some super important edits to this Wikipedia page and I look forward to reading the final edited version soon! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inder.bal (talk • contribs) 00:28, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

N: I think your organization and subsections are great! I would maybe explicitly define what "functioning" means in terms of having a functional vagina, ovaries, and uterus and also expand on some sections, such as the experiences of the mentioned non-binary individuals. I think this would help with the flow and understanding of the article, since there are many hyperlinks that would have to be opened to thoroughly understand the scientific aspect of this topic (such as understanding what hormonal replacement therapy is or gender dysphoria). Overall, super solid draft so far! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fong12 (talk • contribs) 17:01, 17 September 2021 (UTC)

JM: Thank you for your work on this page! I appreciate the inclusion of nonbinary people on this page. I think it would be helpful to emphasize the fact that anyone with the requisite reproductive anatomy and fertility can become pregnant, regardless of their specific gender identity. I did take issue with the following sentence: "Non-binary parents choose parental titles such as "mom" and "dad", or utilize invented gender-neutral or non-binary titles.[9]" The labeling of "mom" and "dad" as "parental titles" and the labeling of other titles as "invented" reinforces binary logic and stigma against transgender pregnancy and parenting. I know you have had some challenges editing this page given the close monitoring by other users who seem to believe that transphobia is some how an apolitical and neutral stance, but if you're able to revise this sentence, I would highly recommend it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jma888 (talk • contribs) 01:22, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Transgender "people" vs. "men" in lead

In my opinion, the lead should refer to transgender people rather than transgender men because the article discusses not only pregnancy in transgender men. but also the possibility for pregnancy in transgender women, and because AFAB nonbinary people also may become pregnant. To counter the IP's argument, writing this in the lead is not CRYSTALBALL, as we already discuss trans woman pregnancy in the body of the article. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 21:10, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi and thank you for dropping me a note to join the discussion. The future possibility of trans women pregnancy is not a problem for me at all in the body, but probably not appropriate for the lead sentence as written. "Transgender pregnancy is the gestation of one or more embryos or fetuses by transgender ..." the ... can only be accomplished, with current science, by the word men. Someday trans women may be able to perform the gestation of more or more embryos, but that is not possible now and this is an encyclopedia. Trans women being part of the first sentence about transgender pregnancy would have to be covered in English grammar by "could" or "will be" not present tense "is" as the sentence is written today. Talking about what may be possible in the future while using the word "is", is a bit too CRYSTALBALL, imo. It hasn't happened and we can add it to present tense sentences when it does. 2600:1700:1111:5940:5065:933E:1FF:56EC (talk) 22:22, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, there's still the issue of nonbinary people; many nonbinary people can get pregnant, but aren't transgender men. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 09:43, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Well of course non-binary people can be involved with pregnancy, but non-binary does not equal transgender and this article is about transgender pregnancy, not non-binary pregnancy. Your revert is inappropriate while discussion is taking place. 2600:1700:1111:5940:89C9:B8BD:DF7F:4164 (talk) 19:52, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Arguably, nonbinary people are a subset of transgender people. Even if not, there is a very large overlap, as shown for instance by the fact this article's body has a section on them. As for the revert, I was trying to find a compromise solution here. I think the lead is way too short anyway, and expanding it to use a bit more detail could moot this disagreement as well. The current lead sentence is still an object of disagreement, but I actually think this could be side-stepped by having the article start right into the divided nature of this topic, for example: The ability of transgender people to become pregnant depends on their natal reproductive organs; currently, only those retaining female reproductive systems from birth can gestate a foetus. ■ ∃ Madeline ⇔ ∃ Part of me ; 20:19, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

I am sure you meant transgender are a subset of non-binary, if so, I think we understand each other’s points. I also think your edit makes the subject clearer for readers and is an improvement. Thanks for the compromise, I am going to move along and am happy with the lead and how we got there. Cheers! 2600:1700:1111:5940:89C9:B8BD:DF7F:4164 (talk) 20:38, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Birthing people

Birthing people is a disambiguation page. I expected to find a link there about use of "birthing person / birthing people" as gender-neutral terms but it's not there. I also can't find the term birthing people used on this page, so maybe it's not widely used / not used in reliable sources? I made a suggestion on that talk page but I don't think DAB talk pages get a lot of views so thought I'd also highlight it here. Mgp28 (talk) 17:43, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Mikey Chanel

What actually came of this supposed pregnancy? Its been years and we've heard nothing about a baby being born (dead or alive)? Stevenbfg (talk) 12:06, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

Unless we have Reliable Sources saying that it was fake then we can't imply that it was. Any number of things could have happened and nobody who has lost a pregnancy is under any obligation to make public statements about it. It is also possible that the pregnancy was successful and that she decided not to speak publicly about that. Given the utterly rancid state of discourse around trans and intersex people it is perfectly plausible that she might have decided to drop off the radar in order to raise her child in peace. (I'd like to hope so.) One might expect the pregnancy to be written up in the medical literature but, of course, that would most likely omit the patient(s) name(s) for confidentiality reasons.

So what can we say here? We have RS sources from 2020 covering this. There is absolutely no reason to assume that it was untrue. There are photos. We have to be very careful not to use wording that implies dishonesty and we can't draw own inferences from the lack of subsequent information per WP:SYNTH. Given that a reader is going to read the article and naturally want to know the outcome maybe it would be legitimate to add a very neutral comment such as "No further information was released"? --DanielRigal (talk) 14:05, 10 November 2023 (UTC)

"...to those born with..."

This outright does not make sense: "possibility [of trans pregnancy] is restricted to those born with female reproductive systems." There are plenty of people born with female reproductive systems who are infertile. Why is this not worded as "restricted to those with female reproductive systems" as trans men who can get pregnant have female reproductive systems? Zilch-nada (talk) 21:08, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

User:Sideswipe9th: Please explain why you reverted my edit. It is only those with a female reprodutive system. Zilch-nada (talk) 01:12, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

As the last sentence of the paragraph states, transplantation of the uterus is possible, and there are now multiple documented cases of transplant recipients giving birth. To date, only one trans woman has received a uterine transplant, Lili Elbe, however she died due to subsequent complications. There was talk of a surgeon in New Delhi planning on attempting a transplant to a trans woman last year, however as far as I know that surgery has yet to take place.

Accordingly, to be precise with regards to what has happened historically in relation to these transplants, we say that the possibility of pregnancy is currently restricted to those born with female reproductive systems. When the first successful transplant happens for a trans woman, or a transfemme non-binary person, and she is able to become pregnant from one, then we can look at updating the language. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:23, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Isn't the uterus part of the female reprodutive system? If uterus transplantation becomes possible, why would the label "female" in "female reproductive system" cease? Because you agree that there is a future possibility of uterus transplant. I don't disagree, only that such uterus transplants are still of the female reproductive system. Again, isn't the uterus part of the female reprodutive system? Zilch-nada (talk) 01:26, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

But we're not writing at a time where someone who was assigned male at birth can receive a uterine transplant, and become pregnant. On Wikipedia, we don't write content about what may be, we write content about what currently is. Hence why we need to say "born with". Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:29, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

If a person AMAB receives a uterus transplant; that is a female reproductive organ. So if pregnancy is possible, it still fits the definition "restricted to those with female reproductive systems". Zilch-nada (talk) 01:31, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Yes, but to date, no AMAB person has successfully received such a transplantation. The only recipients who have successfully undergone a uterine transplant were all AFAB, and who were born with partial or full female reproductive organs. Again, we do not write content about what may be, we write content about what currently is. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:34, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

By definition the uterus is part of the female reproductive system. That isn't going to change. Zilch-nada (talk) 01:27, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

The problem is that your edit removed the word "born". Within the realm of the uterine transplants that have successfully been carried out, and which lead to pregnancy, all have required the transplant recipient to have been born with some or all parts of a female reproductive system. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:31, 15 December 2023 (UTC)