User talk:WhatamIdoing/Sandbox 4/Archive

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)

Summary

The summary of this guideline is a bit unfair at present I think. It previously said "Audience-dependent choices", which perhaps is a little lacking in specifics. Clayoquot edited it to include a quote that covers one choice: "Circumstances where traditional gendered terms are more appropriate include documents written for a worldwide audience, and documents written for the general lay public.". A quote for the other choice might be "Appropriate circumstances where desexed or gender-inclusive terms can replace sex-specific terms may include a document with an audience of health care professionals in a country where openly transgender or nonbinary persons give birth and breastfeed or chestfeed, such as a hospital policy in the United Kingdom or United States. On the face of it, it might appear that the first audience is exactly "Wikipedia" and that would be the clear favourite. But we have to remember that the ABM's primary goal is "broader global support for breastfeeding" and while the intro to their guideline recognises their role in "ending violence and discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex people... to respect, promote, and fulfill the human rights of all LGBTI people", this is clearly something that can be sacrificed if it impedes their primary goal. They have some important differences to Wikipedia:

• They have one specific goal: "broader global support for breastfeeding" and while education about clinical evidence is their tool, they're role is not to educate readers broadly, such as "trans women can get prostate cancer" or even "non-binary people exist".
• They are very concerned about censorship. Wikipedia is famously not censored. If they write something that the government of a country disapproves of, it won't be printed and won't be distributed. That kills their primary goal. Wikipedia does not care what our reader's government ministers think about trans men.
• They are concerned about acceptance of their primary message by people who may be distracted by or hostile to any (perceived) secondary message.
• They are not writing a hyperlinked encyclopaedia so some of their concerns about clarity/understanding are not universally applicable to Wikipedia. For example, while the lead sentence of Pregnancy may benefit from being the easiest and least contentious "traditional" form, worrying about whether all women know they have a cervix is unlikely to be a concern in the body section on cervical cancer pathology. If we think the reader might not know what a word means, we can explain or hyperlink it.
• They are concerned about translation. I don't think it matters to us that some "languages have no gender-neutral equivalent for relevant words", just as I'm utterly oblivious to what mess German, French and Swedish Wikipedians are facing. That in some languages '"parent" is a masculine noun that could mean "father."' is a factoid of no concern to writers of English Wikipedia. That "some terms may be distracting or difficult to understand for readers who come from cultures where there are no apparent nonfemale lactating people" seems to be a problem that we can address through education rather than self censorship.

In the Guardian style guide on 'Gender' it says "Our use of language reflects our values, as well as changes in society" (my bold). I strongly believe this applies to Wikipedia too, which you might guess is one reason I'm opposed to those values being tied too strongly to the values of of our sources. But ABM is concerned about the values of their various global audiences and their government health departments. In order to achieve their primary goal, they seem willing to go along with those values (not even take the tiniest of baby steps). They are picking their fights, and trans issues isn't one they want to fight at a global level. That's their choice, and it may well save lives if their mission achieves its goal.

Much of the world remains virulently homophobic and transphobic. According to Wikipedia Nigeria, 98% of the population do not accept homosexuality. That's a country of >200 million people, with English as the official language. The UK population is only 67 million. Nobody is suggesting Wikipedia self censors or moderates its articles on homosexuality in order to accommodate better acceptance in African countries. As an encyclopaedia, our goal is all round education, which means that perhaps when reading about breast feeding, you learn a little about trans parents, and discover, even, that they exist, contrary to the "traditional values" government education you got. -- Colin°^Talk 09:38, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Excellent points, and thanks for your insightful points about values. I've reverted my summary. Note that a little while ago the table said "De-sexed or gender-inclusive (many caveats)" as a summary of the ABM's position, and I don't feel that was a balanced summary either. The current "Audience-dependent choices" is not particularly helpful but at least it 's not wrong. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:13, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I would not have reverted. Wikipedia's audience is not "health care professionals" (other than as part of the general public), and that is the only case where ABM differentiates accepting from non-accepting countries. We do have a worldwide, general lay public audience, and ABM does not distinguish in this case between countries.

I disagree with The Guardian and Colin that Wikipedia's language should be a pulpit for any sort of values, whether religious, progressive, conservative, or otherwise (WP:NOTADVOCACY). Like ABM, our goal is not primarily to advance trans issues, but to inform people based on reliable sources, even people in Nigeria, and not to unnecessarily distract readers. And like ABM, we should be concerned if the former is allowed to get in the way of the latter (e.g. by allowing unnecessary insertion of "chestfeeding people" or whatever anywhere in breastfeeding articles even though trans people are not the topic). We should cover what reliable sources say about LGBT people, and this will no doubt decrease homophobia or transphobia, but the way to do that is to cover sources about them, rather than contorting random bits of text to try to insert certain phrases. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:02, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Firstly, neither the Guardian nor my comments about Wikipedia reflect a "writing as preaching" mentality (your pulpit comment). Our words reflect our values, and it really is irritating to have that basic fact tainted repeatedly with claims of advocacy. To quote the ABM "We affirm that language has power. This is demonstrated in linguistic relativity and determinism, both theories explaining how the structure of a language impacts thought and behavior. Implicit biases affect the language we use, and thereby contribute to gender inequality and health inequities, which contribute, in turn, to rising morbidity and mortality of vulnerable populations" Just as they accept their word choices have an effect, so we must also accept our word choices have an effect that we take responsibility for. Wrt your final sentence, are you unaware of Heteronormativity? Dealing with trans people in their own section or articles is an option, and might be one of the more likely options to be accepted, but it shouldn't be considered an great choice if we are able to find agreeable language to include them within the body. It perpetuates the idea that a non-binary person is wrong and not normal. Crossroads, have a look at the lead of Marriage. It does not lead with "a union between man and woman" despite this presumably being the only acceptable definition for 98% of Nigeria. The lead doesn't even suggest man+woman is the norm, and uses language like "people called spouses", "them", and "individuals". A gay couple can read our lead of marriage and feel that "this applies to me too". Yet the numbers of gay people globally who are legally married must be tiny and especially when compared to heterosexual marriage. I guess the gender critical writers of the paper at the bottom of this page would say Wikipedia was being culturally imperialistic by imposing its views of marriage on the world. Crossroads, would you please think that when you make an argument, does this really apply generally and does this really apply to some of the other social issues like gay marriage or sexual equality. -- Colin°^Talk 10:05, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

The idea that our words reflect our values...we must also accept our word choices have an effect that we take responsibility for has no basis in policies or guidelines whatsoever. Same goes for the idea that we should write in a certain style different from the vast majority of sources to combat ideas like heteronormativity or anything about who is normal. The only time WP:PAG do touch on such ideas is at, again, NOTADVOCACY. That simply is not our purpose, and such goals necessarily interfere with our actual purpose. That purpose includes representation of sources about LGBT people, so there is no reason to consider using these rare phrases.

That bit from ABM should be considered in context of what I said before, and their actual recommendation for general-audience works, as well as the fact that linguistic determinism is debated among the relevant experts. For example, this source states, Numerous studies have found evidence of LoT [language-on-thought] effects, and numerous other studies have failed to find such evidence...While there is strong evidence in support of weak forms of linguistic relativity, a strong version not only lacks empirical support, but arguably requires a pre-cognitivist view of thought as necessarily involving silent verbal encoding....weak versions of the LRH also do not require language to be the sole or even the dominant influence on any aspect of nonverbal cognition.

That marriage comparison reminds me of your comparison to midwifery, and the same points apply. Those are both purely social institutions or roles, and the vast majority of recent sources define them in gender-neutral terms. Anatomy and physiology, on the other hand, is inherently sexed, which is why desexing it or describing it in terms of disembodied organs reads bizarrely and it is rare in sources. Additionally, the writers of the paper you mention do not describe themselves as gender critical and support including trans topics properly, as described below. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:44, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Crossroads, you are being conservative activist. This comes across when you say "the idea we should write in a certain style different from the vast majority of sources to combat ideas like heteronormativity". People don't write this way to "combat" hereronomativity, just as people aren't "combatting" sexism and racism when they manage (or make an effort) to avoid being sexist or racist. They are writing how they want to write, and yet you are advocating (insisting) they must write in a way that is unnatural and possibly even offensive to them, just because their source did. You make the same mistake about midwifery as you have about marriage below. It is most convenient that our accessible sources on the topic align with published views (but very much not practice) in the US and UK. This is happenstance of our culture and our language aligning with a huge body of sources. There's nothing fundamentally Wikipedian about that, and I'm sure many other Wikipedias have to cite sources that are not in their language and do not represent their cultural views. I think they would look at you oddly if you went all culturally imperialistic on them and suggested they have to accept Western cultural ideas and our English language terms if they use Western, English sources. And I don't think there is any doubt that the paper and its writers fall into the "gender critical" category, Crossroads. Perhaps you view that term as so derogatory that nobody would claim it for themselves, but in the UK it is very mainstream. -- Colin°^Talk 08:36, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

So me saying that we should write like the sources do is being a "conservative activist", but you saying that we should permit writing in ways the sources do not because values is definitely not activism. Hmm. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:11, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

You have appeared to propose that we create a standard based on how a majority of sources write, in order not to represent the diversity of language on sex and gender actually used in recent, reliable sources on these topics - and that this would be preferable to using the language most relevant to medical communication in each case. Yup, I'd call that "conservative activism": when an editor creates a (largely imaginary) status quo and then conjures up (not previously existent) rules to back it up, that is effectively being a "conservative activist" for the purposes of the discussions in question. Newimpartial (talk) 12:55, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Your "conservative activist" wording was not the "write like our sources do". That's just something that isn't true yet you keep repeating. I explained exactly why I used those words with the line "This comes across when you say..." It is your repeated claims that people who write in a way you disapprove of and dislike are here to "combat" something. When I write for the general reader, rather than for a neurologist, and I choose words different to the sources in order that my general reader (a) has the first clue and (b) doesn't think he's clicked on the BMJ rather Wikipedia, I am not combatting the BMJ's writing style or the BMJ's stance on whatever political or social views their authors and editors take. I am simply writing, as a Wikipedian, in Wikipedia's voice, which happens, since I'm the one writing, to be my voice. And your voice would be a little different and so would WhatamIdoing's. The voice of our sources, is their voice. Honestly, this idea you keep repeating is as ridiculous as suggesting that because my BMJ authors are English, that I have to forgo my Scottish accent and try to talk like Stephen Fry if I were to read it out loud. Like if every time I open my mouth, you attack me "Here he goes again, all Scottish Independence, with his rolled R's and his soft wh's, why does he have to go all activist all the time, and not just read it like the authors would?" Now, if you did that, I'd say you seem to have a problem with Scottish people speaking with a Scottish accent. And this is what I'm trying to get at with your problem with people who naturally would like to write about pregnant people or to include nonbinary people. That fact this upsets you and makes you think they are the activists, when it is perhaps instead a problem you have accepting that other people are not like you. Someone who continually fights for a cause is an activist, and you are continually fighting against an approach that some reasonable people have taken. -- Colin°^Talk 14:48, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I don’t edit medical articles, but as a potential reader of medical articles, I have been following this discussion in a desultory sort of way. But it now seems to have degenerated into a discussion of whether Crossroads is a ‘conservative activist’. Uh? What is this discussion supposed to be about? I’m lost.

And as regards the expression ‘pregnant people’ : the word ‘people’ includes the entire human race, men, women, and children. I have come across the expression ‘expectant father’. And of course there’s always couvade. If you are not including begetters when you talk about ‘pregnant people’, you should make this clear by calling the individuals in question ‘pregnant women’.

Sweet6970 (talk) 19:49, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Sweet6970, I'm trying not to label anyone in this discussion (perhaps not successfully). I was more concentrating what is written and why. When Crossroads claims someone is writing (or proposing we write) in a certain way "to combat ideas like heteronormativity". The idea here (I believe) is that the only reason someone might do that is because they are an activist seeking to right great wrongs, which immediately has Crossroads reaching for WP:UPPERCASE links that he thinks ban such behaviour. What I'm trying to say, with my Scottish accent analogy, is that just because people talk or write differently to oneself, doesn't mean they are doing it to make some point or correct something (like the "faulty" accent of others or "bad" writing in our sources). And if one always perceives they are doing that in order to be disruptive, then perhaps one is carrying around some unhelpful baggage and bad faith assumptions.

I know some newbies do just come and switch the words around and make an edit summary that can suggest advocacy, but if we are writing guidelines about how people might write new material, say, then I don't think we should make the assumption that anyone writing "pregnant people" is a trans activist (and thus on a one way path to being blocked at AN). Further, the issue with problems like heteronormativity is that the majority, who are cisgender and heterosexual, etc, fail to spot all the ways that they assume that is normal and end up excluding others or marking them as deviant. Just as Hofstadter noted further up, writing nonsexist English did not come naturally to him. Trying to write nonsexist English didn't make Hofstadter an advocate or someone combatting anything other than his own failings. -- Colin°^Talk 10:49, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Related to "I'm opposed to [Wikipedia's] values being tied too strongly to the values of our sources":  I'm concerned about, hmm, what's a gentler word for hypocrisy?  We're "saying" that we're just following the sources, but we've chosen this approach because we expect this approach to have the outcome we want.  I'm in another conversation about independent sources, and it's reminded me of times when editors have evaluated sources according to whether the source says what they want.  The local newspaper said something nice about a subject I hate?  That must have been copied from a press release; that's totally not independent.  The website said something that agrees with my POV?  Well, that one was Obviously Independent™, and that bit at the top that says "Sponsored Content" must have just been a boilerplate mistake.

Here, I genuinely don't think anyone is trying to be unfair in any way about this.  I think we're just used to figuring out what "feels like" the right approach and then expressing it in a bunch of SHORTCUTS.  The net result is that we make up our minds first, and only later come up with an excuse that justifies our pre-existing decision.  Humans work like that.  But it has the result that we're not actually identifying our real values; we're just expressing a preference for the outcome. I'll start a question below that might be useful to illustrate it.  (Please let me know if it actually is a useful illustration.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:57, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I get that you don't claim great familiarity with the topic, but the specific issue around "pregnant people" arises because trans men and nonbinary people (assigned female at birth) who are pregnant do not in general consider themselves "pregnant women", and therefore (i) are not, in at least one important sense of the word and (ii) are unlikely to be reached by health information targeted at "pregnant women".

On the other hand, most pregnant women do consider themselves people, so "pregnant people" is a more inclusive category (a category that does not include "expectant fathers" who may have contributed small gametes - just people who are physically pregnant).

Your assumption that people must carry the gender identity "woman" to become pregnant is one I have heard elsewhere, but it is empirically false and, as a framing assumption, is increasingly divergent from the reliable sources on pregnancy. Newimpartial (talk) 20:00, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

1) I have not made anyassumption that people must carry the gender identity “woman” to become pregnant. I don’t know how you got that idea from my post. My assumption is only that, by definition, you have to be physically of the female sex in order to get pregnant.

2) I do, however, think it is reasonable to assume that any trans men or nonbinary people know very well that, if they are pregnant, any information about ‘pregnant women’ is relevant to them.

3) You have not said why you think that there could not be confusion about whether ‘pregnant people’ includes expectant fathers.

Sweet6970 (talk) 21:36, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

You said If you are not including begetters when you talk about ‘pregnant people’, you should make this clear by calling the individuals in question ‘pregnant women’. That only makes sense if either (1) you assume that "women" refers to a sex, rather than a gender identity or (2) you assume that only (a subset of) those whose gender identity is "woman" become pregnant. I was AGF by assuming the latter interpretation, because other editors have previously pointed out (on this page, and in other discussions when you have participated) that the former is not a valid assumption.

Your second point ignores the concerns expressed by actual experts and pracritioners in the field, so at best it seems like the kind of POV OR assumption-making that, as Wikipedia editors, we are supposed to ignore.

As far as why pregnant does not refer to people who produce small gametes, I leave that as an exercise to the reader. I am of course aware of "pregnant couples", but have never encountered any ambiguity about when a member of a couple is actually pregnant and when another member of a couple is only "pregnant" by proxy - and the latter status isn't limited by gamete production, by the way, although the former status is. Similarly, I have never seen any ambiguity about "pregnant people" as a phrase - the partners of pregnant people seemingly don't apply to themselves the restrictions on health interventions for "pregnant people", for instance. Newimpartial (talk) 22:42, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

I think the basic point on which we differ is on the question of what is common usage: your linguistic environment is different from mine. I do not believe that the distinction between ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ is well established with the general public. In common usage, the word ‘women’ does refer to a sex.

I only remember coming across the expression ‘pregnant people’ in the real world once: this was in the Guardian, and as far as I remember, it was about the restrictions on abortion services in Texas. I am pretty sure that the article had been written by an American journalist. But in this article [3] from yesterday’s paper, about the lack of abortion services in Northern Ireland, only ‘women’ and ‘girls’ are referred to. ‘Pregnant people’ is not an accepted usage on this side of the Atlantic, and I believe it would cause confusion if it is adopted in Wikipedia.

Sweet6970 (talk) 23:23, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Just to clarify the underlying point at issue here:

Re: I do not believe that the distinction between ‘sex’ and ‘gender’ is well established with the general public - I agree. This distinction is not front of mind for most people, most of the time,

But re: In common usage, the word ‘women’ does refer to a sex - I disagree. Even in the UK where the issue is more actively contested than elsewhere, the number of people insisting that women refers to a biological sex - rather than a gender - seems to be a relatively small minority without significant support e.g. in the political, legal, medical and cultural spheres. Newimpartial (talk) 23:42, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

As a UK and Northern Irish editor, I concur with Newimpartial. I can't recall if this has been cited elsewhere in this page, but various NHS websites and guidance documents (eg; East Lancashire Hospitals Trust, Brighton & Sussex Univerisity Hospitals Trust, NHS.UK article on common pregnancy symptoms, Western Health and Social Care Trust NI, Northern Health and Social Care Trust NI) use the term "pregnant people", though I will concede that it's not universal yet. The BMA have been recommending its use since 2016.

The 2016 date for the BMA guidances is also important within a Northern Irish context, as a great deal of our health trust guidance and procedures were not updated following the collapse of the Stormont executive between 2017 and 2020. The period since the executive's return in 2020 has been dominated by Covid, and as a result local health care reforms are still stalled. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:13, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

We seem to be deviating a bit from the section topic. Perhaps if "pregnant people" is a phrase worth examining, it could have its own section. Btw, Sweet6970, The Guardian article used "women" and "girls" in sentences that were either direct quotes or expressions of what someone had said, so even a publication that was 100% writing "pregnant people" when using its own voice, would be required to use "women" and "girls" as that article did. We've had other articles from the Guardian that do use "people". It doesn't appear the newspaper has an editorial or style-guide stance on this and its journalists are famously divided on the matter of trans rights and the definition of a "woman". Indeed I would say that most of its regular UK female journalists who have written on the matter, are gender critical. -- Colin°^Talk 10:59, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

As I detailed under #Guardian, Other Guardian articles only use "pregnant women" and "mother"...So, even the left-leaning press routinely writes about this topic without any desexed language (links in the comment). As for what words mean in typical usage, I find that dictionaries are helpful in elucidating that. Lastly, the example of a Scottish accent leads me to a good comparison - accents are undetectable in writing after all, but English dialects do vary in their vocabulary and grammar. We have rules at WP:ENGVAR, and nearly any editor would rewrite text written in AAVE, using the word womxn, or mixing in Maori words as in New Zealand English. Some varieties of English are indeed too divergent or distracting, or are not widespread enough, to be endorsed for usage on English Wikipedia. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:22, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Crossroads, you have a remarkable ability to take an analogy and totally fail to get the point of it, and attack some irrelevant aspect. The rest, meh, you've said all this already. WP:ENGVAR is only mentioned in discussions about social language choices by people who like the "stick with what we have" aspect and fail utterly to get the point of it as an arbitrary conflict-avoiding means of settling disagreements when there is no merit to any choice over the other. I've even seen people cite MOS:RETAIN in an RFC, as though it requires we retain existing text, when in fact the rule is "in the absence of consensus to the contrary", and establishing consensus is exactly what an RFC is for. Please, lets not get distracting into thinking ENGVAR has anything to say about these sort of discussions. -- Colin°^Talk 16:08, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the article in the Guardian which I linked to [4]  : that Brandon Lewis, Stella Creasy and Alyson Kilpatrick, barrister and public law specialist [5] all refer to ‘women' is evidence for what is standard usage in the UK. We should not be alienating our readers by requiring them to learn a new vocabulary in order to read our articles. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:04, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't think anyone has ever suggested that writing "pregnant people" is standard usage anywhere, nor are those words "a new vocabulary". -- Colin°^Talk 16:08, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

And Wikipedia should stick to standard usage. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:24, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Once again, I disagree, Colin. "Pregnant people" is indeed a standard usage in Canadian English, appearing everywhere from the Canadian Medical Association Journal to the CBC and broadsheet newspapers. I am not saying that it has surpassed "pregnant women" in ghits, or anything, but it is a common and uncontroversial phrase that predominates in certain contexts, e.g., Covid-19 vaccines and pregnancy. Newimpartial (talk) 18:54, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

If you have mentioned this before, I didn't register it, and I was referring to "anyone" in this conversation. If Canada has taken this approach further than other countries, then I think we would benefit from some examples from their healthcare messages, newspapers, and other "public health information" you can think of. Newimpartial, could you create a Canada section to document this. The examples we have previously found supported the idea that this approach was uncommon, even if some publications permitted it. For example, the UK's NHS is dominated by "women" wrt women's health issues. Is there an equivalent public information site in Canada about pregnancy, sexual health, breastfeeding, menstruation, etc, etc, where we could see a neutral approach? And what about for men? Do we have people with testes getting the snip? People with prostates getting cancer? How do they do that? A section documenting this would be great. -- Colin°^Talk 19:33, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

‘Pregnant people’ is a new expression in the English language, as are the expressions ‘quantitative easing’ and ‘gender critical’: it is not possible to know the meanings of these expressions just by knowing the meanings of the individual words, so this is, in effect, a matter of vocabulary. And I think that the comment above about the usage in Canada demonstrates that ENGVAR is involved in this. Sweet6970 (talk) 19:47, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

'Pregnant people' is an arrested phrase in legal discourse (at least) for centuries, and doesn't really quality as a new expression (nor does it mean anything different now than it did in the 18th or 18th century). Newimpartial (talk) 20:00, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

In the 18th century, people using it meant to include concepts of pregnant men and of non-binary people? Crossroads ^-talk- 21:24, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Don't be daft. The phrase meant "pregnant individuals" then, and does so now. If you think the phrase somehow evokes pregnant nonbinary and trans people in particular (as in some kind of dog whistle effect), I don't think you're reading it correctly in the instances where it actually appears. Newimpartial (talk) 21:47, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree ‘quantitative easing’ and ‘gender critical’ are phrases with opaque meaning, but not ‘Pregnant people’. Please, Sweet6970, make some solid reasons or just admit to personal preference, but I don't think anyone here would be convinced by an argument grounded on the idea that "pregnant people" is difficult for anyone to understand. It isn't any harder than "Pregnant Canadians" and yet those are words I've never uttered before. EVGVAR really really is not involved. Sweet6970, ENGVAR is an arbitrary tiebreaker rule to settle dispute about English variations that are stable and regional and have no merit other than "That's how British people write it". One can't just latch on to the fact that perhaps Canada is a little more progressive in terms of any shift around trans issues, and then say "That's how Canadian's write it so ENGVAR applies". This comes back to WAID's point that people are deciding on their preferences, and then picking up any WP:UPPERCASE that seems to justify them. And be careful what you wish for by invoking ENGVAR, because if some student editor comes along and writes an entirely gender neutral article on a breastfeeding issue, say, then you'd be absolutely prevented from 'fixing' it. -- Colin°^Talk 08:47, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I’m sorry Colin but I’ve got lost again. I get the impression that you are arguing with me, but I don’t know what we’re supposed to be arguing about.

About ENGVAR: on reflection, I realise that I was speaking too loosely, and I apologise for causing confusion. I was merely intending to point out that there are variations in usage in different countries, Canada having been specifically mentioned, and that this is a problem which should be considered when vocabulary is chosen.

As for ‘pregnant people’, when I came across this in the Guardian, I did a double-take because I thought at first glance that it was an error. I then had to consider what it meant (e.g. was there any special significance in referring to ‘people’ rather than the more usual ‘women’) – this distracted me from the content of the article. This is a problem with unfamiliar vocabulary: we should try to avoid distracting our readers from the content of our articles.

Personally, I have views on the matter of this kind of vocabulary, but as far as Wikipedia is concerned, I consider the question to be entirely practical: my view is that we should choose language which conveys the exact meaning intended by the source, and is also readily understandable by our readers. This may not be easy.

Sweet6970 (talk) 18:06, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

It may not be possible. Sometimes editors have to choose between "exact meaning" and "readily understandable". Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable has advice on how to do that in other contexts. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:58, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I think mildly distracting some readers who are unfamiliar with a modern phrase could be a small negative, if they are so distracted that they fail to be educated at all. If there were no good reason to use a phrase or word that might distract the reader, then it should be avoided. But Wikipedia seems happy enough to use CE/BCE at times, and to refer to a female "actor" at times, and the typographic conventions at MOS:SCIENTIFIC and MOS:CAPS will be not be readily familiar to many readers. Why are those words in italics and those words start with an upper-case? You said "it is not possible to know the meanings of these expressions just by knowing the meanings of the individual words" and that really isn't true for "pregnant people". As we have found, much of the government health advice regarding covid vaccination in pregnancy has used the term "pregnant people" (US, Canada and UK). Their mission isn't to distract readers either, but to ensure all relevant people receive and absorb the health advice. I think elsewhere we talked about editors priorities and that some priorities might vary depending on context (lead sentence, lead paragraph, body text, etc). Wrt "conveys the exact meaning intended by the source" WP:OR doesn't require this, only that we "[rewrite] source material in your own words while retaining the substance". We've already noted that a text for a medical audience might say "your patients" but when written for a general audience might be better as "people with X". So I don't think it is valid to claim we need to stick quite as closely to our sources as some demand... and quite likely that you'd enjoy the freedom to deviate from our sources difficult and confused technical writing, say, or breezy informal chatty style, or instructional approach. -- Colin°^Talk 21:01, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

And Colin, I presented the language choices made in official health pronouncements by Canada's provincial authorities (for pregnancy and vaccines) in this diff, in the immediately preceding subsection. Newimpartial (talk) 20:00, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I didn't spot that. Perhaps because we'd already spotted a feature about pregnancy and covid vaccine advice, where many countries were saying "pregnant people" when giving vaccine advice. I think if it is more widespread than that, then a section would help. For example, is the online literature about breastfeeding in Canada written to be gender neutral? -- Colin°^Talk 08:47, 28 March 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.[6] 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. [7] 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."[8]
• 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".[9] 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.[10] 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"[11] (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)

I can imagine a reliable source on roller coaster safety saying that it's unsafe for pregnant women to ride roller coasters. I have trouble imagining anyone old enough to understand the basics of pregnancy believing that it was not equally (exactly equally) unsafe for a pregnant trans man or a pregnant non-binary person to ride roller coasters. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:33, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Oh, so we can add things not found in sources as long as we are personally 100% sure it applies? No OR means none. And this comparison has almost nothing to do with editing reality since any medical article is almost certainly heavily about aspects of physiology or psychology that very much can be affected by transgender hormone therapy. Where to draw the line between obvious and non-obvious cases is subjective. That's why the rule isn't 'no OR unless local editors are really sure', it's none, period. If you permit such replacements, you'll be seeing people try to insert it for far more than just theme park injuries. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:08, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

WP:OR says "Rewriting source material in your own words while retaining the substance is not considered original research". Determining whether a reword "retains the substance" is an editorial judgement, not an algorithm. Editors always face the problem of working out whether putting something into your own words is equivalent enough. We do that when we use lay terms that might not 100% correspond with the technical term. We do that when a source says "patients" and we want to write "people". Those are not always equivalent. Right at the top of this section, I offered a/b/c scenarios for when rewording can be safe or might never be safe. WAID's example is definitely an (a) and an editor might face some kind of tendentious block for persistently arguing otherwise. Just as we don't require sources for things it would be ridiculous to challenge, we wouldn't require editors to find sources to say pregnant trans men were at the same risk in a theme park ride. Wrt how often this might affect medical article... Crossroads, I mentioned elsewhere that some statements we make include the word "women" but aren't actually asserting anything about the person at all, never mind asserting something about their sex or gender. A baby would be pre-term regardless of the mother's gender identity. The embryo's development from fallopian tubes through to passing through a cervix of x centimetres dilation is the same regardless of whether the mother is called John or June. -- Colin°^Talk 10:14, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Writing in your own words, while preserving the meaning, is not an OR violation. Paraphrasing is not original research. Of course, if you can't understand what the source means, you might have difficulty paraphrasing it accurately, but in that case, you probably shouldn't be using that source anyway. WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:00, 15 February 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)

@Crossroads:, I'd still like to know your thoughts on my question above. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:30, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Oh, this page's discussion has been going for over two months already... Well, in line with what I said above about another very specific matter: 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 [individuals]" if that is the term they are using. I emphasize, however, that it really would require most sources doing that, and that this in no way implies that we should permit editors to do this when most of the underlying sources on a particular matter do not - as is the case the vast majority of the time. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:00, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Crossroads but I was actually asking a slightly different question. Suppose the text is not about what the Canadian public health people say about COVID and vaccination. Suppose the text was just about the plan for rolling out COVID vaccinations in Canada. Would you be OK with having the article say "Pregnant individuals have been given priority for vaccination" in Wikipedia's voice? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:59, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

There is nothing in any policy or guideline that even hints that the words we choose have to come from a majority of our sources. This is an invented rule. -- Colin°^Talk 15:14, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

If this were the case, we'd have to use patients in most the medical content. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:28, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Colin, I think Clayoquot is just trying to get a handle on my thinking; I already know that you and I disagree profoundly as to the relevance of how most sources in practice actually write about these topics.

Clayoquot, in the off-chance that a clear majority of sources on that matter used that terminology, then it probably could be used there; however, this in no way implies that it should be permitted anywhere else. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:07, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Crossroads, it might be helpful in moving this discussion forward, were you to recognize explicitly that this clear majority threshold doesn't exist in policy and simply reflects your personal opinion. Newimpartial (talk) 11:41, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it even reaches the level of a "personal opinion" about how Crossroads thinks they or we should generally choose words. It is just an invented rationale that happens to align with Crossroads POV on the subject of gendered language. For example, I doubt very very much if more than a tiny minority of all the reliable sources on marriage consider even the remotest possibility that two gay men might marry each other. It has only been legal since 2001 (The Netherlands) and more recently in some other countries, and far from all. How many lifetimes would we wait (if ever) for that to reach majority? Yet I assume Crossroads is happy for Wikipedia to be gender neutral on marriage, despite "gay marriage" being a neologism and the concept likely to be offensive to a large number of English-language readers. -- Colin°^Talk 11:57, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I've said repeatedly that we should go by the majority of recent sources. Those do define marriage as including gay marriage, yet still rarely include the desexed turns-of-phrase and neologisms that some here wish to allow. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:49, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

You are confident that the vast majority of recent reliable publications on the topic of marriage define marriage to include gay marriage? Or are you cherry picking western academic literature which tends towards secular and liberal? It would seem odd to exclude religious publications for what is for many people a religious event, or to fail to consider the global picture in what is very much a globally celebrated institution. I'll pseuduo-quote you: The article notes that the push to [give gay marriage equivalence to traditional marriage] comes from organizations based in the USA and the Western world. It could thus be considered culturally imperialistic. And Wikipedia is supposed to be an international, culturally neutral encyclopedia. Crossroads, if Wikipedia was globally neutral on this matter, gay marriage would be relegated to a section at the end of the body, much like is being proposed for trans pregnancy. After all, why should we offend the vast majority of our global readers just to appease some western liberal activists? (Just in case anyone is confused: this is very much not my POV, I'm just being devils's advocate). -- Colin°^Talk 08:21, 22 March 2022 (UTC)

Regarding your first sentence: Yes, I am confident in that. Religious literature is not RS. You are comparing apples to oranges; sources almost always do speak about pregnancy very differently than they do marriage. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:59, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

The Bible is cited 17 times in marriage. You seem to be restricting your view of "reliable" to one based in academia in the UK or USA. It is illegal to be gay in many countries, never mind declare it and get married. Neither India nor China nor most of Africa or the Middle East have legalised gay marriage. Really, pretty much the vast majority of the world. They are all "unreliable"? Or just "inconvenient" and easy to ignore. -- Colin°^Talk 15:18, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Lots of articles are not following RS as they should, and that is one of them. Religious texts are primary sources and pretty much only reliable for ABOUTSELF. There is no evidence of a substantial body of reliable sources defining marriage in the way necessary for this argument to work. Various governments who are mostly authoritarian or illiberal are not reliable sources, while educated writers within them often have different views than their government when it can be expressed. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:37, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Crossroads, I'm not talking about governments, and while educated liberals fighting authoritarian governments make for great liberal movies, the reality is a tad different. Education doesn't, it seems, make much difference to attitudes of tolerance or acceptance of people who are different to oneself (a topical example would be Ron DeSantis who "graduated from Yale University and Harvard Law School"). -- Colin°^Talk 15:56, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Not for everyone, but the trend is absolutely there. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:27, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

"Religious publications" includes far more than religious texts (which are primary sources, but even then you can WP:USEPRIMARY sources). Consider, e.g., Psychology of Religion and Spirituality, Sociology of Religion (journal), Journal of Moral Education, Review of Religious Research, and Journal of Management, Spirituality & Religion. I don't think that any experienced editor would say that these top-rated academic journals are unreliable sources, even though their subject matter is religion. There are even whole academic journals dedicated to the relevant intersection of religion and sexuality, e.g., Theology and Sexuality. I gather that even more obviously religious books regularly make the best-sellers list. There is no shortage of reliable sources that take various religious viewpoints. It happens to be one that Wikipedia tends to underrepresent outside of specific articles, but that's not because we couldn't find sources about those viewpoints. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:11, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Some of those sound like they are (secular) study of religion rather than religious themselves. My point stands that the WEIGHT of RS in defining marriage and defining pregnancy are very different. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:27, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what you mean. The WEIGHT of sources defining marriage is different from the WEIGHT of sources defining pregnancy? The WEIGHT of religious and non-religious sources defining marriage is different from the religious and non-religious sources defining pregnancy? Something else? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:22, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Vastly more sources, numerically and proportionately, describe marriage as gender neutral than there are for pregnancy. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:46, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

LMAO, Crossroads. When it suited you the made-up standard you invoked was the language used in "the majority of the sources". Presented with an example where the majority may not say the thing you want them to say, you now compare apples to grapes and say, essentially, "it is DUE to use X language because the proportion of X in its universe of discourse is higher than the proportion of Y in its domain". Bollocks. I call moving goalposts. The fact is, you earnestly make up wherever "standard" seems plausible to you to win an argument within a specific terrain, and the fact that these "standards" blatantly conflict with each other when you move from one topic to another is a problem for other people. To paraphrase Emerson, consistency is a bugaboo for small minds, amirite? Newimpartial (talk) 12:44, 30 March 2022 (UTC) explanation added by Newimpartial (talk) 16:27, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Newimpartial, could you strike that last sentence please. It is fine to point out inconsistency in one's argument, but not to extend that into a personal attack. -- Colin°^Talk 15:41, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I've never known anyone to take offense at that Emerson quote, much less interpret it as a personal attack, but you're the boss. Newimpartial (talk) 16:29, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

It wasn't clear if you were making that point to suggest Crossroads was being small-minded, or self-deprecating your own pickiness. I thought the former was possible, coming after the fairly hostile previous sentence. You might want to read Wikipedia:Emerson and Wilde on consistency, and the second last section basically warns against using it because it is so badly understood (by writers and readers). -- Colin°^Talk 17:22, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I moved no goalpost; I simply saw no reason to repeat that part when making a minor clarification for WAID. I see no evidence that anything other than a majority of RS on marriage define it gender-neutrally and in any case, it is very obvious that this line of discussion is well past its expiration date. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:46, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Colin actually put it better than I have when he raises the gay marriage example in the first place, when he said of your "majority rule": It is just an invented rationale that happens to align with Crossroads POV on the subject of gendered language. For example, I doubt very very much if more than a tiny minority of all the reliable sources on marriage consider even the remotest possibility that two gay men might marry each other. Now Colin may be wrong about the substance of his example, given that we are only to consider recent reliable sources and also considering that, as a wealthy and litigious society, 'Murica has probably produced a disproportionate literature on marriage in the last 10 years or so.

But that isn't really the point. From the subsequent discussion, it is clear that you would never accept that a "majority" of sources saw marriage as joining a man and a woman so this is the "terminology" Wikipedia is required to use. You would discount some literatures and take any other steps necessary to prevent you from having to accept that language as correct, because you are convinced that it is more correct to allow that marriage is not required to be heterosexual in nature. But you simply cannot accept that the equivalent is true of pregnancy and gender, and I strongly suspect that, in the not very distant day when most of the public health literature on pregnancy in US sources uses gender-neutral language much or most of the time, you will not accept this "majority" verfict but will come up with some other reason to use older, gendered language because you are convinced that it is more correct. A little bit of introspection ought to tell you this, I think; I'm sure that many of the other participants in this discussion can already see the truth of what I say. Newimpartial (talk) 05:06, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Nah, your clairvoyance and telepathy got it wrong this time. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:45, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

I look forward to being proved wrong on this matter. :) Newimpartial (talk) 13:41, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

More WP:OR examples

Hi everyone. Due to time constraints I’m unlikely to be able to contribute much further on the social aspects of this issue, but I’d like to say some things on the scientific aspects. I’m grateful to everyone here for the thoughtfulness you’re continuing to bring to this discussion.

W.r.t. WP:Original Research, I think it will be useful to look at more examples. The examples we’ve looked at so far (the possibility of guilt over genetic diseases and the recommendation that pregnant people not ride roller coasters) have two important things in common. One thing that they have in common is that the mechanism of the biomedical phenomenon is understood and straightforward, i.e. X-linked disease and mechanical injury to the placenta. Another thing they have in common is that we say these issues apply to trans men, we are acting in line with the precautionary principle – even if get it wrong, it’s not going to hurt anyone.

In the range of biomedical statements that we make about women and girls, there are many types of statements for which adding “and trans men” or “and people of other genders who were assigned female at birth” would be neither supportable by available evidence, nor harmless. Consider statements such as:

• For the treatment of depression, women respond better to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and men respond better to tricyclic antidepressants.
• The recommended daily calorie intake is 2,000 calories a day for women and 2,500 for men.
• Women are less likely to abuse alcohol than men.
• The average age of for a heart attack is 70 in women, but 66 in men.

The mechanisms behind observed biomedical differences between sexes/genders are not always well-understood. In the cases when we do have an inkling of the mechanisms, a wide variety of explanations of sex/gender differences exist, including body fat composition, body size, various hormones, predisposing conditions such as gestational diabetes, and social and cultural factors. Any of these mechanisms could make a statement that is true for “women” not true for “trans men”.

The evidence that supports the above statements is not simple genetics, simple anatomy, or WP:NONAZIS. These statements are empirical observations, and that the evidence that supports these statements is statistics. It’s a common statistical fallacy to assume that something that is true for a population is also true for all subgroups in the population. If our guidelines give editors too much license to add genders and not enough caution about OR, I think we’re going to see a lot of this fallacy. Some cases of the fallacy will be true (because often what's true for a population is also true for a given subgroup), but all cases of the fallacy will be OR. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:46, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

More examples are always useful. Perhaps the "What's the harm if I'm wrong" aspect is a factor, but I think a stronger factor is "How surprised would you be to be wrong". It is related to our fundamental about facts that are "likely to be (reasonably) challenged". I posted this months ago at the top of the OR section, when I wondered if a statistic about 80% of women was comparable to 80% of trans men. I'll repeat it here. Consider if the expanded claim fits one of these three categories:

(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 four examples above are as you say all statistical observations with some degree of precision, rather than hard facts (like if you have a prostate you can get prostate cancer), or observations with no precision at all (like men and women sometimes abuse alcohol). In three examples, I would conclude (c) but the alcohol claim is I guess most likely to be social so I would put that in (b). Some examples of (a) would be

• Pregnant women do not always carry to term, leading to a miscarriage or premature baby.
• The cervix is between a woman's vagina and uterus.
• Prostate cancer is increasingly common as men get older.
• Endometriosis is a condition in women where tissue similar to the lining of the womb starts to grow in other places, such as the ovaries and fallopian tubes.

In all of these, the gendered word could be eliminated, though then we rely on the reader knowing which kind of people have prostates and wombs:

• Pregnancy does not always continue to term, leading to a miscarriage or premature baby.
• The cervix is between the vagina and the uterus.
• Prostate cancer is increasingly common with age.
• Endometriosis is a condition where tissue similar to the lining of the womb starts to grow in other places, such as the ovaries and fallopian tubes

We can argue whether the sentence is better of worse for including "men" or "women" but the issue isn't OR. We could also add in "and trans men" or "and trans women" or write "people" and the sentence would not fail OR. (If you are concerned that not all trans men have a uterus then consider that not all women have a uterus either, and we are only claiming 'can' rather than giving a figure).

I think especially when studies are looking at the relative differences between men and women, it would be difficult to know how much a trans man or trans women fits into either camp. -- Colin°^Talk 11:01, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

For Clayoquot: the fallacy of division is certainly relevant here, and it reinforces a point I was making above. Sometimes "women" (or "female") is used to describe a population based on anatomical or chromosomal "sex", sometimes "women" (or "female") is used to delineate a group based on social gender or gender identity, and sometimes these terms are used - even in biomedical literature - without clearly defining the population to which they refer. What we must not do is "standardize" these terms as though what a term means 50%+1 of the time is what it always means, or as though it weren't encumbent on us to understand the evidence-based claims each MEDRS is actually making. Newimpartial (talk) 14:03, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

Newimpartial, I recall some of the guidelines we found requested that researchers become more explicit about what groupings they are actually recording (sex/gender/etc). But I wonder if in practice this isn't going to be done for many studies. For example, if you are doing a study of drinking habits, are you really going to ask

a) What is your sex? [Male/Female]

b) Is the gender you identify with the same as your sex registered at birth? [Yes/No]

c) If you answered "No" to b), please give the term you use to describe your gender [free text]

The above is from the Census for England. To the first question, it suggests "If you are considering how to answer, use the sex recorded on your birth certificate or Gender Recognition Certificate." But your birth certificate and Gender Recognition Certificate might disagree, so this isn't quite the same as asking what sex were you assigned at birth. The b/c gender questions are optional. I don't think such intrusive questioning is likely to be acceptable on a drinking questionnaire. If the study is looking for broad differences between population groups, those with a gender variance might be insignificant. In fact, they might ask "Are you [Male/Female/Other]" and just chuck away the "Other" responses and ignore the fact that a very small number of those answering "Male" were assigned female at birth. So I think "clearly [and accurately] defining the population to which they refer" is never likely to be frequently done and often does not matter.

This sort of mess isn't unique to sex/gender. If our alcohol questionnaire asked about ethnicity or religion then you've got the whole complication of "part Irish part Nigerian" or if someone writes "Hindu" but really that was their parent's / childhood religion and they no longer follow. -- Colin°^Talk 15:42, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I recognize that there is often a mess in such studies. But in cases where, e.g., only cisgender responses are actually included in a study population, then we would be required to follow the study's authors either in restricting their findings to the actual population studied *or* in extending their findings to a larger population through inference (if they had explicitly done so). We could also extend the findings of a primary study *if* a secondary/review article had explicitly done so with reference to that same study. What we could not do, as WP editors, is sort out that mess ourselves. Newimpartial (talk) 16:04, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm more concerned about the case in which we don't know whether only cisgender responses are actually included. Even though separately recording gender and sex is a best practice, for the foreseeable future, enough research won't do this that we won't actually know in most cases, especially for systematic reviews (which combine multiple research studies, so the review will include information from sources that take different approaches). WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:55, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I have a feeling my main points are not getting across. I don't know how to fix that in one elegant post, so let me try responding to some parts of the above comments bit by bit.

• In the fallacy of division (thanks Newimpartial for the exact name!), it's still a fallacy even if the sub-group is well-represented in your sample. If you study 1000 biological females who have had one heart attack and find that the average age was 70, it is wrong to assume that the average age of a first heart attack among the transgender men in the sample was 70. It is wrong to assume this even if 5% or even 10% of the people in your sample were transgender men.

I'm pointing this out because I have the impression (which might be wrong) that people think if trans men were included in a research study, it's OK to assume that the conclusions of the study are true for trans men in general.

• If there are known sex differences for a biomedical issue, transgender populations may not fall in-between what's typical for cis men and cis women. For instance, the average age of a first heart attack is 66 for men and 70 for women, but I would not be surprised if we found that the average age of a first heart attack for trans women is, say, 63. The social determinants of health for trans people are terrible so I would not expect that they have health issues at the same rates as cisgender people.
• I think we all realize that there are statements, such as "Prostate cancer is increasingly common with age", that any reasonable person would agree is true for anyone with a prostate, regardless of what the source says or doesn't say about trans people (I guess this is Colin's category A). I think we all realize that there are statements such as "The recommended daily calorie intake is 2,000 calories a day for women" that are problematic to extend to trans people (Colin's category B).

What we should look at is whether the editors of a given article are going to easily agree on whether every statement in the article is in A or B or C, or whether they're going to fight over it. I don't think they will easily agree. I think they will fight. Perhaps one way to get less fighting would be if we could articulate what kinds of claims are always in category A, and forbid editors from adding genders to any other claims. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:29, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Happy Internernational Womens Day, everyone! So I think what your first bullet is bringing out is that the approach where we explicitly name a sub-group, or add a group to one that previously was unclear to some readers (such as whether "women" was referring to gender or sex), then it may appear that we are saying these stats also apply within that sub-group. Which is the fallacy. I suppose it might be possible to word it using ".. togther" or " .. combined" or something like that, but this is starting to get a bit messy for a general-reader encylcopaedia. This fallacy also combines with your earlier observation that naming a group makes it appear that this group was explicitly and knowingly studied in the research. If you knew for sure that the study was on "biological females" then I suppose the "People born with a uterus will on average have a first heart attack aged 70" approach would not fall into that trap, though it has other problems we've alredy noted.

Your middle bullet is similar to b) then, that you'd be very suprised if that sub-group was similar to the larger group. Actually I think your third bullet (calorie intake) is more like c). I'm not sure being trans would affect calorie expenditure or weight gain to a degree that we could be every be sure was down to being trans or non-binary alone. It may well be different but only for the same reasons that arbitrarily dividing a group into a sub-group may well produce somewhat different values.

You might be right that people will argue, but I'm trying to figure out something equivalent to the cases in WP:V and WP:OR where we are allowed to be "reasonable" -- not everything needs cited by a reliable source and not every deviance from a source's facts and figures constitutes OR. There does seem to be an observation that the more precise our claim is, the less leeway we have to reword the definition of groups studied.

Maybe however, the additive approach isn't likely to be so useful on Wikipedia. Maybe it is more appropriate for maternity hospitals posters and leaflets advertising who their target audiences are, but less so for people writing about groups under study or in the population. I don't think we've found many examples of it being professionally used for that. -- Colin°^Talk 11:53, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure I really got my point across, either, so I will say it again: if a study's authors reach a finding for a population of ciswomen and trans men, for example, then WP should state that finding for ciswomen and trans men. It isn't our job to second-guess the study's authors and state the finding for ciswomen alone, nor is it our job to assert the finding for trans men alone. That, rather than making OR assumptions, is how we can avoid the fallacy of division.

If, on the other hand, a MEDRS study's authors - or those of a secondary review - have made claims about sub-populations (or even additional groups outside of the original study population), then WP editors can do so also. Newimpartial (talk) 13:47, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Newimpartial perhaps the problem for me is I'm having a hard time imagining any study (that wasn't looking at transgender issues) using the words "cis women and trans men". It doesn't even equate to "assigned female at birth" or "biologically female" since it doesn't include non-binary AFAB people. So what purpose would such a grouping serve to study? It is certainly worth noting that the fallacy of division can affect the additive approach. But per many examples in the paper at the bottom of this page, (accidentally) widening the group can also cause problems (blindly substituting "people" for "women"). It may be simpler to broadly explain this as as a rule-of-thumb that "the more precise our claim is, the less leeway we have to reword the definition of groups studied".

Wrt your second example, while they could be using their expertise to know that these sub-groups are sufficiently equivalent that the claim still holds, they might also (per the examples in the paper at the bottom of this page) be making stupid mistakes in order to try to be trans-friendly. I'm warying of declaring that if our secondary sources fall into that fallacy of division, then we can (should?) repeat their mistakes. That same rule-of-thumb can help because we can be sure that if they write "58% of women and trans men", citing a study that said "58% of women" (with no further clarification) then it is really unlikely they are drawing on ther personal expertise of trans men, where they know from unpublished personal notes that it also applies to exactly 58% of trans men too. But if they had said "many women and trans men", citing a study that said "58% of women", then we could trust this addition more. Our secondary sources have more freedom to reword study findings that we do, but I think we still need to be cautious. I suppose there are parallels with studies that happen to recruit only young white men, and the findings (or review) says "People with depression benefit from Wonderpam about 60% of the time". -- Colin°^Talk 15:29, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I think part of my point is that we would be performing OR to "correct" the way a study describes the applicable population even if we were right to do so. We can, of course, choose what studies to include or exclude, though per MEDRS we are mostly to defer those decisions to secondary analyses. But we must be very careful not to change reported findings through WP:SYNTH even when we are right. The mantra here is Verifiability, NOTTRUTH. Newimpartial (talk) 15:59, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

@Newimpartial, accurately representing the meaning of a source, without using the exact words that the source uses, is not OR. This is stated plainly and directly in the third paragraph of Wikipedia:No original research: Rewriting source material in your own words while retaining the substance is not considered original research.

If your "correction" (though I would not consider it a correction at all) is accurate – and therefore "retains the substance" of the source – then it is not OR according to the policy itself.

This means, e.g., that if a source says "Typically developing 46,XX humans have a higher risk of breast cancer than typically developing 46,XY humans", you are allowed to say "Women have a higher risk of breast cancer than men" or to say "Females have a higher risk of breast cancer than males" or even (though I would not recommend it for non-OR reasons) "People born with a uterus have a higher risk of breast cancer than people born with a prostate". This, in your language, "corrects the way a study describes the applicable population" but it does not violate OR at all. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:17, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure you are interpreting my position correctly. I am not saying that we have to use precisely the same language used in a study - rewriting is not necessarily OR. However, "rewriting" that uses multiple data sources to make a claim the authors did not make is, in fact, OR.

So to deal with your example, if a source says that Typically developing 46,XX humans have a higher risk of breast cancer than typically developing 46,XY humans, it isn't simply a matter of free choice whether to use "man/woman", "male/female" or other, more precise terms for these populations.

"Typically developing 46,XX humans" are a large subset of cis women, a large subset of trans men, and a significant subset of nonbinary people. "Typically developing 46,XY humans" are a large subset of cis men, a large subset of trans women, and a significant subset of nonbinary people. We as editors do not simply get to choose "women" or "females" to paraphrase one of these groupings without the clear backing of the primary or a strongly relevant secondary study. Anyway, replacing a more precise term ("typically developing 46,XX humans") with a less precise term ("women") is not what I would call "paraphrase". I would call that loss of information. Newimpartial (talk) 19:54, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Sometimes a paraphrase results in a loss of precision. Being less precise does not violate OR.

Depending on why you're writing that sentence in the first place, this loss of precision could be a feature, not a bug. Unnecessary precision can distract readers from the main point being made. Or, to put this in wikijargon, imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge. That's the sum, not the addends. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:50, 8 March 2022 (UTC)

Be that as it may, we have to have good reasons for the choices we make in paraphrase. Neither ILIKEIT nor IDONTLIKEIT is a good reason, and neither is the desire to draw our own conclusions from complex material. Newimpartial (talk) 00:28, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't think so. Every editor adding new content automatically has an excellent, required-by-policy reason for paraphrasing: writing in your own words prevents copyright violations. But I might agree that an editor would need a good reason to change existing language. IDONTLIKEIT excuses wouldn't be good enough, but reasons like "making the article's style consistent", "using simpler language", or "using clearer terms" would probably suffice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:35, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Editors are only permitted to write in their own words insofar as the meaning is the same. What they are not allowed to do is insert claims or conclusions not found in the sources. Avoiding copyvio is not an excuse to throw WP:V to the wind. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

If you change any word, the meaning will not necessarily be "the same". The thing about synonyms is that their meanings may differ slightly. WP:OR requires you to retain the substance of the source, not the exact meaning of each word in the source. Thus one could read a source that say "patients present with this symptom" and change it to "people experience this symptom". The meaning of these words are not "the same", but the overall substance of the source is being retained. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:43, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Regardless, the "substance" of "women" vs. "people" is definitely not the same. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:18, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't think you believe that. If you believed that, then you'd have to object if someone cited a source that said "Pregnant people should get vaccinated for COVID" (which, as we've discussed, is the dominant wording in such sources) and wrote instead "Women who are pregnant should get vaccinated for COVID". I somehow doubt that you would object to such a change, even though you claim here that the substance of "women" and "people" are not the same. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:42, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

It has not at all been established that that is the dominant wording in such sources. Especially when looking at the underlying published reviews or studies. But even if it was, it would not at all prove that those terms have the same substance or that "pregnant people" should be used in any other context. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:51, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't know whether you remember, Crossroads, but you were previously publicly supportive of paraphrases by a subsequently topic-banned editor who was altering the language and conclusions of sources in exactly the way you are now saying is not ok. Does that mean you no longer support "standardizing" language to what you think the majority of sources use, in cases where the particular sources used are making specific statements using more precise language that is incompatible with your (or the banned editor)'s perception of the "standard"/majority? Are you on some kind of redemption arc, or something? Newimpartial (talk) 04:57, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

As far as I can remember, the sources in that case used "women" and "female" interchangably; in no case was unsourced terminology being introduced. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:20, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Well, then, your memory is deficient, because sources were cited that used only one term and the editor in question substituted the other. So yes, in that sense, the terminology used was unsourced. You can start flogging yourself now.

Also, I have asked elsewhere for you to produce some instance where the terms pregnant people and pregnant women actually reflect a difference in substance. So far, this falls in the (very large) category of "things you assert and then never support with evidence in any way"..Newimpartial (talk) 05:49, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Another break (WP:OR)

Responding to Colin's comment above, I'm interested in how to define the situations in which editors could reasonably apply statements to more genders than are in the sources. Regarding There does seem to be an observation that the more precise our claim is, the less leeway we have to reword the definition of groups studied, unfortunately I can think of lots of highly imprecise claims in category B, and any number of highly precise claims in category A. Consider, for example, the statements "Breastfeeding reduces the risk of postpartum depression for the mother" and "Immune factors and immune-modulating components in breast milk include cytokines, growth factors, proteins, microbes, and human milk oligosaccharides". The former statement is less precise and in category B, and the latter statement is more precise but is in category A. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:58, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps "precise" isn't the best word. All you are saying about the milk components is that they are present, which is a very weak claim. Their relative amount may vary and isn't stated, and as you say it is in (a) since we'd be rather surprised if trans people's milk was entirely free of protein or microbes. Put another way, claims that don't measure some quality (absolutely or relatively), fall more into being right or wrong, rather than exact or vague. For example, the location of the cervix in the body or the fact that it can become cancerous. When we measure or compare then we can get into trouble and are more likely to get into trouble the more precisely we state the measurement or comparison. I don't know enough about postpartum depression to speculate if this risk reduction has a social or biological cause but I could imagine an expert being able to expand that sentence to include trans people in a way that we couldn't. Whereas I'd be doubtful about anyone (expert or otherwise) doing so for a claim that it reduces the risk by 45%. Perhaps someone knows the correct words to describe these different things. Some examples about "women"

1. The claim is independent. "Pregnancy is when an embryo or foetus develops inside a woman's womb". The facts are really about the developing baby in a womb, independent of anything about the womb's owner.
2. Weakest claim, such as the existence of something sometimes, or its absence sometimes. "A women may become pregnant after unprotected sex". "A woman does not always become pregnant after unprotected sex".
3. Weak claim, saying something is occasional or common. "A woman occasionally miscarries the baby". "Many women experience miscarriage".
4. Strong relative but probably independent claim. "An older woman will take longer to become pregnant" (we'd be surprised if a particular gender identity offered immunity to the effects of age).
5. Strong relative but possibly dependent claim. "Men have their first heart attack earlier than women".
6. Precise claim, "92% of young women will become pregnant after a year of frequent unprotected sex".

I think this is just a rule-of-thumb rather than an algorithm. Maybe others can give better or additional examples. -- Colin°^Talk 15:01, 9 March 2022 (UTC)

This all seems quite convoluted, and a lot of work resulting, all to serve the premise that we just need to fit this sort of writing in Wikipedia somehow. I don't agree with this assumption and just don't see how this benefits the encyclopedia. There are much better ways to include trans people than throwing millions of sentences into perpetual question as to what terms to use, when until now editors have simply been imitating their sources. Dedicated text (as little as a sentence or as much as a whole article) is the way to go for trans inclusion, based on sources that discuss them. Unmooring the text from its underlying sources inevitably creates more problems than it could ever solve. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:47, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

What does "this sort of writing" mean? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:37, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

People with vaginas/cervixes/uteruses/etc. etc., "pregnant people", and so on. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:23, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't think anyone here is working from the premise that we "need to fit this sort of writing in Wikipedia somehow". I think editors are trying to figure out how to write decent articles. For example:

• Should we actually ban words like "pregnant people"? Even if the cited sources use it? What about phrases that are gender neutral but don't offend people's political sensibilities, like "Roller coasters can be dangerous to those who have spinal problems or are pregnant" or "Pregnant passengers may need a seat belt extender"? Should we force editors to re-write sentences to mention gender unnecessarily?
• What do we do when – as actually happened at 5α-Reductase 2 deficiency, so this is not a hypothetical example – we have reliable sources calling the same group of people "males", "boys", "women", and "female", and we also know that this group has a higher than typical incidence of the affected people's gender differing from genetic sex?
• Should we maintain the sex–gender distinction? That would mean, e.g., writing about "pregnant females" in a ==Signs and symptoms== section, but "pregnant women" in a ==Society and culture== section.

Nobody here is actually trying to cram any particular kind of language into Wikipedia (unless you want to tell us that you are trying to force gendered language everywhere?). We are trying to figure out what's reasonable and appropriate. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:25, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Colin, Thanks for more examples. I'm still not sure what system you're proposing to distinguish claims that need gender-inclusive sourcing from claims that don't need it. What is the difference between an "independent" and a "dependent" claim? Is "Breast milk contains 0.4 g of casein per 100 mL" in category A, B, or C?

Regarding "Breastfeeding reduces the risk of postpartum depression for the mother", in my opinion this is clearly in category B but if I'm understanding your comment, you seem to be saying it's in category C, is that right? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:03, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm not totally sure what the reworded "breast milk" / "breastfeeding" sentences would be, so perhaps I'm in danger of arguing about something you aren't focusing on. I think the depression one is fine for you to say B and for me (in my greater ignorance) to say C, but the end result is similar. -- Colin°^Talk 10:48, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

This ==section== is getting long (on the order of 15,000 words?), so I'm splitting the epilepsy example into a ==new section==. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:46, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

Comment Re:Should we maintain the sex–gender distinction?: I think what this question is actually asking is, "should we impose specific terminology reflecting the sex and gender distinction" and I think the answer to that is pretty clearly "no". The term "women", for example, is usually a term for gender but sometimes a term for sex (or that doesn't distinguish the two). The term "female", in the context of humans, refers to gender less often than "women" does but cannot be presumed to refer to "biological sex" - this depends on (explicit and implicit) context. And the attempt to distinguish ==Signs and symptoms== as biology from ==Society and culture== as gender is simply not (yet?) supported by the reliable sources on these topics, who typically don't establish a clear distinction and can't be a priorized into doing so (as anyone familiar, e.g., with the literature on sex- and gender-based violence can attest).

It would be running ahead of the disciplinary literature, and misleading to readers, to insist as a matter of WP (medical?) style on "female" (especially on "females") for biology and "women" for gender - a great deal of WP:OR would be required, and we we would be imposing a specious distinction on language that, in reality, is much more fluid and nuanced. So I'm not saying we need to follow the terms used in the article cited in a particular sentence and change sentence for sentence (what if our sentence references sources that use differing terminology for what is demonstrably the same concept?), but at the same time this is not a problem that can be solved "globally", by fiat, but only "locally" for particular topics.

For example, the "pregnant women"/"pregnant people" issue is much more one of public health communication than of medical taxonomy: the two terms do not actually refer to distinct referents except in extreme edge cases (like a study that actually compares pregnant women to pregnant trans and nonbinary people). But in other instances (like sex- and gender-based violence), there isn't any simple distinction (or simple equivalency) that can be justified within the literature as a whole. Newimpartial (talk) 17:43, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Your violence example is a good one where a source talking about pregnant women facing violence from their partners would likely need to stay at "women". Examples are useful but I still think this sort of thing is very typical and not a reason to ban Wikipedians from using our own words in one case (when we don't ban them normally). -- Colin°^Talk 19:19, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that any OR would be involved. Given a sentence like "Premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD) is a severe form of premenstrual syndrome affecting 3–8% of menstruating _____", editor could fill in the blank with their choice of women, females, or even people. Any of those words would accurately represent the substance of the cited source (namely, that only that subclass of humans who are in between menarche and menopause can experience this condition).

There are some cultural difficulties. The idea that there can be a difference between gender and sex is a cultural idea, and some readers will find that strange. The idea that gender identity (vs, e.g., gender role) is the definitive understanding of gender for any person is also a cultural idea, and some readers will find that strange. But this is the culture that Western medical sources represent. Nobody who writes that PMDD affects 3–8% of menstruating _____ is going to agree that this is a fact about gender instead of biological sex. Trans women and male-bodied non-binary people do not have PMDD, full stop.

Shibbolethink, do I remember correctly that you had some ideas about this? (It's okay if you don't want to read this book-length talk page.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:16, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Surely, whether or not OR would be involved is entirely dependent on the specific topic? Newimpartial (talk) 02:21, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, every single claim depends on the specifics. But as a general rule, editors could prefer one term for one part of an article (e.g., pathophysiology) and another term for another part of an article (e.g., laws in different countries) without violating NOR or any other policy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:07, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Right, this is a component of typical WP:SUMMARY style. Thesaurus-mongering is not WP:OR. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:32, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm a bit puzzled about what your "I don't think that any OR would be involved." sentence refers to. -- Colin°^Talk 12:01, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

To the one that says "a great deal of WP:OR would be required". WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:01, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

...difference between gender and sex is a cultural idea, and some readers will find that strange. The idea that gender identity (vs, e.g., gender role) is the definitive understanding of gender for any person is also a cultural idea, and some readers will find that strange. But this is the culture that Western medical sources represent

Right, I think this is a very important point to make. Wikipedia respects the differences among various cultures, but it ultimately relies upon the scholarly establishment to set standards for what it says and how it says it. Especially in controversial areas like this! And the established organizations (AMA, CDC, WPATH) agree that gender identity and sex are distinct but related concepts is pretty well-established in the AMA style guide, CDC literature, etc. I don't think it qualifies as WP:OR to rely on professional organizations to tell us how to use the terms provided in the medical literature. Especially when there is such a heavy diversity of terminology in that literature. We are in a weird period of time, when multiple generations of researchers are reading, writing, editing, and reviewing these studies. As such, we often encounter scenarios when there are conflicting terms used within a single study, let alone between multiple ones and reviews thereof.

I think it is entirely acceptable (and within the bounds of the WP:PAGs) for the project to adhere to one particular style even when the sources do not. As long as we can determine, with confidence, that we are not misinterpreting the results based on those terms. (E.g. using a study of all biological at-birth females and calling them "cis and trans women." — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:37, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

This reminds me of what MEDMOS says about addiction and non-medical drugs. (Search for "If you want to convey that a drug does not cause tolerance, or that its withdrawal syndrome is not life-threatening, then state that" if you don't remember it.) Sometimes, being ultra-precise is the best approach. The top of pregnancy could say "in a biologically female human", and the rest of the article could proceed on with whatever language the editors thought best, because once you got past the first sentence, it should be entirely clear what those words referred to.

Of course, there are downsides to it, and they are most obvious in that example: pregnancy is not merely, or even primarily, a biological experience. It is an intensely social experience, even the apparent organizing principle behind some early human cultures. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:19, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

That phrasing wouldn't satisfy critics of "in a woman" anyway, since the same POV is offended by describing trans men and nonbinary people as "biologically female" or would even call it inaccurate. Remember, this whole discussion began after an editor got in trouble, being reported to AE, in part for referring to trans women as biologically male. I get the sense that some of the editors who want to give leeway to this sort of language don't understand how radical the demands really are. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:33, 28 March 2022 (UTC) edited Crossroads ^-talk- 07:16, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I started this discussion because Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Archive 157#Discussion about article "Sex differences in medicine" was getting too long to stay on that page last December. I think it is reasonable of me to believe that, of all the people on the planet, I am the person best positioned to know why I started this discussion.

As for your statement that it was "after an editor got in trouble for referring to trans women as biologically male", I note that neither biological male nor biologically male appear anywhere in it, nor do those words appear in the discussion linked at the top of it, but, sure, if that happened at some point before last December, then this, and every other edit ever since, has happened "after" that. But assuming that the alleged trouble and my decision to start this discussion are actually connected is a post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:12, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Crossroads is referring to this ARE case, where the editor in question received a TBAN from GENSEX for significantly more than referring to trans women as biologically male. While the discussion at the Sex differences in medicine talk page may have precipitated the ARE case, the editor got in trouble for their behaviour post filing. Sideswipe9th (talk) 04:03, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I've corrected my comment - I overlooked that I should have been more specific as I was when mentioning this last time and not assumed everyone was familiar with the details. Crossroads ^-talk- 07:16, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't think the "in part" correction fixes things. I looked at that AE and found they used the term "transmen" and "transwomen" rather than "trans men and nonbinary people" which Crossroads used. The difference is that those words are considered offensive and one would expect an editor in that area to be aware of this, or at the very least, alter their text after being told so. Secondly, I see the editor said such people were "female" or "male", not "biological male" or "biological female" (the latter terms get used by a source they quote but then choose to drop the "biological" aspect when commenting in their own words. They repeat both problems at the AE itself: "Transwomen are male". Those claims were at the mild end of the opinions expressed. The one many picked up on was the idea that having a trans identity was comparable to identifying as the royalty or an alien. I don't think the editor "got into trouble" in any part "for referring to trans women as biologically male". They got into trouble for their behaviour, and for thinking Wikipedia articles are edited by convincing other editors of one's beliefs and by insulting any editor who holds different ones.

We are all here trying to find appropriate wording to discuss these matters in Wikipedia articles. One reason I tried to focus on what other expert people have written is to avoid us falling out over differences between our personal opinions on the matter, or ending up at AE. We should be able to describe opinions and wording with a degree of separation, where labels like "gender critical" or "cisnormative" don't cause personal offense. We should be able to make mistakes and recognise mistakes, which are fine as long as we are all here in good faith. -- Colin°^Talk 10:17, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Different topic

Perhaps it would help if we removed the whole gender identity issue from the OR discussion, because this is very ordinary editing practice supported by the bit of OR quoted above: Rewriting source material in your own words while retaining the substance is not considered original research

(a) One would be quite surprised if the rewording made the claim invalid. Someone challenging this should offer a source (on a talk page) or convincing explanation to explain why. Reverting or removing the text might be considered disruptive (especially if persistent).

(b) One would be quite surprised that this rewording was likely to be valid. It would be reasonable to ask for a source and you might reasonably revert or remove the text before opening a discussion.

(c) One isn't sure whether the rewording is acceptable. It would be reasonable to ask for a source for reassurance but you might be more inclined to keep the text while discussing it.

Let's consider another example. Our source says "one fifth of patients who present to specialist [epilepsy] clinics with seizures do not have epilepsy" They either have seizures due to a psychological disorder or sometimes the heart or fainting is the cause - these are classified as Non Epileptic Seizures or NES.

• "Around 1 in 5 people (20%) diagnosed with epilepsy who are then assessed at specialist epilepsy centres are found to have NES."This is how Epilepsy Society word it. I think this rewording "retains the substance" and replacing "patient" with "people" here seems very similar to the replacement of "pregnant women" with "pregnant people". The Epilepsy society is writing for a lay audience so "people" reflects that point-of-view, whereas the BMJ is writing to doctors so "patient" reflects their point-of-view. Wikipedia is for a lay audience, and this is quite a typical way in which we do not write like our sources do. This is category A.
• "A fifth of people diagnosed with epilepsy do not in fact have epileptic seizures." We've expanded the scope to all "people diagnosed with epilepsy" (most do not get referred to specialist centres) and this is incorrect. Those going to specialist epilepsy centres often have intractable epilepsy and a significant reason for that is that the seizures aren't epileptic in nature so don't respond to those drugs. This is category B. While it is possible that the rates of NES among specialist clinic patients are no different to the general epilepsy population, it seems highly unlikely. In fact the figure is more like 5% for the epilepsy population as a whole, though studies vary and the BMJ article does on to say "It has been widely supposed that this high prevalence reflects referral bias but a recent community based study found a similar proportion among patients with recent onset seizures". Again "recent onset" isn't the same as the whole epilepsy population.
• "Some people diagnosed with epilepsy do not in fact have epileptic seizures." We've expanded the scope like above, but we've weakened the claim by making it much less precise. I think this is fine. We're just making a "there exists" claim, and the subset of those going to a specialist centre still fits within that claim for the larger group. I think this demonstrates that it is sometimes ok to alter the scope of the group being discussed as long as the claim is weak enough. This is category A.
• "A minority of people diagnosed with epilepsy do not in fact have epileptic seizures." This is a bit stronger than above but still a lot weaker than "a fifth". The question then is whether expanding the scope might increase the number with NES or decrease it, and by how much. I think this is a judgement call. It would take a lot for 20% to go above 49% and the claim to be false. Whereas if the original number was 45% then it wouldn't take much for it to become wrong. A little bit of knowledge about epilepsy would make one pretty confident that in fact the percentage can only fall and so the rewording is safe, but whether we regard that "little bit of knowledge about epilepsy" as acceptable for Wikipedians is not certain. If the topic were cars or football then I suspect we'd accept that editors likely did know enough about the topic to be safe using their topic knowledge. What do you think? Is this a safe claim? I think this could be category C but perhaps in another subject domain could be A.
• "A lot of people diagnosed with intractable epilepsy turn out to not have epilepsy at all." While this is correct, our source (from what is quoted at least) doesn't let us make "diagnosed with intractable epilepsy" equivalent enough to "patients who present to specialist clinics". So even though the claim is weak ("a lot of people"), it would be reasonable to challenge this claim per OR. (As WAID would no doubt point out, it doesn't fail OR because there are sources that would back up this claim; we just haven't quoted them [yet] -- if you read the body of the BMJ article, it rewords this sentence, "one in five patients with apparently intractable epilepsy referred to specialist centres"). This is category C (based on the source abstract). -- Colin°^Talk 10:48, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

If anything this illustrates to me why we should stay focused on editors hewing very closely to the claims found in the sources (even though they use their own words, the substance of the claim must be the same). 'Patient...at specialist epilepsy center' means the same thing as 'person...at specialist epilepsy center'; "pregnant women" and "pregnant people" do not mean the same thing. And weakening claims just to allow for vague wording seems pointless. Editors shouldn't be taking liberties or making decisions based on what they think is "surprising", as this is inherently subjective. In practice, it amounts to writing their own conclusions after reading the sources, rather than simply relaying the facts or conclusions of the sources. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:38, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Crossroads, what precisely do you see as the difference in substance between "pregnant women" and "pregnant people"? In what kind of study or other publication do they refer to different populations? Do such studies exist? Newimpartial (talk) 05:42, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Do you believe that every person who gets pregnant is a woman, Newimpartial? Crossroads ^-talk- 21:32, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

You say '"pregnant women" and "pregnant people" do not mean the same thing.' Well only really in the same way as "large" and "big" don't mean the same thing, yet most of the time I can substitute one for the other with no issues. Crossroads we can all find examples where a minor change of words (subsituting synonymns or simplifying techinical language or avoiding words which might confuse or cause offence or simply to vary the words for the reader's enjoyment) causes shift in meaning that might be important (change the substance) but this is pretty desperate stuff. All of us here know there are times when word changing can cause issues, but also all of us are experienced at doing that. This is routine and yet you keep claiming it is forbidden. It only seems to be forbidden when you don't like the word choice. Your last sentence seems to prevent editors summarising sources, requiring them to fully relay all the tedious facts of the original. I'm getting a bit tired of hearing invented rules. -- Colin°^Talk 08:33, 11 March 2022 (UTC)

Just a quick note that I was planning to reply to Colin's original post in this section today but am instead dealing with a mess in mainspace. Will try to comment here soonish. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:40, 12 March 2022 (UTC)

I've read this over several times and it overall seems reasonable. One thing that it reminded me of is that (while it's permissible and often appropriate to say things in a way that's very different from how the source words things) certain rewordings can take a very long time to evaluate for OR. There are too few experienced editors watching women's health articles to keep up with even obvious crap, let alone a new wave of potential OR.

While I'm on the topic of labor-intensiveness, here's another thing: Women's health articles are typically written with a mixture of gender-specific and non-gendered statements, such as It is recommended for mothers to initiate breastfeeding within the first hour after birth... Breastfeeding appears to protect against breast cancer. If you make certain statements gender-inclusive you can give the impression that the non-gendered statements appear to apply to all genders. For instance, if you change things to It is recommended for parents to initiate breastfeeding within the first hour after birth... Breastfeeding appears to protect against breast cancer. The person who changes "mothers" to "parents" in the first sentence may not have even given a second of thought about the second sentence, but it's the watchers of the article who have to evaluate whether the second sentence is now OR. Lucky us!

The burden on page watchers is one of the many reasons I agree with Crossroads that it's generally best to deal with gender-inclusivity by having a section in which we say "this is what we know about the topic in non-cis populations." Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:55, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Do you think the second sentence is really so dependent on the "mothers" context or altered by the "parents" context? Like anyone would think the dad is protected because his wife breastfeeds? Actually I don't think the change to the first sentence is a good idea regardless of the second sentence (wrt clarity, separate from how one feels about this issue). The word "parents" is plural and at many births both parents are present. So there's a huge ambiguity here that the sentence seems to be saying it is mum and dad's joint responsibility to initiate breastfeeding with the first hour. One could write it "It is recommended that breastfeeding is initiated within the first hour after birth". I don't think that approach has the clarity/ambiguity problem. One of our midwife guidelines reminded authors that a "person centred" approach should be reflected in their writing, which would discourage going back to the days where patients were just wombs on legs or "the prolapse in bed 3". But we don't need to mention women/mothers in every sentence: your second sentence is an example.

I wonder, though, if the word "mother" is quite so problematic as "women" (see my earlier comments at 11:46, 3 January 2022). Do we have any idea of the portion of trans and non-binary people who reject the label "mother" or "father"? While those words are associated with sex and gender roles it is also descriptive of a parent's biological role (egg or sperm, which one gets pregnant). I can't remember if any of our sources discuss that.

I think your point about frequency of mistake & burden on editors watchlists is quite valid and a reasonable factor that could influence whether some approaches were discouraged. However, on the basis that nobody reads the manual, and perhaps most of this sort of change comes from newbies, I wonder whether guidance discouraging it based on the fact that newbies get it wrong so often and burdens the experienced editors ends up being guidance that only hinders experienced editors from making perfectly reasonable edits. Am I wrong about the source of errors/changes? I know we had a case where a highly experienced editor added original research to hundreds of medical articles, which took a huge amount of effort to resolve. Perhaps the problem with these mistakes would be best dealt with by having advice specifically aimed at education projects, recommending that they strongly discourage students from 'fixing' gender issues. -- Colin°^Talk 12:38, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Colin, re Like anyone would think the dad is protected because his wife breastfeeds?, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that if we use trans-inclusive language early in an article, the reader will think that that all subsequent sentences are also trans-inclusive.

We have specifically been told by the Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine, "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." (emphasis mine) I wonder if we have forgotten this in the 6 10 weeks since I brought it up, but this is a core point to the OR discussion. If we assume everything we know about cis women automatically applies to trans men unless we know otherwise, we're screwing up our articles.

W.r.t. your question on the portion of trans and non-binary people who reject the label "mother" or "father", we do have good evidence that trans men consider "mother" to be a form of hurtful misgendering when care providers use it to refer to individual trans patients.[12] Any evidence that trans people reject the idea of literature for a general audience referring to people who breastfeed as "mothers" is either far weaker or nonexistent.

Regarding the burden on editors' watchlists, thanks for empathizing. If Editor A changes "mother" to "parent" and Editor B is watching the article, it is obviously easier for Editor B to say "Rv, we don't do this, please start a section on LGBTQ+ as recommended in MEDMOS" than it is for Editor B to evaluate which sentences in the article might suddenly have become factually inaccurate and then contest Editor A's edit while worrying about being called a transphobe and a Nazi. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:08, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

"Breastfeeding appears to protect against breast cancer" is already ambiguous, because it could be interpreted as indicating that breastfeeding protects the baby against future breast cancer (which it probably does, indirectly, by reducing the risk of obesity). But I think it is a bit of a stretch to say that changing the gender in a sentence about starting breastfeeding within one hour implies anything about who benefits decades later. If that's a serious concern, then you would also have to reject it because the original sentence would be incorrectly implying that this benefit depends upon starting within one hour, and that the oncological effect has little or nothing to do with how many years are spent breastfeeding.

If we want to discourage a gender focus in educational projects, we should probably talk about that at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. Now is a good time to talk about that, because Wiki Education Foundation will probably be setting up their courses for next year in a little while. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:38, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Apparently I chose a confusing example. Perhaps this is clearer: Say an article or section says Breastfeeding has many benefits for the mother. These benefits include protection against breast cancer. Say I change this to Breastfeeding has many benefits for the breastfeeding or chestfeeding parent. These benefits include protection against breast cancer. By changing the first sentence, I have changed the scope of the second sentence.

While a fair bit of the pain for article watchers comes from student projects, my preference is not to discourage a gender focus in educational projects per se. My preference would be to advise instructors and students 1) Don't change existing content to use gender-inclusive language because you'll probably screw something up, and 2) Do read reliable sources on LBGTQ+ aspects of medical topics and add some well-sourced information to articles. And I think our advice to non-student editors should be the same. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:49, 13 March 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps it is worth creating a section on behaviour / practicalities rather than trying to deal with this at the same time as we wonder if X or OR or if X is even good writing. Crossroads keeps claiming if we give an inch then all of Wikipedia will be gender neutral and women erased. I do think it is worth compartmentalising this. I have a hard time imagining the experienced editors at MOS agreeing to not do something because they aren't bright enough to do it well. That's not going to wash I think, even if we do suspect it may be true. Wrt a section dealing with trans issues, I think it would be a much better response if that section existed, rather than asking a newbie to write it. For education/newbies, I think we've already had requests at WP:MED that students are steered away from controversial or difficult subjects, and I think handling the "definition of a 'woman'" culture war is definitely one we should discourage, as with any culture war issue. Surely for such editors we want to maximise the chances they'll make a positive and accepted set of edits. -- Colin°^Talk 11:40, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I think you're right about steering students away from any culture war stuff. I've struck some of my above comment that was too optimistic. I also agree it would be good to create a section on behavior/practicalities.

W.r.t. I have a hard time imagining the experienced editors at MOS agreeing to not do something because they aren't bright enough to do it well., that's why Wikipedia:No original research has served the community so well for the past 20+ years. I believe "Pregnant people shouldn't ride roller coasters" is original research done well, but it's still original research.

We know that bright people accept being told "no original research". (Some bright people don't accept it, but they don't last long enough at Wikipedia to find their way to the MEDMOS talk page.)

Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:24, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

(EC with WAID below) Most people overestimate their ability to extrapolate biomedical knowledge from cis people to trans people. We know this because people who do have expertise in this area, such as the writers of the ABM position paper, keep having to tell their audience to do less of it. And their audience is medical/research professionals. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:38, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Why do you think "Pregnant people shouldn't ride roller coasters" is original research? This sign says "those who are pregnant". This sign says "guests [who] are pregnant". If it's a violation of NOR to write pregnant people, then do you think that it would be a violation of NOR to write pregnant women in such cases, given that these sources say nothing at all about either sex or gender? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:35, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Are you saying we should accept amusement park signs as sources? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:41, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

We can source the same kinds of gender-neutral and sex-neutral statements to books: "Guests must be at least 40 inches tall to experience Big Thunder Mountain Railroad, and anyone who suffers from heart or back problems or is pregnant should skip it". "If you are free of heart, back, and neck problems, are not pregnant, have no fear of heights (or abominable snowpeople), and are at least 44 inches tall, go for it". "Most of the headliner attractions are restricted for pregnant guests." "Pregnant people can't go on roller coasters." "Assumption of the risk applies, for instance, when a pregnant patron voluntarily elects to ride a tumultuous roller coaster at an amusement park, despite clear, posted warnings of its potential dangers." WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:32, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't know that anyone is saying that, Clayquot, but this example does bear on the concept of WP:OR. I'm not saying you are doing this, but some editors certainly do extend the concept of OR to mean "assertions that cannot be supported by reliable sources". That isn't actually what OR strictly refers to, in the WP policy framework - if someone somewhere has asserted a thing, even on an amusement park sign, that means it isn't WP:OR. It may not be MEDRS supported, but it most certainly isn't OR on the part of an editor. I have had tedious prior discussions with editors who have made this mistake about what OR is, so I feel it keenly (which, again, doesn't mean I am attributing this mistake to you). Newimpartial (talk) 16:53, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm open to learning that I'm mistaken about what OR is. But "assertions that cannot be supported by reliable sources" is the definition of OR. This is the second sentence of WP:OR: "The phrase "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material—such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist." Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:01, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

You are right, of course, Clayoquot: I was muddling my recollection of WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, and should have looked back at the policy. It is SYNTH that does not apply to statements that have been made in non-reliable sources, but the broader concept of OR does still apply. Mea culpa.

That said, though, there is a certain degree of confusion that emerges in medical and medical-adjacent topics - I think this confusion is less typical of article writing and very common on Talk pages. So if we have a statement that easily meets WP:RS standards but not WP:MEDRS, and an editor promotes this on a Talk page, is it OR? Does it even promote the discussion to discuss whether or not it is OR, or is it better simply to evaluate the sourcing for the statement?

It seems to me that this reflects what we have seen on the current Talk page at times. There most certainly are sources in public health communication - not amusement park signs, but actual published sources - that use a wider range of language about their target populations than most of the primary or secondary studies do. Some of these are likely to be WP:MEDRS, and some are not. It seems to me that it would contribute more to advance the current discussion of we were to focus on the role and quality of these publications than to take the position (and I'm not attributing this to you, but other editors definitely) that anything that hasn't appeared in a top quality MEDRS source must be treated as OR. I don't find that position to be either policy-based or constructive.

Upon reflection, I also (now) recognize that part of my affect in this context is reacting more broadly to editors using OR as a label in Talk page discussions where it does not strictly apply (through other would apply if the same claim were proposes in Article space). I myself tend not to so this, mostly because editors offering unsourced claims are, in my experience, typically repeating something the saw on an amusement park sign, on YouTube or on a self-published web source. In such instances, neither "original" nor "research" typically applies, so OR just seems malaprop. Newimpartial (talk) 17:24, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

@Newimpartial, back when you created your account (and therefore back when you were more likely to read the policies, rather than just remembering them), OR was defined as adding content that wasn't available in any published source at all, regardless of whether that source was reliable for that statement. Thus an editor could add something that failed WP:V but not WP:OR, e.g., if the editor read a social media from a neighbor and, on that basis, put "George Washington Slept Here" into an article about their hometown. Back then, we would have said it wasn't OR (it's based on an unreliable but public social media post) but that it failed WP:V (because the post was unreliable). OTOH, if the source was a private, unpublished e-mail message from the same neighbor, then we would have classified it as an OR violation. (Also, all OR violations were, and still are, inherently WP:V violations.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:04, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:SYNTH is part of OR and absolutely requires reliable sources just the same. For example: "A and B, therefore, C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument concerning the topic of the article. And it uses "reliable" many times thereafter.

Frankly, the idea that something isn't OR or SYNTH if some internet rando somewhere says it is preposterous, and even if OR technically allowed it, it would obviously be an oversight in the writing of the policy. Not sure which rule of the internet this would be, but there is essentially no idea, no matter how absurd, that someone somewhere didn't say it on social media. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:27, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

No, Crossroads. If internet radio claims "A and B therefore C" then it can't be SYNTH even though it can be OR. I don't make up the rules. Newimpartial (talk) 22:23, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

My reading of WP:SYNTH is that the source that claims "A and B therefore C" must be reliable. Here's what WP:SYNTH says: "A and B, therefore, C" is acceptable only if a reliable source has published the same argument concerning the topic of the article. (emphasis mine) Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:24, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

In terms of what we need to do in article space, that is of course correct. But the lead sentence of SYNTH - Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source - is more restrictive ("any source"). Since the place I most often see SYNTH arguments is as a rhetorical objection to Talk comments - rather than its intended function in relation to article text - I would rather see the use of this generally unhelpful rhetoric restricted as much as possible. Newimpartial (talk) 12:13, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

This little bit of confusion is just an unfortunate artifact of the decision to cram references to RS into NOR when they originally weren't a relevant consideration. The cramming was done incompletely. It would have been better to merge the two (as was proposed at Wikipedia:Attribution about 15 years ago). If you think it's worthwhile, you could try to fix the language. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:05, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Fixing that language is a good suggestion, however reading both how both this discussion, and the one about MOS:LABEL have unfurled, I suspect any such attempt there would likely also be contentious. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:59, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Clayoquot, perhaps you and WAID don't agree on the roller coaster example, but I think we have found examples where there really was no original research. Statements like:

• "It is recommended that breastfeeding is initiated within the first hour after birth"
• "Breastfeeding appears to protect against breast cancer"

Both avoid saying women/mothers and also avoid explicitly claiming they apply to trans men or "all people who breastfeed". That last claim is relatively weak since we aren't saying it offers 100% protection nor claiming it has a 50% risk reduction or whatever. There will be breastfeeding cis mothers who get breast cancer after breastfeeding. Not all claims are specified to the n'th degree and not all scope is specified precisely or even at all. I noticed that the non-talk page now says (wrt possible advice): "Redefining the scope of a claim beyond what is directly supported by the sources is a form of original research". I think the above examples about epilepsy shows that isn't true if one takes the "directly supported = uses exactly the same words" view. One can expand or redefine the scope, but only when the claim is weak enough that it still applies. I don't think it is helpful to have rationale for a rule that isn't in fact true. Better perhaps to say "Redefining the scope when substituting words can lead to claims that are not supported by the source (original research)". Or something like that. And I think some of these examples of rewriting causing problems could be much better done if removed from any culture war issue, just as I've seen some discussions about MEDRS are utterly ruined by people's political views on Covid origins etc. It is really hard to dispassionately consider "is this OR" when one really really would like for it to be OR so one can ban it.

Btw, if you think about the Academy of Breastfeeding Medicine's comment about research not supporting a claim for a wider population, our sources do that all the time when they study young white men and pronounce the effect applies to all the world's population. Or think of all the drugs we describe but neglect to point out nearly all are only studied on and licenced for adults. Of course, we can say our sources authors are allowed to engage in original research. Still doesn't make it right. I think this alteration of population scope is really common, and yet here we are worrying specifically about whether trans men might vary from cis women, and not about whether elderly black women or overweight Asian children vary from young white American men with no underlying health conditions. -- Colin°^Talk 17:12, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

But it simply is not the place of Wikipedia editors to 'correct for' whatever they believe is deficient about their sources. Our sources are written by experts and hence can engage in OR in a way that Wikipedia editors are not, since anyone can edit and anyone can claim to be an expert anonymously. Just like we wouldn't want to encourage editors to try to deduce the race of study participants and rewrite article text based on their conclusions or what they think the source 'should' have said, rather than the source's conclusions, and the same applies to gender. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:17, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

This happens fairly often, but we do discourage it and try to correct it when we can. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:22, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

Then why, pray tell, are we wasting dozens of hours on the possibility of adding something to MEDMOS to permit editors to desex text away from the underlying sources!? If you agree that such should be discouraged, then thank you for seeing the light. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:31, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

We discourage Wikipedia editors from trying "to 'correct for' whatever they believe is deficient about their sources" when that "correction" exceeds the source's contents. We do not discourage editors from clearly representing the substance of a source, even if that means that an editor reads "it worked in a study of 293 rural patients at clinic in mainland China" and writes "it worked in rural China" rather than "it works everywhere".

However, we also, simultaneously, and with no contradiction, encourage editors to 'correct for' certain kinds of deficiencies, e.g., overuse of jargon or a lack of clarity. For example, this edit of mine is also encouraged, because it accurately summarizes what an entire paragraph is about, even though the exact word benign is not used in that paragraph. In this case, I'm writing in my own words but maintaining the substance of the sources. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:48, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Editors are not "'correct[ing]for' whatever they believe is deficient about their sources", they are rewriting the sources in their own words, in encyclopaedic tone, for a general audience, summarised at the appropriate level for the location of the text (lead, body, specialist daughter article, etc). They are also, like all human beings do when writing things in their own words expressing their own values. WAID summarised this quite a long time ago. Those values may differ from the source authors values and may differ from other Wikipedian's values, but you are on this particular topic trying to ban edits by editors whose values you don't share. Please don't do that. Wikipedia is not 100% Crossroad's values and it is not 100% Colin's values and it is not 100% our sources values. It reflects the values that Wikipedians as a community express, sometimes inconsistently, mostly undocumented and unpoliced. If my source says "patient" or "renal" and I write "person" or "kidney", I'm not "correcting" my source and nor do I run some google ngram or download all 10,000 PubMed articles about renal topics to determine what words to pick, because that would be a stupid thing to do and is irrelevant to what Wikipedia is about. Crossroads, when the journal of midwifery above wrote some editorials about what language they would accept or encourage, that reflected their values. We have complete freedom to agree and if desired to assert our values. Most of the time, we don't document them and are happy for random editing to more-or-less work out. Just because this has become a problem topic doesn't permit us to completely invent rules out of thin air in order to impose one's own values 100%. -- Colin°^Talk 15:40, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I've taken that out.

I think one of the problems is "directly supported = uses exactly the same words as the cited source".

Of course source authors are allowed to engage in original research. If a published reliable source is based on the author thinking that the mechanism by which breastfeeding reduces breast cancer is through suppression of ovulation and the promotion of better-differentiated cells in the breast, and that there is no reason to think that these two purely biological effects would be dependent upon gender identity, and that author decides to say "Breastfeeding reduces the risk of breast cancer in people who gave birth no matter what their gender identity is", then that's okay. But I don't think that Wikipedia editors should go through that logic and come to that conclusion themselves. It's true, but it needs to be in a published source before we say it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:21, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

You brought up above that we could at least have WikiEd tell WP:Student editors not to mess with "gendered" terms in articles. They are not good at it, at all. I would definitely agree with this, and I think others here might too. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:38, 14 March 2022 (UTC)

We could, but that's a discussion for a different page and a different group of people. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:50, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

Colin, I think you misunderstood what I said. I did not say "It is recommended that breastfeeding is initiated within the first hour after birth" is original research under any circumstances. I said, or at least tried to say, that "Breastfeeding appears to protect against breast cancer" is not original research in a context that refers only to mothers. I do think it's original research when it's in a context that refers to trans fathers.

Good point on redefining the scope of claims sometimes being OK. I've changed the possible advice to "Redefining the scope when substituting words can lead to claims that are not supported by the source (original research)" as you suggested. Perhaps you can suggest an example of this that everyone would agree is original research?

I agree that our sources regularly make claims for a wider population than was studied in the research. I think the ABM is saying to not make this problem worse, especially since a lot of people these days are trying to better understand the particular health concerns of trans people. It does not serve these readers well to provide content that has a veneer of being more useful than other stuff out there, but really is based on study populations that are 98% cisgender. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:21, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't know if WAID and I actually disagree on whether the roller coaster example is OR. @WhatamIdoing:, I originally thought, based on your comment from (02:33, 14 February) that in your view, the statement "It is unsafe for people who are pregnant to ride roller coasters" does not need any source that uses gender-neutral terms for pregnant people, and that it would suffice to have a source that says it's unsafe for pregnant women to ride roller coasters.

However, I think my interpretation was mistaken, because your comment on {16:35, 14 March 2022} suggested that some sourcing was needed, since you pointed out that signs at the amusement parks use gender-neutral terms. Then your comment from (20:32, 14 March 2022) suggests that amusement park signs don't necessarily cut it, but that books are good-enough sources.

I'm not trying to argue with you at this point. I just want to understand your position. What is the minimal amount/quality of sourcing that you think is acceptable for us to say "It is unsafe for people who are pregnant to ride roller coasters"? Is this acceptable if there are zero sources that use gender-neutral terms for pregnant people riding roller coasters? Is this acceptable if gender-neutral terms are used in sources that we'd consider reliable for some things but not for biomedical claims, such as the Lonely Planet Guide to Disney World? Or is this acceptable only if at least one MEDRS source uses gender-neutral terms? Or somewhere in-between? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:48, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I can't answer the actual question, mostly because the actual "literature" on pregnancy and roller coasters seems so poor in quality (if I were pregnant, and saw no relevant studies, I'm not sure how much I would be moved by the empirical "evidence"). But as far as placental abruption is concerned, I would see sources like this one as sufficient at least to document the risk of placental abruption as relevant for "pregnant people" and as documenting recommendations for such people in the event of symptoms. I would also regard any editor attempting to remove "pregnant people" from article text on this issue, demanding higher-quality sourcing, as engaged in irrelevant hair-splitting and as being potentially disruptive. Making these recommendations for "pregnant people" is clearly sourced, and qualified practitioners have clearly extended the conclusions of the primary literature to a population beyond simply "pregnant women"; it is not the job of Wikipedia editors to run behind contemporary discourse and insist on 20th century language even where it is still typically found in secondary studies. Newimpartial (talk) 14:47, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

I believe that the evidence is based on car wrecks, rather than roller coasters, but physics is the same everywhere.

@Clayoquot, I don't know if we disagree. I quoted some books because you objected to the idea of {{cite sign}} as a source. So, it's not just on signs; it's in books. It is not difficult to find a sentence that happens to use a gender-neutral phrase to describe something about a pregnancy. The question seem to be whether there should be some special exception to the normal rules around gender.

The normal rule says I can write in my own words.

The pressure here (around pregnancy, in particular) seems to be that I can only write in my own words if my own words happen to be gender-specific.

I see multiple editors looking at a source that says "pregnant women" and thinking that the gender-specific word women must be preserved. I see nobody looking at a source that says "pregnant guests" and thinking that the gender-neural word guests – or the overall gender-neutrality represented in that source – must be preserved.

Do we intend to have a double standard? We could write a rule that says "When trying to write in their own words, editors are assumed to be smart enough to know that anyone who is pregnant is a woman, but they are not assumed to be smart enough to know that women are people", but that sounds pretty stupid, doesn't it? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:59, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

It also not the job of Wikipedia editors to run ahead of contemporary discourse and cherry-pick language found only in a tiny minority of sources and prematurely declare anything else passé. Your own source repeatedly uses "mothers" in its headings (the rest was paywalled). Crossroads ^-talk- 05:20, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

How many Wikipedians might ever think think "You know, today I think I'll run ahead of contemporary discourse and cherry-pick language found only in a tiny minority of sources, declaring anything else passé"? There really is a mountain of bad faith in that sentence, that views anyone who might happen to pick words your grandma wouldn't have used, as an advocate who needs to be expelled. This is how some people write in 2022 and we have to find a way to deal with it, not just continually make personal attacks about editor motive. -- Colin°^Talk 10:18, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

@Colin, many grandmothers wouldn't have used the word pregnant because it was too vulgar (and once associated with livestock rather than humans). Elizabeth II apparently holds this view, though I suppose that she's on to great-grandchildren by now. Perhaps it will die out with her generation. I believe that in the past various vague phrases were typical, at least when referring to higher-status women, such as increasing or in a delicate condition. Your monarch reportedly prefers in the family way. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Clayoquot, I'm not really buying that changing that previous sentence absolutely made the following sentence one "about trans fathers". For a start, the first sentence said "parents", not "women and trans men" and as I commented, I don't think it is a good sentence in its own right. I know that the order of sentences can matter and that the scope of one sentence could influence the assumed scope for a following sentence. It is a fairly weak argument, and we routinely get people reordering sentences (re-ordering whole sections, grrr) and screwing up the flow and logic and citations. So I think "If you change sentence A you might damage sentence B" is not a particularly strong argument or specific to gender issues.

I created this section to try to discuss a non-contentious example (and others could be added) and instead we've returned to the gender topic and once again I find claims for "rules" that don't apply elsewhere other than when editors want to win some argument about social language choices. So that's a failure. And I think the rollercoaster example has got bogged down in whether park signs are reliable sources. Does nobody think it is worth examining cases when word changes are or aren't OR in a way where the discussion isn't tainted with people's goals. Or have we reached a point where there are no new insights, just a dead horse. -- Colin°^Talk 15:59, 15 March 2022 (UTC)

While on the whole I think this attempted diversion has been useful, the return of it to the gender topic is I think a consequence of the topic areas that some of the most active contributors here are typically (but not exclusively) active in. If there were a wider group of participants, I would hope this part of the discussion would have occurred differently. However I suspect many would be put off, for lack of a better term, by the sheer enormity of this talk page. I've been following since the discussion began, as I was party to the content dispute that lead to this sandbox being opened, however even after reading everything I often feel too intimidated by the enormity to contribute more than the few words in this reply and one above.

Would there be much support for splitting this thread off, into its own sandbox or subpage, and listing it for discussion at relevant Wikiprojects? Or is there some way that a lot of what has been said can be succinctly summarised, beyond what has been placed in the sandbox proper, so that it is less of a thesis of required reading for folks to contribute new ideas? Sideswipe9th (talk) 00:08, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't expect anyone else to read this. We've identified a few areas of agreement and a few areas of concern. We might be able to make a small improvement in the advice we (i.e., the whole community) offers to editors. But I don't think we will be able to make significant improvements.

The WTW discussions have too much motivated reasoning ("we should give known-wrong advice here, because bad advice produces good outcomes") and too much concern about "losing" particular disputes (e.g., if we give good advice on how to correctly label subjects, then someone will use that good advice in another attempt at wrongly labeling JK Rowling as being definitely-absolutely-without-any-dissent-or-nuance being transphobic). We may have similar difficulties here. Everyone wants to say that normal writing is okay, until your normal writing happens to use normal, everyday words like people and those and they when it would be at least theoretically possible to use words like women and she for the 97th time in the article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:05, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Do you really believe that "pregnant people" is an everyday phrase? (We both already know "everyday" is not literally every single day.) Crossroads ^-talk- 05:35, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I am not WAID, but where I live, the answer would be yes, it is. Newimpartial (talk) 11:49, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

You should bear in mind that most people don’t live where you live, either geographically, or socially. Sweet6970 (talk) 13:13, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for the condescension, Sweet. There is never a moment when I am not aware of those aspects of language - a question was asked, and I answered accurately.

As far as the qualifier socially is concerned, of course it applies in general. However, where I live geographically, there wouldn't be especially relevant social limits to where "pregnant people" is used - I took that to be part of what is meant by "everyday language". Newimpartial (talk) 13:25, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

May I remind you all that Kate Middleton, Duchess of Cambridge, second in line to the throne, used the phrase "not the happiest of pregnant people", which was duly and uncritically repeated in the Daily Mail. The phrase has Royal approval and all her subjects are in joyous agreement over this. -- Colin°^Talk 15:27, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I am probably as frustrated as everyone else here. I wish I could make a list of "here's what we agree on and here's what we don't agree on", but both WAID and I are seem to both be still unsure about what, if anything, we disagree on when it comes to applying the OR policy to gender-inclusive language. I do object to "Possible advice" point #3 in its current form,

It might be worth trying again to discuss examples that are not gender-related, but we might also have the same difficulties we're having now when it comes time to translate whatever we agree on back into the gender realm. Another option might be to look at actual, specific edits that have already been made, and discuss what would be the optimal way for page watchers to respond to each particular edit. But for whatever path we choose, I probably won't be the first to go down it. I'd like to hear from new people first. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:59, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

Your wish is my command, @Clayoquot. ;-) Here are two edits that I've made. This one conforms strictly to the exact wording used in the cited sources, and was reverted. This one, which I linked earlier today, uses a word that is not in the cited source, and was not reverted. Neither of these examples have anything to do with gender.

In terms of point #3, I wonder whether you disagree with the example given in that point. Do you actually believe that NOR requires you to include the exact word mothers? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:43, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

WAID, do you think you could discuss point #3 in another section? Otherwise this section will just continue to be a mess of random stuff. Btw, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Marina Ovsyannikova for an example of how our motivation can overwhelm any reasonable discussion of the application of guideline or policy. -- Colin°^Talk 13:47, 16 March 2022 (UTC)

NOR and paraphrasing

Re WhatamIdoing's question above, In terms of point #3, I wonder whether you disagree with the example given in that point. Do you actually believe that NOR requires you to include the exact word mothers?. There are many issues with point #3 in its current form, among them the fact that it talks about "mothers who are pregnant" which is really weird because the phrase wouldn't include anyone who is pregnant for the first time. If I try to answer your question about NOR while referring to point #3 I think I will confuse everyone including myself, so I will just try to answer the question as clearly as I can.

Say we have a topic such as Low milk supply, which I wrote. For this topic, the population the sources discuss is birth mothers who are trying to nurse their own babies. (That was the case when I wrote it. Let's assume for the sake of discussion that it's still the case; if people are incapable of assuming this for the sake of discussion I am honestly going to have to quit.)

When I am writing about this topic and paraphrasing from a source that uses the word "mothers", I do not necessarily use the word "mothers". NOR does not require me to use the term "mothers". I might use terms such as "maternal" or "women who have just given birth" or just "women". I might, and did, also use lots of sentences that do not indicate a gender, such as "Low milk supply is usually caused by allowing milk to remain in the breasts for long periods of time, or insufficiently draining the breasts during feeds." This sentence doesn't use gendered terms, but it is not OR because the context the sentence is in clearly identifies the population it applies to, and that population matches the population described in the sources.

I am not against all use of gender-neutral sentences. I am distinguishing between two ways that gender-neutral sentences are used: One way to use a gender-neutral sentence is in a context that makes it clear what gender the sentence is about, or at least doesn't challenge the reader's correct assumption about what gender is being referred to. The other way to use a gender-neutral sentence is to signal to the reader that the claim applies to any gender. The former is not an OR concern. The latter may be OR depending on what the sources say.

Both of us understand that NOR is about retaining the substantial meaning of the sources, not the exact words. We might disagree about when gender is substantive to the meaning of the sources. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:14, 17 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with the paraphrases you've made over there. The phrase "women who have just given birth" is fine even in this world of diverse gender expression and identity. There are many women who cannot lactate, or who have had mastectomies, or w/e, in addition to those who were assigned male at birth. The point you bring up about gender neutral sentences is fair, but I disagree with you on this point: "The latter may be OR depending on what the sources say" I don't think following WP:NOR means being forced to apply or imply gender with certain sentences. Nothing about that policy disallows being more vague. The issue is when context changes the meaning, such as a previous sentence which was about trans men and then using a source that is about biological men in a following sentence which is vague. That's a problem of NOR that has always applied, in any context, and I think is not a particular concern here. It's just bad wiki-writing, not a gender issue. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:43, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

@Shibbolethink, I think that @Clayoquot is almost correct; it depends on what the sources say, but also on what we are writing. If the source is talking about a gender-specific social problem, then it would not necessarily be appropriate to make it gender-neutral or gender-inclusive, and you could violate NOR (though it might take some real effort to do so).

Imagine a source that connects low milk supply in a specific place to malnutrition as a result of a social custom that has men and boys eat first, and women and girls get the leftovers.

These are probably okay:

• Some cultures have men and boys eat first, and the women and girls are given the leftover food. If the nursing parent is among those eating the leftover scraps, then the parent may struggle with low milk supply due to being given too little to eat.
• Some cultures have men and boys eat first, and the women and girls are given the leftover food. As a result of giving the most and best food to the men, breastfeeding mothers in these cultures may struggle with low milk supply.

But this might violate NOR, as well as making no sense:

• Some cultures have men and boys eat first, and the women and girls are given the leftover food. As a result of giving the most and best food to the men, nursing men, women, and non-binary people in these cultures may struggle with low milk supply.

In this last, we would be saying that men get to eat first and most, and that this custom of eating first and most causes nursing trans men to have low milk supply. The opposite is true: getting to eat first/best/most should resolve any malnutrition problems around milk supply. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:12, 28 March 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. [13] and [14]. 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.[15] 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": [16] 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? [17] 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. [18]

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".[19]. In another article, the abstract refers to its subjects as "pregnant person" once and "the woman" twice.[20] 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)

Guardian

Two articles this weekend.

• Campaign aims to boost cervical screening rates in England. Subheading is "About 30% of eligible people are not adequately screened against second most common cancer in women under 35". The article mainly uses "women". The article quotes cisgender female drag queen Victoria Scone: 'Scone said, as a queer woman, she was initially uncertain whether cervical screening was imperative. “However, this new campaign has clarified that all women and people with a cervix, including those in the LGBTQ+ community like myself, are eligible for a screening, so I booked myself in,” she said.' The video repeats this "woman and people with a cervix" format. The NHS figures quoting in the sub-heading as "eligible people" are repeated in the body as "about 30% of women aged 25-64 who were eligible" but the source says "eligible individuals aged 25 to 64". The appendixes clarify who are eligible, which among other factors are "a woman or person with a cervix" and notes that the automatic letters are triggered if "registered [at their GP] as female or indeterminate", and those registered as male need to apply for themselves if they are otherwise still relevant.
• Caesareans or vaginal births: should mothers or medics have the final say?. Only uses "women" or "mother" when quoting or attributing a statement to someone else. Otherwise, frequently says "people" and "parent" (when referring to the mother) many times. Of the 123 comments made about the article, only two complained about the language, both about the ambiguity of "parent". The rest focused on the topic.

-- Colin°^Talk 14:03, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Those are both from The Guardian, which File:Media-Bias-Chart 4.0.1 WikiMedia Commons Copy.jpg says is politically similar to ProPublica, PBS, Axios, CNN, and the Los Angeles Times (a little left of center). There are two different authors, and they're in different categories (one "Health & fitness" and one "Society"). I don't see anything in their style guide that addresses this. Their brief gender section ends with this:

"Men (rarely women – funny, that) who occasionally question our policy and accuse us of “political correctness” may care to reflect on the fact that Fowler's used to list such “established feminine titles” as adventuress, authoress, editress, executrix, giantess, huntress, inspectress, Jewess, poetess, procuress, quakeress, songstress, tailoress, wardress; it also proposed new ones such as danceress and doctress (“everyone knows the inconvenience of being uncertain whether a doctor is a man or a woman”)." [21] WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:32, 14 February 2022 (UTC)

Ad Fontes Media isn't that great a source, per WP:RSP. I'd consider The Guardian to be more firmly left-wing than PBS, CNN, and the like (still an RS, but my point stands). Still, the fact that centrist and right-leaning sources write like this far, far less than left-leaning ones do (which is an already low amount) is highly relevant - Wikipedia should be politically unbiased in its style. And even The Guardian doesn't mandate this style.

"Feminine titles" for jobs that have no inherent connection to sex bear no relevance to talking about sex-specific physiology. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:30, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

PBS NewsHour has shows talking about "pregnant people" (and not just in the context of COVID vaccines).[22] The LA Times uses it.[23] CNN does too, including a short news story talking about "pregnant people" that does not mention women at all,[24] and other articles that mention "pregnant people" and "women" but not "pregnant women".[25]

This might not be common, but it's certainly happening. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:48, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

Actually, the fact that right-leaning publications are almost certain to take a "gender critical / anti-trans" (however one might put it) stance is a reason to suspect opposition to permitting such language on Wikipedia is political right-wing activism. (For example, the Tory party campaigns on this issue). On the left, in the UK anyway, there are people on both sides of the debate. The left-leaning Guardian has plenty vocal "gender critical" feminists on their staff (and none, as far as I can see, writing personal opinion pieces taking the other side). The Observer (the Sunday paper which has its own editor) took a stance that aligned itself with the EHRC against the Scottish government's gender reform proposals. The EHRC has been widely condemned by LGBT groups for its position, being accused of being a puppet of the (right-wing) government rather than a neutral body it is meant to be. It is far from clear, in the UK, that there's a left-wing position on this. -- Colin°^Talk 10:15, 15 February 2022 (UTC)

I mentioned centrist sources too, and by "right-leaning", I mean RS, not hyper-opinionated outlets that take an anti-trans stance in their "reporting". Simply not using these phrases cannot reasonably be construed as anti-trans. It would not be accurate to frame use of the language as it is defined in dictionaries and has always been as 'right-wing activism' while maintaining that neologistic phrases and increased use of formerly extremely rare constructions are not left-wing activism. It is the advocacy of change that is the activism. Something like advocating for deadnaming would be right-wing activism, not this.

And frankly, I don't see what this exercise of 'here's some random media articles' is supposed to accomplish. Nobody here disputes that a few articles have used these terms. Most have not, though, and even many other articles in these same outlets do without these terms. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:27, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Crossroads, you are just, just wrong. There is activism on both sides. When waging an war (and they do call it a "war") that attacks transgender and non-binary people and their inconvenient "obsession with pronouns" becomes official party line (Oliver Dowden is the Tory party chairman), this is activist politics. There are MPs in the Tory party who are working for trans rights (Caroline Nokes) but plenty who are just using the topic as a political tool. Conservatism isn't neutrality. Arguing everything was fine as it was and should not change is a position just the same as arguing for a specific change is a position. It is typically the position of those who are winning in the current status quo. Having the incumbent position is an advantage, not an axiom.

The point of listing some of these articles, is to examine how educational media are dealing with the topic. That a mainstream newspaper is writing articles in this language style demonstrates this is not just the style of minority extremists or mentally ill people who can be dismissed. But it is also useful merely as an example of writing about medical issues to a general audience. -- Colin°^Talk 12:31, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

None of this negates what I said. I never denied that right-wing activism exists. However, an approach that treats advocacy for change as equivalent to the standard negates our WP:NOTADVOCACY policy because it false-equivalency-like treats every position as advocacy. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:49, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Advocacy is clear when the article text is changed to explicitly propose a minority POV or make a fringe claim. I don't think the policy you link to or supporting supplements deal at all with word choices. I think you've simply assumed all and everyone making different word choices to those you'd make, and word choices you don't like, can be labelled "advocates" and dismissed. Sure, some newbies will note their POV in the edit summary, to make your job easier. The edit we looked at earlier, to pregnancy, noted "men who have a uterus can and have given birth, as well as non-binary folks who have given birth". Some of us here would regard that as a fact, and the problems with the edit are separate from that fact. But there are sections of feminism who cough their tea up through their noses when reading that and might revert it with edit summary: "If you have a uterus you are a woman. Gender identity is a myth. Sex is real". I have a hard time accepting such an editor is not an advocate simply because their edit restored longstanding text.

Some of the arguments on this page about the difficulties of choosing words or alternative words for sex-related topics, are politically neutral. But the argument that "English has a word for female humans" and that we should stick to the primary dictionary definition of "woman", and the arguments in the paper discussed below that claim "gender identity" is part of a Western cult imperialistically imposed on the world, those are very much a political POV. I don't think those represent such a mainstream POV that you can say alternatives are fringes only extremist advocates believe in. Is a trans man a man, or a woman with gender dysphoria? The writers of the paper below wrote "the idea that not everyone who gives birth is a woman has gained prominence". This is distancing-language, they clearly don't accept that idea themselves or else they'd have worded it differently. They go on to say "The long-established sexed meanings are that “woman” means an adult of the female sex ^ In this sexed meaning, everyone who gives birth is indeed a woman". They choose the sexed meaning. That answers the question then. This is not the language of someone who accepts gender identity, who accepts that a trans man is a man. It is the language of someone who thinks that's a crazy idea. Crossroads, gender critical feminism is not anywhere close to "The earth is round" or "vaccines save lives". -- Colin°^Talk 10:48, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

Forsooth, methinks none should dast change a language. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:43, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm all for keeping up with language change but the language has to actually change first. Uncommon stylistic choices don't constitute completed actual change. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:07, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that we should wait for "completed" change. Linguistic change is usually gradual, with no easy way to say that the change was completed on a specific date. You can usually narrow it down to a generation or to a decade, but not to a specific month, and you can only identify that retrospectively. To argue that we must wait until we can prove that actual change was "completed" is to argue that Wikipedia's style must normally be at least a decade out of date. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:03, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

By "completed" I don't mean until the alternative is extinct; but it should be the new mainstream or majority first. That has not happened. The only other way is to simply assume it will supplant the previous way of writing, but we don't try to predict the future. Fundamental Wikipedia principles are about following the sources, not leading them. Such a style could just as easily max out where it is and even go into decline. It is vastly premature at best to switch. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:35, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Does "switching" mean that there is a uniform set of pre-approved words used in all articles, so that on the day before The Great Switch™ all articles say "pregnant women" and on the day after, all articles must use some other word?

Do you think it is vastly premature to use even one gender-neutral phrase in an article like Pregnancy? Is it vastly premature for the sentence that currently says "they are subject to expectations that may exert great psychological pressure" to use a pronoun that doesn't indicate either the biological sex or the social gender of the pressured persons? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:52, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

That sentence is plural they and should remain so as it is talking about a group.

Once you open the door to use of desexed terminology when sources do not do so, there is nothing stopping it from being pushed on every single article. It would never stop with one sentence and it would be endless use-case disputes. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:50, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

The pushing is never going to stop no matter what we do. Someone's going to write in actual-plural and discover that someone else really, desperately wants to re-write that in sex-based singular.

OTOH, if we had a rule that said "articles about women's health should never use exclusively de-sexed language, because that erases women, but it's okay if some individual sentences or paragraphs happen to be written in gender-neutral terms", then I think we would limit the damage in both directions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:04, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

'People are going to push anyway' is absolutely not a reason to enable or endorse such behavior in a guideline. They would push far more and without ability on our part to stop them. 'Some sentences or paragraphs' opens the door to endless disputes about which ones, not to mention accuracy issues and unnecessary mixing of styles. There's no damage in "both directions" because in most cases none of the sources use the novel phrasing; let's not fall prey to the golden mean fallacy. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:19, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree that it's very hard for some editors to use good judgment and favor good writing over mindless rule-following. But I believe that would be best, even if that means that we will have some editors fussing that an insufficient number of sentences mention gender explicitly (because readers are so stupid that they'll forget from one sentence to the next, I guess?) and others fussing that too many of them do.

More to the point, we already have these disputes, so writing down a rule (assuming one could be agreed upon) could serve to shorten the discussions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:24, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't think we've found any guideline or policy, or for that matter any utterly compelling argument that would prevent an individual rules-following editor from writing an article that used gender neutral language like "pregnant people". But even in the midwifery journals that allow such style, we have seen it is hard to maintain 100% (you have to quote people, some statistics are only for "women", etc), and most of their articles don't attempt it. This "mostly gender neutral article" approach has appeared outside of specialist journals and into articles in The Guardian. The Guardian is itself divided among its journalists. We have also seen the language used in short messages, especially those around Covid guidance for pregnant mothers, appearing at the highest levels of government health, not just some hippy charity website. But most womens health information from government talks about "women". The fact that reasonable, sensible, intelligent health professionals sometimes use this language to communicate to the public means that doing so is a reasonable choice. I don't think anyone discussing on this page here would choose to do for a whole article, say, and would give more weight to the negatives of that choice than the positives. Part of cooperating in a global community project to write an encyclopaedia means giving room to those with writing styles and opinions about how to communicate that differ from one's own.

The WP:UPPERCASE arguments that have been offered as reasons to disallow this style are invalid. This culture war has active advocates on both sides, neither of which represent an overwhelming majority view, so NOTADVOCACY is no help. The STICKTOSOURCES line is simply a "lie we tell to children" hoping the newbies aren't bright or assertive enough to discover it isn't remotely true when it comes to choosing our words.

The fact that journals, newspapers and government health are mixed (though not equally) suggests that currently that unevenly mixed approach is the natural outcome one would expect from asking volunteers to write for Wikipedia. So I'd expect to see some use of this language style on Wikipedia just as it is occasionally and naturally used by some people who may come and edit here. This leaves us with the behavioural matter of handling this culture war and handling those on both sides who might desire and war to achieve 100% compliance with their preference. I'm not sure that is going to be easy but I am certain that the only proper approach is honesty, to avoid claiming convenient untruths. --Colin°^Talk 18:31, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

But an overwhelming majority of sources don't use the new language, especially among academic article, which on Wikipedia carry far more "weight". Even if I were to grant the premise that this were merely a matter of stylistic choice, there are all sorts of stylistic matters in which sources differ but Wikipedia guidelines only permit one style, for consistency's sake. MOS:HEADINGS is just one example of this. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:19, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidelines do not only permit one style. Wikipedia:Make technical articles understandable actually requires editors to use more than one style (simplified vs jargon-filled).

MOS:HEADINGS wants a certain amount of consistency between articles, but look at the list: Don't manually type numbers into the Table of Contents. Don't turn the text different colors. Don't use SEO-style questions. That's obviously the same as someone claiming that if you use a given term once in the article, then you have to use it every single possible time, or we'll accuse you of 'stylistic inconsistency'.

Also, the guidelines also say the opposite. "presentation...can vary and still be correct." "Strive for variety." The first section of the main MOS page is WP:STYLEVAR. The first sentence says "Sometimes the MoS provides more than one acceptable style or gives no specific guidance." You will not be able to convince other editors that STYLEVAR says more than one style is acceptable, but that there is only One True™ Style that must always be used without exception! WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:42, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't know how much we can keep repeating that "Wikipedia is not written like its sources" before we can move on from this distracting "invented rule" that our sources dictate the words we use. They influence our word choice and very very much no more. Crossroads, please drop this particular argument. It is transparently and very obviously untrue. When one's main argument is very clearly bunk, then it weakens one's case overall, and you have made some valid points. Just drop the silly ones please. -- Colin°^Talk 08:41, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

WP:NOTADVOCACY doesn't have to do only with edits where the motive is clear from the edit summary. In many cases, bad text is encountered without ever knowing the edit summary of how it got there anyway. And if someone did remove properly sourced information about trans people because they view trans identity as invalid, that would also be unacceptable advocacy.

Describing the spread of ideas in third person has nothing to do with whether one accepts them. Your whole framing of the dictionary meanings seems moralistic and political. Are medical dictionaries wrong when they define "woman" as they do? Or do you recognize that the term can have different meanings in different contexts? Crossroads ^-talk- 05:07, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I never said advocacy has to be clear from the edit summary. It is about our article text actively pushing a minority POV with more weight or acceptance than it deserves. I don't think writing "pregnant people" or "pregnant women" are in themselves advocacy, but editors changing text from one to the other might both be advocates that Wikipedia could do without. Can you agree that? If for example, we referred to a CDC vaccine/pregnancy advice using "pregnant people" and someone changed that to "pregnant women" because of beliefs like the edit summary I gave above, that they would be fouling WP:NOTADVOCACY.

Crossroads, if your only argument was that you were conservative in your language choices and believe Wikipedia should be too, then fine, make that argument. But it isn't your only argument, and here I'm addressing the arguments you've made which exactly align with the arguments of gender critical feminists. When you make those arguments in support of edits or at RFC, you are just as much an advocate. Your arguments about false equivalent would only hold if you were advocating for a position like "vaccines save lives" that is overwhelmingly the mainstream view of published sources and all deviation is fringe. I do get it that one can't always just say "both sides are advocates of the kind that Wikipedia doesn't want". But unfortunately for this case, neither the trans groups nor the gender critical groups have anywhere close to overwhelming acceptance. They are both viewpoints of a highly opinionated minority of writers.

I don't know why you are attacking me about dictionaries. You are the one who persistently brings up dictionary definitions. Yes it happens that the first definition in the dictionary aligns with gender critical ideas about the only meaning of the word "woman". If that alignment is inconvenient to your point, then stop bringing it up. Dictionaries offer definitions but you seem to think they are entirely comprehensive about the only possible uses and meanings of words. They really aren't and I gave an example earlier of a dictionary that was happy to define a trans woman as a woman, even when that use of the word "woman" wasn't mentioned in the definitions for "woman". I don't think dictionaries help your argument. The people who disagree with your view are intelligent people who have access to dictionaries too. -- Colin°^Talk 10:54, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I think your apparent concession that it happens that the first definition in the dictionary aligns with gender critical ideas about the only meaning of the word "woman" is entirely mistaken. There is no lexicographical reason to believe that the reference to "female" in dictionary definitions refers to "female sex" or equivalent - the gender critical spin on "female human being" doesn't align with what woman, or female human being, actually mean in either specialist or nonspecialist usage. Newimpartial (talk) 15:01, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Newimpartial, I don't really understand your comment, or why my comment to Crossroads is described as "your apparent concession"? Who is the "your" and what is being "conceded"? I'm assuming that when Crossroads repeatedly says Wikipedia must follow the dictionary definition ("A woman is an adult female human being") that he means biological female, XX, person with a uterus who can get pregnant, etc, etc. Gender identity doesn't come into that definition, so if that's the only acceptable definition on Wikipedia, then "trans men" are women, and if trans men are women, there's obviously no problem using "women" to describe anyone who might be pregnant. If I've got that wrong then Crossroads can explain. Trying to read too much into dictionary definitions, which are terse and imperfect and can be as precisely ambiguous as their subjects, isn't very fruitful imo. What matters, since Crossroads keeps bringing the subject up, is what they think the dictionary definition means for the purpose of their argument. -- Colin°^Talk 15:29, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

By "concession" I mean "a thing that is granted, especially in response to demands; a thing conceded" (to use a dictionary definition), and by "your" I mean you, Colin. Whether or not Crossroads is asserting that dictionaries mean biological female, XX, person with a uterus who can get pregnant, that isn't in fact what dictionaries actually say nor is it what they mean. If Crossroads actually means to say this, he is wrong, and if he doesn't mean to say this you shouldn't be strawmanning his argument by importing "gender critical" nonsense that he has not actually asserted.

I am not inclined to rely on dictionaries myself, but to try to hasten discussion by conceding that dictionaries say something that the actually don't just strikes me as counterproductive, or rather, as productive only of rabbit holes. "Female", like "woman", covers a range of meanings including gender and gender identity, and oversimplification of this for whatever reason just seems unhelpful to me. Newimpartial (talk) 15:40, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Dictionaries only describe what people mean when they use or read words in certain contexts for certain purposes. Many people will mean "adult XX biological female who can become pregnant" when they use the word "woman" (and conversely, will interpret that as the meaning in many contexts where "woman" is used) so I don't have a problem with that being a primary definition. I don't think that interpretation of the primary definition is wrong. If you think it is wrong, you haven't said what it is instead. It isn't the only definition and I don't think dictionaries are comprehensive enough to suggest their list of meanings is literally definitive. Crossroads has themselves been quite precise about this: "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". If I've misunderstood Crossroad's point then they can do two things: explain what is wrong and fully explain what they do mean. Until then, I don't think I'm strawmanning. I also don't think it is helpful for you to describe positions as "nonsense". Let's leave the "You are not just wrong; you are stupid as well" style of debate for twitter and extremists. Doing that prevents someone saying "Yes, that is in fact my position". -- Colin°^Talk 16:17, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I really don't think you are understanding my meaning. No matter how nonprescriptivist your reading of dictionaries might be, I haven't seen any dictionary to assert that (m)any people will mean "adult XX biological female who can become pregnant" when they use the word "woman" - that simply isn't what a dictionary means if it places "adult human female" in that first definition space, and pretending that dictionaries actually are saying that is both a poor reading of what dictionaries actually say, and unhelpful argumentation regardless of one's actual POV.

When a dictionary says "adult human female", it is not specifying what sense of "female" is meant and it is dumbass misleading to pretend that it is. Female can mean biological sex (in different senses for different purposes); it can also mean legal sex; it can also mean social gender and it can also mean gender identity - and each of these differs in denotation as well as connotation depending on the specific context. When a dictionary uses "adult female human" as a first definition, it is allowing for any of these senses of "female" to apply, while if it were to use "adult human of the female sex" that would foreclose some of them.

As far as Crossroads' argument goes, for all his evident mistakes on this page, I haven't seen him argue that "woman" always means "biologically female human". His argument doesn't rest on that; in fact he appears to recognize that "woman" means different things in different contexts. It seems to me that objections to that argument can't be based on either the idea that "woman" always means one particular thing or, for that matter, that "female" always means one particular thing - this is what I referred to as rabbit holes, above.

As far as gender critical positions are concerned, I am not saying that all of them are nonsensical (Kathleen Stock uses the tools of analytical philosophy as well as anyone, f'rinstance). I actually meant to say that a certain (lazy) "gender critical" argument - that "woman" means "adult female human", which in turn means "biologically female" - is in fact nonsense, in that it is logically untenable and entirely unsupported by evidence; in essence it is based on a play on words. I will try to be more specific in future, though, so that more evolved gender critical folx do not take offense. Newimpartial (talk) 16:36, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Newimpartial, we both agree that dictionaries can be deliberately ambiguous when their subject has multiple meanings too. I said so before you commented. If I've misunderstood Crossroads, then it is better for them to say so and say what they meant. I have repeatedly asked them what they meant and why they keep asking about dictionaries and they haven't answered. Crossroads has several times mentioned medical dictionaries, including the time above when you've attacked my interpretation of what those dictionaries say. Let's look at what they say. My own dead-wood Churchill's Medical dictionary from 1989 defines "woman" as "A female adult human being" (no other definitions) and defines "female" as "1 Of or pertaining to the sex that in animals produces ova and brings forth young. 2 An individual of the female sex, as a woman. I downloaded Dorland's Illustrated Medical Dictionary 32nd Edition (2012) only to find it didn't define "woman". It did define "female" as "1 an individual organism of the sex that bears young or produces ova or eggs. Then I tried Mosby's Medical Dictionary 10th Edition (2017). It defines "woman" as "An adult female human" and "female" as "1 pertaining to the sex that has the ability to become pregnant and bear children; feminine. 2 a female person. I tried a couple of others and they didn't define "woman" but did define "female" as the egg/young-producing sex. So perhaps you could apologise for saying I was "dumbass misleading" with my interpretation of "female" according to those dictionary definitions. Medical dictionaries have precisely one definition of "woman" and it is the "uterus having" meaning. As I see it, Crossroads argument is that because medical dictionaries define "woman" the way we are currently using it [which is also the way gender critical feminists define it] then there's no need to change to accommodate a tiny number of people with a mental illness, as they keep putting it. -- Colin°^Talk 18:20, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

First of all, Colin, I don't know how I was supposed to understand that by "dictionaries" you meant "medical dictionaries", when you never said so in this discussion and when you and Crossroads had been discussing "dictionaries" long before his single mention of "medical dictionaries" - the only one until your most recent comment. My mind-reading abilities are, after all, acutely constrained.

Secondly, what you say isn't true even of medical dictionaries. For example, the Collins Medical Dictionary (2008) defines "female" as An individual of the sex that bears young or that produces ova or eggs, or a person who has a particular physical appearance, chromosome constitution, or gender identification (emphasis added); other sources similarly include elements in defining "female" or "woman" that contradict your statement that Medical dictionaries have precisely one definition of "woman" and it is the "uterus having" meaning - this isn't any more true of medical dictionaries as a class than it is of other dictionaries, and to claim the contrary in the face of evidence would be a bit more than "misleading", IMO.

Finally, I don't understand Crossroads argument is that because medical dictionaries define "woman" the way we are currently using it [which is also the way gender critical feminists define it] - emphasis added. As Tonto might have said to the Lone Ranger, "Who is 'we', white boy"? Whether or not a source (including a Wikipedia article) is defining "woman" in terms of gender presentation or expression, or in terms of reproductive anatomy, or in chromosomal terms or legal terms is determined by the specific source. We have MEDRS sources that use "female gender" when they mean anatomical sex, and ones that use "female sex" when they mean gender role. It is certainly inappropriate to read (and write) Wikipedia articles - including medical ones - as though each mention of "woman" meant "person with a cervix"; what "woman" means depends very precisely on the context given by the source, which may be incomplete but certainly cannot be overruled by a medical dictionary. I am not saying editors should always use the terms the sources use, but we certainly should not impose arbitrary assumptions about what sources ought to mean by the words they use. Newimpartial (talk) 19:13, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I know the conversation is long and rambling but this particular section has Crossroads writing "Are medical dictionaries wrong when they define "woman" as they do?" and my response to that is what provoked you to accuse me of being a dumbass. So please don't start blaming me for not signposting the things you choose to come and hassle me about. Hooray for Collins Medical Dictionary. To turn your accusation round, how I am supposed to invent a definition that I cannot find in the six medical dictionaries I consulted. So you found one that supports your point. I still don't think Crossroads meant that one dictionary when they repeatedly asked me about medical dictionaries, but perhaps you could let Crossroads answer that, rather then furiously arguing with a random person on the internet because they should have consulted seven medical dictionaries rather than just six. Newimpartial, my limits for having a "No I didn't mean that" argument with strangers has reached its limits here. Perhaps you could contribute to the core topic, rather than just having an argument for argument sake? Just drop it. -- Colin°^Talk 19:59, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I retain my evaluation that the way you construed Crossroads' position went well beyond what he actually argued, that it conceded too much to (your construal of) his argument, and that it has taken and continues to take you into rabbit holes that do not contribute to clarify issues of medical language.

By the way, I did read the prior discussion, and Crossroads' one comment about "medical dictionaries" was the one I was referring to immediately above. Prior to and subsequent to that, you both made comments about "dictionary definitions" that were by no means limited to medical dictionaries.

In my view, the most helpful response to Crossroads' question, "Are medical dictionaries wrong when they define "woman" as they do?", is to challenge the premise. Many medical dictionaries, as you have noted, do not define "woman" at all. Those that do almost never provide a direct definition in terms of biological sex. Even the term "female" is not consistently defined by medical dictionaries in a narrow anatomical or chromosomal definition. The idea that medical dictionaries define woman anatomically, so Wikipedia must do so as well, is based on an demonstrably false premise - conceding that major premise seems absurd to me. What is more, even if there were a consistent and precise definition of woman to be found in medical dictionaries, it would be WP:SYNTH to impose that definition on the specific MEDRS themselves, particularly when some MEDRS documented that either they themselves or other studies use other, specific, definitions of "women" or other terms, and these often conflict with those offered in medical (and other) dictionaries. Newimpartial (talk) 20:14, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Wrt your second paragraph, this is the third time Crossroads has asked about medical dictionaries. You've cited one definition in one medical dictionary, out of many that I offered, and from that claim they are inconsistent. No, it means one dictionary is inconsistent with many that are consistent. Look, even if tomorrow you find 10 medical dictionaries that support your definitions, it doesn't change the fact that I'm being reasonable and not a "dumbass". You say "Those that do almost never provide a direct definition in terms of biological sex" which is making way way too much of the fact that dictionaries don't define "female" in the definition of "woman". Dictionaries define words in terms of other words, and if you aren't sure about those other words, they expect you look those up too. It isn't the job of a dictionary to keep defining the words within the one definition until we are left with some sort of axiomatic Turing machine. Of the many medical dictionaries I consulted, none deviated from a biological sex definition. You'll just have to accept that in the argument between me an Crossroads, that's the "medical dictionary" meaning that I reasonably assumed Crossroads was referring to. It isn't reasonable to think I was considering a definition in a dictionary I hadn't seen, and I think looking up half a dozen medical dictionaries is a reasonable effort.

Newimpartial, it is one thing to argue with someone who has a different opinion. But arguing with someone who says things that aren't true gets boring. And getting called a "dumbass" for taking a definition of "female" that is in all the medical dictionaries I looked at, is..?? What's your point? That you can be rude on the internet? -- Colin°^Talk 23:27, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I am unaware of saying any things that aren't true in this discussion. The only reference to medical dictionaries I could find in this section (which is what we had both been referring to), prior to my intervention, was this recent one by Crossroads. For some reason you are now referring to comments made by Crossroads in other sections on this page, but that doesn't falsify anything I have said about this section (his comments were this one on January 27, this one on February 10 and this one on February 16; in none of these diffs does Crossroads present evidence from medical dictionaries, and in none of these instances do you respond with evidence from medical dictionaries, either, incidentally).

Second, the way you refer to the many medical dictionaries you consulted, in your last diff would lead me to believe that you consulted a number of medical dictionaries prior to my comment There is no lexicographical reason to believe that the reference to "female" in dictionary definitions refers to "female sex" or equivalent - in fact, I only see one citation by you to a dictionary prior to this recent comment, and the earlier comment did not cite a medical dictionary. Now I have no way of knowing when you consulted medical dictionaries and what you did with what you found, but you certainly did not present any of your findings on this talk page until you responded to my well-intentioned critique.

Now to be clear, when I say When a dictionary says "adult human female", it is not specifying what sense of "female" is meant and it is dumbass misleading to pretend that it is - that is a comment on content and not on a contributor. You can absolutely continue to dispute what I said in my immediately preceding comment that "Female", like "woman", covers a range of meanings including gender and gender identity, but your recent assertions based on medical dictionaries do not actually provide reason to support this, particularly when they conflict with the actual literature on sex and gender in medical research, which is quite clear on this point.

In my initial, rather mild comment, above, I was reacting to your immediately prior comment that the first definition in the dictionary aligns with gender critical ideas about the only meaning of the word "woman". For that statement to be accurate would require "adult female human being" not only to be the only meaning of "woman", it would also require that "female" within that phase be defined exclusively in a biological sense favored by gender critical activists. Actual reliable sources, whether dictionaries or other sources, seldom take this step, and you conceded that logic to Crossroads without either of you presenting any evidence in its support. The fact that the very first medical dictionary I obtained full access to did not limit itself to a narrow definition of "female" confirmed my impression, formed through extensive prior consultation of nonspecialist dictionaries (among other sources), that RS do not generally provide a rationale to define "female" (or "woman") in the reductionist way you so readily concede. You seem to presuppose that if a dictionary includes something biological as the first definition of "female", that this definition is meant each time the word is used, but there is no reason to believe this to be the case. Newimpartial (talk) 00:11, 20 February 2022 (UTC) completed Newimpartial (talk) 00:56, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Colin, do not misrepresent my argument again, as you did with then there's no need to change to accommodate a tiny number of people with a mental illness, as they keep putting it. I will clarify my viewpoint on dictionaries under #Dictionaries. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:39, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Crossroads I wrote earlier "The word "dysphoria" appears 10 times on this page, 9 in your text. Our sources on this issue don't use that word, but neutrally refer to people who are trans or non-binary. Why emphasise a diagnosis of mental illness, when our sources don't?". You didn't answer my question, which was made was in response to your text "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." and ""without needing to account for a small minority of people with gender dysphoria". You claim I misrepresent your argument. So why have you mentioned a mental illness 10 times on this page, and twice as a reason to dismiss people's views? As I noted earlier "if those aren't your views, then you've expressed yourself badly and might want to strike some sentences." It isn't good enough to say you are misrepresented. You have to say what you mean instead, and if that contradicts what you wrote earlier then say that your earlier text was badly put or that you've changed your position or whatever. We can't just ignore that you have repeatedly brought mental illness into the discussion in sentences where you dismiss viewpoints. -- Colin°^Talk 09:03, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

According to the NHS "Gender dysphoria is not a mental illness, but some people may develop mental health problems because of gender dysphoria." CV9933 (talk) 12:17, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

CV9933, there's a current discussion at WT:MED, noting that public-facing health websites sometimes sugar-coat the information they give. Per Gender dysphoria article, and American Psychiatric Association definition of their own term, among the various requirements is clinically significant distress or impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning. They later summarise the term Gender dysphoria: A concept designated in the DSM-5 as clinically significant distress or impairment related to a strong desire to be of another gender, which may include desire to change primary and/or secondary sex characteristics. Not all transgender or gender diverse people experience dysphoria. I think "mental illness" is a fair description of an officially defined psychiatric condition causing "clinically significant distress or impairment" and for which one seeks specialist medical help. The final sentence of that quote is siginifcant, and one reason why our sources refer to "transgender or gender diverse people". Another reason is of course the stigma surrounding mental illness and idea that crazy people can be dismissed. Which is why I think it is very wrong for Crossroads to twice dismiss the concerns of readers and refer to them not by a neutral description but by focussing on this one term that is officially a mental illness. -- Colin°^Talk 12:45, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Colin I had already read our GD article, but I had also read this BBC story where the WHO said It was taken out from mental health disorders because we had a better understanding that this was not actually a mental health condition, and leaving it there was causing stigma. So you can forgive me for thinking that the position you had taken emphasising GD as mental illness was most likely incorrect. CV9933 (talk) 15:14, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

CV9933, the BBC story is about WHO's ICD-11, not the American Psychiatric Association's DSM-5, which is where the term "gender dysphoria" comes from. The ICD-11 has gender incongruence with a description that does not mention any "clinically significant distress or impairment". The new ICD-11 classification is not a mental illness, or mental disorder. The older ICD 10 did classify it as a mental disorder, and emphasised "persistent and intense distress". And the wording "profound disturbance of the normal gender identity" could be considered judgemental about what is "normal", just like the pre-DSM-5 term "gender identity disorder" implied the gender identity was "wrong". What do you think? They seem like two different approaches to resolving the old language and classification. The DSM's "gender dysphoria" won't apply to those "transgender or gender diverse people" who are not (or no longer) distressed or impaired. The DSM is still the manual for diagnosing mental illness and being seen by a mental health professional, but now the illness is the "distress" that needs fixing, not the "wrong gender identity" that needs fixing. -- Colin°^Talk 20:44, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

What do you think? Well it all seems to be a bit of a political minefield. Maybe that is one reason whay the pageviews for this venue far exceeds the number of participants. CV9933 (talk) 13:15, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

It's probably turning up in some "long pages" reports. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:15, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Other Guardian articles only use "pregnant women" and "mother". This one from a month ago about the UK government doesn't use those terms at all. Same for this one. This one makes points about "pregnant women" only. This one from yesterday about a CDC study always uses "women" and "mothers" in its own voice, and only uses "people" or "person" when quoting a CDC official from a press conference, who herself only does so some of the time. There are many more like this. So, even the left-leaning press routinely writes about this topic without any desexed language. Crossroads ^-talk- 00:49, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I'm not quite sure what your point is here. You seem determined to bring left-wing politics into the debate so you can dismiss editors as lefty advocates, when in fact all the evidence, including the links you just gave above, show this isn't in fact a left-wing issue at all. In a similar way, covid vaccination isn't a left-wing issue. Just because there are those who primarily identify as right-wing politicians and are anti-trans (complaining about an 'obsession with pronouns', say, or campaigning for bathroom bills) or are anti-vax, doesn't mean everyone who disagrees with that is left-wing. We don't need examples of people writing exclusively about women or mothers. That doesn't take this discussion in any useful direction nor helps us in our writing. -- Colin°^Talk 11:21, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I think it's useful to note that there's been a shift in what's considered normal. Because of (mostly American) feminist efforts in the 1960s and 1970s, there was for a few decades a stronger conformity to language like "pregnant women" (e.g., rather than "pregnant mothers"). The ways of writing are becoming more diverse again. It is useful to know this, just as it is useful to know that the median reference is still "pregnant women".

In terms of how this should affect the writing style on wiki, I think it should encourage us to be a little more willing to accept a variety of writing styles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:48, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

That "shift" is very minor so far, and is nearly non-existent in academic medical writing - the most reliable medical writing there is.

Colin, I bring it up because it seemed that not using "pregnant people" was being framed as inherently right-wing. It is not. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:13, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Then you have misunderstood because nobody made that argument anywhere on this page. -- Colin°^Talk 11:04, 19 February 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)

About There is no such thing as "unfamiliar plain English": This assertion is not true. Familiar English phrases may be plain enough to people who know them ("We had the vet put him down") but unusual phrases may be plainer English ("We told the vet to kill him"). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:29, 25 February 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. [26] 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. [27] 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)

That's a less-common definition of "trans woman"; see Talk:Trans woman/Definitions. That aside, you should not be imputing views to me that I have never said, don't hold, and that would get me in trouble if I did hold them, as per WP:ASPERSIONS. I am trying not to misrepresent your views. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:24, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

I looked at that list and wouldnt' say it was a "less-common" definition. The list varies as to whether it is written from the person's POV (referring to their gender identity) or written from society's POV (regarding their acceptance as a 'woman'). The latter perhaps is not a given. Regardless, you seem to want a mechanical or algorithmic way of deciding these things, and language doesn't work that way. There are multiple ways of defining some words, and they don't necessarily conflict, though some may prefer one way of expressing it over another. What was your point in asking me about medical dictionaries? Generally speaking, this is an area where the limitations of dictionaries are very apparent. Ok, I'll quote you: "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.". The word you refer to here is presumably "woman". I cannot find an intepretation of this that does not define woman as solely applying to "female humans" (and by 'female' you mean those who can become pregnant). Which also corresponds to the primary dictionary definition (adult female) that you repeatedly advocate for in this discussion. I also interpret this as saying those who think of themselves otherwise are mentally ill and can therefore be dismissed. You repeated this dismiss-those-with-mental-illness line when you wrote "without needing to account for a small minority of people with gender dysphoria". Crossroads, I'm not about to call you names over this. But if those aren't your views, then you've expressed yourself badly and might want to strike some sentences. The word "dysphoria" appears 10 times on this page, 9 in your text. Our sources on this issue don't use that word, but neutrally refer to people who are trans or non-binary. Why emphasise a diagnosis of mental illness, when our sources don't? -- Colin°^Talk 08:59, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Crossroads, I have never pretended to assume what your views on gender identity actually are, and I will not start to do so now. But on this Talk page, you seem to have fallen into the habit of writing as though "people with gender dysphoria" could be used as a replacement (and equivalent?) term for transgender people. This is simply factually incorrect, as a significant number of trans people (including many or most who go through social and/or medical transition) do not experience dysphoria - but they still are trans. Some of those are among the fertile nonbinary people and trans men that have been the prime example used in this discussion. So whether or not you intend to do so, by foregrounding gender dysphoria rather than gender identity you are missing an important part of the population under discussion as well as pissing other editors off through the misdescription - a decision that I think is counterproductive on your part and that if you continue to do it will become clearly unCIVIL at some point.

I would also point out that one bone of contention in analyzing Talk:Trans woman/Definitions is whether identifies as language should be understood as equivalent to has an ... identity language or other variations thereof. It seems obvious that fine differences of wording carry quite large differences of meaning in this domain, which mitigates against the straw poll methodology you so often favour. Newimpartial (talk) 03:11, 15 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)

Analysis (Crossroads)

I highly recommend reading the above-named paper for anyone considering this issue. It details numerous issues that can come up with the use of language that removes all reference to a person's sex. And it 'brings the receipts' with many documented cases where writers (who should know better) use it and create major errors and use terminology that itself marginalizes. These examples are in the paper itself and especially in the supplementary material, in which they both list examples and explain the problem with them. In no way are these isolated issues when people try to use this sort of language. And if people who should know better commit such major mistakes, editors who attempt to add such wording to Wikipedia will all the more commit those mistakes, and they already do when they do try.

The authors are not transphobes or 'gender critical'. They say that sensitivity to, and acknowledgment of trans people's needs is a good and important intention. They later say that In some circumstances, application of gendered rather than sexed meanings of words is appropriate and we fully endorse the importance of being inclusive and respectful (12). They mention on an individual basis as well as Targeted public health campaigns should address the needs of this group, not just to ensure that the language used is suitable (152) but because they may have additional social needs or medical needs associated with treatments such as testosterone use or surgery to remove breast tissue (153, 154). Similarly, targeted health support materials are of value and have already been produced by some organizations [e.g. (155–157)]. Development of separate desexed materials (much as might occur for people from different language backgrounds) may be a useful strategy [e.g. (158, 159)]. In a Wikipedia context, we can follow this on articles like transgender pregnancy; if there is not enough material for a dedicated article, dedicated sections for trans people, as done for other groups with particular needs and as suggested above under #Existing Wikipedia examples, can be done. One article doing something like this is Menstruation#Who menstruates and Menstruation#Terminology.

The authors go on to note that uses of this language in general contexts are often not deliberated regarding their impact on accuracy or potential for other unintended consequences. This also applies to edits.

They note that Crucially, words such as “woman,” and “mother” can have both sexed and gendered meanings. The long-established sexed meanings are that “woman” means an adult of the female sex, and “mother” means a female parent (36). And can anyone truly deny this? As with very many words, it can have different meanings in different contexts. That is simply how the language works in practice. All the medical dictionaries, even now, define 'woman' the same way. If one were to take a dogmatic 'no, now "woman" always means a gender identity', then our language lacks a word for "adult people of the female sex" - quite an oversight! And earlier, use of alternative desexed terms had been justified on the grounds that readers will supposedly know who is meant by 'people with a cervix' or 'pregnant people' - but if that is so, they definitely understand what is meant by 'cervical cancer happens in X% of women'.

Here are each of the types of issues they discuss and my highlights from each:

• Decreases overall inclusivity: Desexed language works against the plain language principle of health communication and risks reducing inclusivity for vulnerable groups by making communications more difficult to understand (57). Those who are young, with low literacy or education, with an intellectual disability, from conservative religious backgrounds, or being communicated to in their non-native language are at increased risk of misunderstanding desexed language (58–62). 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). Note the numerous studies cited for the points made here and below.

• Dehumanizes: Regarding reference to body parts or physiological processes, Referring to individuals in this reduced, mechanistic way is commonly perceived as “othering” and dehumanizing (67). For example, the term “pregnant woman” identifies the subject as a person experiencing a physiological state, whereas “gestational carrier” or “birther” marginalizes their humanity. Efforts to eliminate dehumanizing language in medical care are longstanding (68), including in relation to women during pregnancy, birth, and new motherhood (67, 69–71). Using language that respects childbearing women is imperative given the prevalence of obstetric violence (18, 72, 73). Considering women in relation to males as “non-men” or “non-males”, treats the male body as standard (8) and hearkens back to the sexist Aristotelian conceptualization of women as failed men (74).

• Includes people who should be excluded: Terms such as “parents” and “families” as replacements for “mothers” can inappropriately include fathers and other family members, thus diminishing and invisibilising women (75). Use of “people” and “families” as replacements for “women” can similarly inappropriately include males and other family members. Women have unique experiences, needs and rights in relation to pregnancy, birth, and breastfeeding that are not shared with others (18, 76–79). It cannot be assumed that a woman’s interests will align with those of her husband or partner. This is most clearly illustrated by the issue of domestic violence...However, text referring to “birthing families” can suggest other family members have rights regarding a woman’s decision making during birth. Similarly, text referring to supporting “parents” or “families” to make infant feeding decisions (82) suggests people other than the mother should make decisions regarding breastfeeding (75). This overlooks that partners and family members may directly or indirectly undermine breastfeeding (75, 83). It also obscures the positionality of women as rights-holders and family members as duty-bearers in relation to breastfeeding (76).
  They also offer criticisms of "additive language", stating that it creates confusion as to whether sex or gender identity is meant, and that terms like "birthing people" can still be considered objectifying.

• Introduces inaccuracy, precludes precision, and creates confusion: This touches on something we've gone into above: Replacing a word with another of different meaning as if they are synonyms makes communications inaccurate or confusing. For example, in a growing number of papers, the severity of COVID-19 disease in pregnant women is being misrepresented by comparing “pregnant people” to “non-pregnant people” (40, 85–92) when the comparator in the research in question is “non-pregnant females.” Given the greater severity of COVID-19 disease in males (93), this misrepresentation means readers may under-estimate disease severity in pregnant women. This is all the more an issue for us, as Wikipedia policy strictly requires editors to represent reliable sources accurately and avoid original research. Nothing we write in the MEDMOS guideline can override this and permit editors to misrepresent the sources by using terms that differ in meaning from that found in the sources. And anything to be written in MEDMOS permitting different terms than that in the sources would not somehow limit editors to rare cases where both statements are correct and verifiable; it would open the floodgates to numerous bad edits and time-wasting disputes resulting therefrom.
  The authors give further examples: it has been incorrectly stated that “1 in 8 people” develop breast cancer (94), that “8 in 10 people” will get pregnant after having unprotected sex (95), and that “1 in 10 people” have endometriosis (96)....correctly stating that 1 in 20 people have endometriosis reduces the cognitive impact of the statistic because of the higher denominator and obfuscates a key feature of the condition: that sufferers are almost exclusively female, and males have virtually zero risk.
  Regarding "breast/chest", they note that "chestfeeding" can be confused with a method of tube feeding using formula. They also state, The word “breast” is a sex-neutral term which refers to the mammary glands of males and females. Referring to “chests” rather than “breasts” is medically inaccurate. The “chest” in medical terminology refers to the ribcage and everything within it and does not include mammary tissue (97). Chest pain may signify a serious heart or lung condition, whereas breast pain may signify a breast condition such as mastitis.
  A further issue: Desexed language can make it unclear who is being referred to. Does “breastfeeding people” mean mothers, infants or both? Are “postnatal people” those who have just given birth or those who are providing postnatal care? And while normally I would not consider it our place to worry about how language reflects social power relationships, the arguments in favor of desexed language indulge in such, so it's a two-way street: Using the phrase “breastfeeding parents” rather than “breastfeeding mothers” or “women,” both suggests the partner is participating in the act of breastfeeding and makes invisible the sex of the person breastfeeding the child. In this way, desexed language obscures the practical and power imbalances in relationships, decision making, and economics that breastfeeding mothers may face because they are female (98–102). Similarly, avoiding references to “girls” means that their very specific vulnerabilities as pregnant minors or minor mothers may be overlooked (103, 104).

• Disembodies and undermines breastfeeding: They state: Replacing “breastfeeding” with “human milk feeding” even when the mother is feeding directly from the breast, disembodies it and places emphasis on the milk as separate from the mother. The role of the breastfeeding mother becomes inconsequential and other individuals can be seen as equivalent caregivers even of very young infants. “Human milk feeding” places expressed milk feeding on an equal footing with breastfeeding thus supporting the trend toward predominantly, or exclusively, eschewing direct breastfeeding in favor of bottle feeding expressed milk that has been noted in some countries (110–112). Expressed milk feeding has significant drawbacks from a public health perspective...It also works against efforts to recognize the unique relational aspects of breastfeeding that support maternal caregiving capacity and infant mental health (50, 117).

• Significance of the word "mother" and broader issues in policy and research: To save space I'll quote just a couple choice points: Regarding motherhood, certain language changes have the potential, through linguistic processes, to undermine recognition of what mothers mean to all infants. They note: Women used to be invisible when “he” or “men” were used as the default contributing to the disregard of women in research, policy, and public life (138). In the midst of the current move to desex language, we argue that if women and mothers are not named, it makes it more difficult to effectively advocate for them; “women” disappear into “people” and “mothers” disappear into “parents.” This inevitably changes the focus. There are real costs to certain interpretations of "inclusivity". And: New “parents” do not have the same health needs or experiences as new “mothers” although language in publications or research design that does not distinguish between these groups can suggest that they do [e.g. (136)].

The article notes that the push to de-sex language in these topics comes from organizations based in the USA and the Western world. It could thus be considered culturally imperialistic. And Wikipedia is supposed to be an international, culturally neutral encyclopedia. The article notes some ways forward, some of which I covered above, summarizes by recommending things to think about, and concludes. It states, there are significant implications to desexing language when referring to inherently sexed processes and states.

I very much agree. These are serious concerns that ignoring would be to the encyclopedia's detriment. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:39, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Clayoquot, pinging you because I want to be sure you are aware of this paper. More replies soon. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:48, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

More comments from Colin

Culturally imperialistic

The "culturally imperialistic" comments in the text are the weakest aspect of many weak arguments. One of their sources is a blog by Graham Linehan. That source contains some correspondence to La Leche League International from an international group of "Leaders" and the response they got. It is worth reading both, though I have no way of verifying the accuracy of the quoted material within such a dodgy source. The response lists a number of bodies who are using "gender-inclusive language", though it seems the numbered references have been lost from the blog. LLLI go on to argue "Using a variety of terms for gender inclusion is not a hallmark of colonial oppression, rather the opposite. Western colonialism is responsible for suppressing the expression of gender diversity in many cultures around the world, and introducing concepts of homophobia and gender “norms” that were not a part of the indigenous cultures".

The claim in the article "the impetus to desex language in relation to female reproduction flows from a philosophy developed in the USA and within which American understandings and priorities predominate" is sourced to Queering Moominland: The Problems of Translating Queer Theory Into a Non-American Context (you can click on the "PDF" link to read it). The only times "trans" appears in that source is at the start of "translating" or "transposing". The article is mainly about sexuality and whether gay culture concepts and concerns translate from American and UK media (more TV programmes than academic writing) into Finnish culture. They spend some time literally wondering how to translate the word "queer" into Finish. That's not relevant to us. They quote one interviewee who argued that antagonism between genders is less strong in Finland. Our article writers completely fail to appreciate that the world into which "queer theory" or "gender identity" ideas were explored is one that is also American and Western culturally. It isn't like we were internationally neutral before all these people came along with their funny ideas about gay and lesbians being normal. It is weird that they only think the "change" is culturally problematic and don't think that the status quote they want to keep was also culturally idiosyncratic too.

Feminism in all its varied forms could be argued to originate from US/Western cultures and contain a huge dollop of those cultures mixed within its language and assumptions. The argument made in our article here is akin to saying that since Feminism originated in Western thought, and attitudes to male/female roles vary world wide, those arguing against sexist language and ideas should stop imposing their imperialistic ideas on the rest of the world. The same argument can be made for heternormative or homophobic material... that because being gay is viewed negatively and even is illegal in some countries, anyone arguing Wikipedia should not be homophobic in its language is imposing their Western imperial concepts onto an international project. It just is rather silly.

Crossroads, the dictionaries you so love are products of a Western culture: the Oxford English dictionary does not go around asking Finish or Nigerian people what "woman" means to them, nor do English dictionaries examine the literature of non-English-speaking cultures, for quite obvious reasons. I would expect a British English dictionary to conform British concepts and language usage, though it helps when they explain when and why Americans talk and write wrongly. I don't think there is even the slightest evidence that Wikipedia is a "culturally neutral encyclopedia" but if it were, would you advocate we ditch our imperialistic dictionaries? -- Colin°^Talk 11:15, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

I'll grant that, as with any paper, some points may be weaker. Still, the vast majority is very well cited. If LLLI wants to claim that some indigenous culture considered breastfeeding to be non-gendered rather than an aspect of motherhood, then the burden of proof is on them.

Do you really think that banal statements like 'X condition occurs in Y% of breastfeeding women' can be fairly equated to homophobic statements?

If you're going to imply that Finnish or Nigerian people have a word for 'feminine gender identity' and not 'adult human of the female sex', I guess that is your burden of proof. I would bet their local-language word for "woman" is defined in their dictionaries the same as for ours.

The idea of "imperialistic dictionaries" strikes me as odd. This is the English Wikipedia, so we concern ourselves with writing in that language. Dictionaries describe the language as it is, and if change occurs, they are updated. Wikipedia still should not have a bias toward describing things the way just one culture or culture's political faction would. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:38, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Bias doesn't have to be explicit and can very banal. And I'm not going to argue about misunderstood or irrelevant parts of the points I was making. Wrt Wikipedia being "culturally unbiased", perhaps User:WhatamIdoing can help here, as they are a greater observer of Wikipedia culture than me. I find it ridiculous. There is no publication on earth more likely to closely reflect the culture, beliefs and biases of its editors (and thus to a degree, its readers). This is exactly why random editors keep popping up to change the language used on sex-related health articles, something that doesn't happen at all to writers at The Economist, say. I would not be surprised if the Marvel Cinematic Universe was a bigger topic than all of health and medicine, better sourced and more robustly supported by active Wikiprojects. -- Colin°^Talk 11:28, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Crossroads, wrt dictionary definitions, Man is defined as "An adult male human" which I'm sure you are happy with and would use in your own writing. But the second definition is "A human regardless of sex or age; a person." Oh dear. While that's a definition we have to accept in order to understand hundreds of years of English literature, and a fair amount of contemporary writing and speech, it is unlikely to be an acceptable use of the word in Wikipedia's voice. The fourth definition "The human race; mankind" is not just anyone but everyone. Even worse! It seems we have "erased women" entirely. Typically only one dictionary meaning is valid at any one time, and in writing there may be confusion or even deliberate ambiguity between two definitions (the basis of all puns). The existence of a definition tells us little more than that is how some people use (have used) the word in some context. It is still up to us if we want to use it that way for ourselves. -- Colin°^Talk 18:02, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

Surely those last two sentences are not endorsing a free-for-all. We are in fact constrained in how we write by the due weight of reliable sources - which includes dictionary definitions, though they are not necessarily the only word on any matter. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:38, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Gender critical

As for whether the authors are "gender critical", I'm reluctant to put labels on people but their writing certainly falls into that category. One of the authors also wrote Sex, gender and gender identity: a re-evaluation of the evidence. In both articles the authors clearly distance themselves from an ideology or belief that they do not share. Both "queer theory" and "gender identity" get put into scare quotes. They are concepts dreamt up by other people, and are attacked for being quite obviously ridiculous (in their view). It is one thing to briefly make a sympathetic remark about a people-group, but that doesn't mean they accept them or their ideas. -- Colin°^Talk 11:15, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

The ten-author article for sure, and (from what I can tell from a quick skim) this article don't reject gender identity; the latter seems to make an argument about how it should be conceptualized, but that's not the same as denying it as ridiculous. People obviously do identify as various genders. And I emphasize that is only one author out of ten. The ten-author article obviously does not deny it, as it accepts the need for the right sort of inclusion of trans people, as I quoted. And this framing of the whole matter strikes me as akin to WP:CRY-PHOBE and WP:ASPERSIONS, considering the way 'gender critical' views are considered by many as simply transphobia. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:52, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Crossroads, would you please stop linking to irrelevant pages. Nobody here has accused anyone of being transphobic. While there are some people who consider 'gender critical' views as transphobia your links to the above pages aren't helpful as they suggest that is what editors here are implying. None of us are twitter trolls and there are trolls at both ends of this culture war. There isn't really another label than gender critical to describe a set of views that prioritise an unchangeable biological sex when it comes to what it means to be a "woman" and who think "gender identity" is barking up the wrong tree. There are a wide range of views even among those who are in this "gender critical" camp.

Further up you wrote "Describing the spread of ideas in third person has nothing to do with whether one accepts them". That can be true but this isn't an encyclopaedic article talking about the spread of Islamic factions in the middle east. It is an opinion piece, where I expect the authors to indicate their opinion. Rather than write about "trans men and nonbinary people" they say "people who are biologically female and yet do not consider themselves to be women because of their gender identity". They do that consistently. To quote that gender critical Guardian writer again: "Gender is a feeling and biology is a physical fact". Their writing accepts that trans people might "consider themselves" to be a certain thing, but it doesn't accept anywhere that they are a certain thing. In this argument, being trans is that person's opinion and feelings about themselves, rather than accepting it as a fact about what they are. The words "trans men", "trans women" or "nonbinary" do not appear in their article body text at all. -- Colin°^Talk 12:26, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

That quote from the ten-author article is a fairly banal description of the sex and gender distinction. The article needs to be clear because terms like "trans man" are not necessarily familiar to everyone. And they're not going to repeat something like "trans women are women" because it's a sociopolitical slogan, not a medically clear statement. The phrase exists to emphasize social commonality among trans and cis women, but the differences between the two - and the physical commonality between cis women and trans men/some non-binary people - are very important in a medical context. I don't think ideological litmus tests of the sort 'if they accepted trans people's genders, they would write X' are the way to go. If they don't identify as gender critical, then I'm not going to label them as such. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:56, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Mistakes

One of the more useful parts of the paper is the list of where people have made mistakes or introduced inaccuracies or confusion. The authors and Crossroads both view this list as evidence the whole approach is misguided and should be abandoned. But I see it as information from which we can learn. The biggest problem with the former use is that the list was not created neutrally. It very much represents the output of a lot of work collecting examples and then selecting only those that have problems. The list does not include cases for which a "desexed" approach was technically just fine. To give an example close to home, this very encyclopaedia is full of mistakes made by unqualified amateurs (and by those qualified but foolish in other regards!) As they say, Wikipedia shouldn't work, but it does. All of us could easily list mistakes editors have made transcribing facts from source to article. That doesn't mean we must give up and go hire the authors of the sources instead. A similar example could be where the popular press make mistakes reporting on medical issues. Again, all of us can find many examples (there are whole blogs devoted to how newspapers like the Daily Mail distort medical stories) and while some of them just represent human ignorance and make one wonder what they teach in school, many of those examples are useful to learn from. The same kind of statistical misunderstandings, for example, are often made, and we need to both avoid making them ourselves and write in a way that our readers avoid making them. But I have no intention of giving up my Guardian subscription in favour of a Lancet one. -- Colin°^Talk 16:17, 16 February 2022 (UTC)

We still should not encourage a writing style that is plagued with numerous pitfalls. And how many examples will it take to establish that it is highly prone to errors? If someone wants to claim that most of the time desexed writing actually avoids all these pitfalls, then the burden of proof is on them. The side opposing that style has brought their evidence. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:58, 19 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)

Dictionaries

There are several comments above about what dictionaries say. So here's one, taken from The American Heritage Medical Dictionary (2007):

• woman: "adult female human"

From here, we decode the other words, also from this dictionary:

• adult (adj.):
  1. Fully developed and mature.
  2. Relating to, intended for, or befitting adults: adult education.
• female (adj.):
  1. a. Of or denoting the sex that produces ova or bears young.
     b. Characteristic of or appropriate to this sex in humans and other animals: female hormones; female fashions.
     c. Consisting of members of this sex.
  2. Of or denoting the gamete that is larger and less motile than the other corresponding gamete. Used of anisogamous organisms.

They don't have an entry for "human", but fortunately that doesn't seem to be in dispute.

This set of definitions appears to encompass cis women, trans women, trans men, and female-bodied non-binary adults. One interpretation of this definition is that a woman is any "fully developed and mature human that produces ova". Another is that a woman is any "fully developed and mature human with characteristics of the sex that bears young". Since one of the examples is "female fashions", these characteristics could be social. But the unspecified characteristics could also be biological, with the result that anyone with a female body could also be included. In short, this medical dictionary does not let us say with certainty that woman excludes any adult except cis men.

I have looked at several medical dictionaries; few define woman, and this is the only one I've found that defines both woman and female. One edition of Segen's, for example, defines woman but not female; I believe that the most recent version defines neither. I was surprised to see one that defines female in terms of gender instead of sex(!): "In humans, the gender that produces oocytes and bears the young" (from Farlex 2012).

My initial conclusions: There are multiple definitions, they don't maintain the sex–gender distinction, and different dictionaries do not fully agree with each other. If you were to write "This article uses the term woman in compliance with Segen's", you've provided no clarity. Also, there is no medical dictionary that always excludes trans folks from being a woman or a female.

In the end, I don't think that "follow the dictionary" will be a productive approach. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:27, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

Wrt "there is no medical dictionary that always excludes trans folks from being a woman or a female", I don't think Churchill's, Dorland's or Mosby's definitions of "woman" and "female" would permit a trans woman to be a "woman". And those plus a few others I found would also not permit a trans woman to be "an adult female". Because a trans woman does not produce eggs nor is capable of bearing young and that's the only definition of "female" I found. It isn't always wise to just join together two random dictionary definitions. For example, a "suspension bridge" is "a type of bridge that is supported from above by cables" and a "bridge" can be the "thin top part of your nose, between your eyes". Plenty other examples like that. Perhaps this just goes to show that trying to make some point about "medical dictionaries" is at the mercy of what medical dictionaries people have. So I agree they don't help us much here. -- Colin°^Talk 23:55, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I think you're right that it depends on which dictionaries you're looking at.

Some dictionaries might exclude trans women, but not other trans folks. Looking at the comments above, there do not appear to be any dictionaries that limit womanhood or femaleness exclusively to cisgender biological females. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:31, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I don't quite understand what you mean by "dictionaries that limit womanhood or femaleness exclusively to cisgender biological females". There are several dictionaries that define woman only in terms of adult female and define female only in terms of being of the sex that can produce eggs and young. They don't define it any wider than that. I don't think you could use those dictionary definitions of woman/female to explain that trans women are women or trans men are men. But I don't think dictionaries "limit" concepts. They can only be additive, and incomplete, and sometimes contradictory (e.g. a dictionary that defines man in terms of sex and then give another definition of man that means all humans or every human). I think we are expecting too much from a dictionary that is more focused on describing body parts and diseases, rather than concepts of womanhood. -- Colin°^Talk 12:28, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

The dictionaries that define woman only in terms of adult female and define female only in terms of being of the sex that can produce eggs and young are dictionaries that define trans men as being women. Those dictionaries say that all of these people are women:

• cisgender biological females
• non-binary biological females
• trans men who were originally biological females

Those same dictionaries would not include as women:

• cisgender biological males
• non-binary biological males
• trans women who were originally biological males
• intersex people who are unable to produce ova

This is what I mean when I say that we have not found any dictionary that requires the word woman be used exclusively for those people with both a female anatomy and also a gender identity that matches the biology. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:37, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I'll clarify my viewpoint on dictionaries after some confusion under #Guardian and following from #Analysis (Crossroads). My point isn't that we start with definitions and then regulate all article text under those definitions. Rather, my point was in response to the idea that we should use terms like "pregnant people" and "people with cervixes" because "women" supposedly refers to a gender identity only nowadays. As can be seen in this section, those sections, and in pretty much all dictionaries (medical ones being especially relevant for our purposes), though, the definition about being the female sex (as seen by checking those same sources under "female") is still current and is either the most prominent or listed solely.

As I said: "As with very many words, it can have different meanings in different contexts....If one were to take a dogmatic 'no, now "woman" always means a gender identity', then our language lacks a word for "adult people of the female sex" - quite an oversight! And earlier, use of alternative desexed terms had been justified on the grounds that readers will supposedly know who is meant by 'people with a cervix' or 'pregnant people' - but if that is so, they definitely understand what is meant by 'cervical cancer happens in X% of women'."

My central position is that we should not encourage editors to write about these things in ways the sources being cited do not. Replacing "women" with "people with vaginas" or whatever when the source says no such thing is not warranted because the meaning of "women" can be in reference to the female sex. Unless one wants to claim all the dictionaries are wrong, that is simply true. And allowing random editors to enforce solely a gender identity definition regardless of context is permitting advocacy and is opening a Pandora's box of numerous, reoccurring, and unresolvable disputes. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:19, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

Crossroads, where has anyone on this page (or indeed any of our listed articles) claimed "because "women" supposedly refers to a gender identity only nowadays" or 'no, now "woman" always means a gender identity'. (my emphasis) Looks like you have been furiously fighting a strawman. -- Colin°^Talk 08:53, 20 February 2022 (UTC)

I address this in the following subsection. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:57, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Points of view

I've been thinking about how we got into this mess where Crossroads thought we, as editors and participants in this discussion, were suggesting that "woman" only had a gendered meaning and not a sexed meaning. I'm reminded also of when Crossroads got upset when I suggested our articles are written in a way that was "trans-exclusionary" or "denied their existence". Because I think Crossroads is primarily focused on what editors (and our sources) meant when they wrote a sentence. And I have at times been describing what some of our readers understand when they read our sentences. They are two different points of view, and for communication to be successful we should try to match them if possible.

Consider for example the debate about Master/slave (technology). I'm old enough to remember configuring one of the hard discs in my computer as "master" and the other as "slave". I'm sure this topic has been discussed on Wikipedia but I don't know where. Some readers will find that terminology offensive and an example of systemic unthinkingly racist colonial language, etc, etc. I can go to my dictionary and find definition of "slave" as #3 "a device (such as the printer of a computer) that is directly responsive to another" or in another dictionary #7 "A machine or component controlled by another machine or component." or another dictionary #5a "a device that is controlled by or that duplicates the action of another similar device (the master device)". None of those definitions cause offense. But there are other definitions: "a person held in forced servitude" and "One who is owned as the property of someone else, especially in involuntary servitude" and "a person legally owned by another and having no freedom of action or right to property". And those definitions remind many readers of historical and ongoing injustice of the most grievous kind. Now we can claim all we like that when we as editors write "master/slave" or when our sources write "master/slave" they are referring to a computer protocol and not entertaining racist thoughts or seeking to cause offense. We might even argue that those who are offended are deliberately using the wrong definition of the word. I don't think those arguments are strong. Indeed many issues arise when a privileged or majority group fail to see or appreciate the concerns of a disadvantaged or minority group.

Another example could be "man". One dictionary has "1 An adult male human. 2 A human regardless of sex or age; a person.". Another has "1 an individual human // especially : an adult male human". A third has "1 A man is an adult male human being. 2 Man and men are sometimes used to refer to all human beings, including both males and females. Many people prefer to avoid this use. Editors with those first two dictionaries could try hard to claim their sexist language was perfectly fine according to the dictionary, though the third dictionary makes things a little harder (but certainly not impossibly hard -- we have MOS discussions where dictionaries marking terms as problematic or offensive has not convinced some participants).

So when our sources write "pregnant women" and we write "pregnant women", we can argue that here they and we are using the sexed definition, where "women" is anyone with a uterus, carrying a baby. That definition does not exclude trans men. But for some readers, the gendered meaning will be prioritised in their mind. For them, we have excluded trans men (who are "men", not "women") and have been "trans-exclusionary" in our writing.

We can jump up and down and claim "I'm not be racist" / "I'm not being sexist" / "I'm not excluding trans men"... look look, "the dictionary agrees with me!" Too many MOS discussions take that position, where somehow the editor has to become convinced about the language change or language problem and agree that it is rational and correct for them. It's all "I" "I" "I". But language change isn't always rational or sensible, and it isn't up to us as writers to agree with it, only to recognise it and try our best. Once we press the [Publish changes] button, it is what our readers think that matters most. -- Colin°^Talk 11:24, 21 February 2022 (UTC)

You have said that this is language change, which has been referred to at numerous points on this huge page in various ways, and I see no other way to understand this other than a claim that the meaning of "women" is solely gender-identity-based now. Otherwise, once we grant that "women" has a sexed meaning and not just a gender meaning, then people's entire justification for replacing "women" with, say, "people with uteruses" evaporates. There is no reason to permit that, since the context makes clear that the sexed meaning is the correct one.

The argument then seems to be that we should try to avoid any possible offense. But as has been explained above, making women invisible (as they would see it) from pregnancy, menstruation, etc. would likely offend far more people. If one really thinks that "pregnant women" is equivalent to racism and sexism and is trans-exclusionary, then that seems to be an argument to ban it, since we would never allow racist or sexist writing. It's a highly charged argument. But editors have denied wanting to do so, thankfully - they just seem to want us to tell editors they can change the wording if they want, which is of course a green light for language revolutionaries to do the same expungement anyway. This proposed change to the language has not reached anything close to parity with the other way in reliable sources, so we should not encourage it. The accuracy and OR dangers of permitting editors to write about sex and gender in ways their sources do not have also been discussed.

You write that language change isn't always rational or sensible, and I certainly agree, but from that I conclude that this is precisely why Wikipedia should not permit change to its language to new styles unless and until such styles are the norm. The only alternatives are fad chasing and/or writing in ways that few sources do, which is likely to lead to us writing in ways that are not rational or sensible. Good changes will win out in the end, and then we can change accordingly. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:57, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Language change doesn't imply what you suggest: "I see no other way to understand this other than a claim that the meaning of "women" is solely gender-identity-based now". This seems to be your impression and it is now clear you have been attacking that idea (that nobody else here has) with your attempts to bring dictionaries into the discussion. I don't know why you didn't just come out with this straight away, rather than keep asking us to read dictonaries.. don't you remember I kept asking you why?

Accepting multiple meansings does not make a desire by some editors to avoid "pregnant women" in some articles "evaporate". For exactly the reason I gave with the master/slave example. Nobody is suggesting the only meaning of that term is white subjugation of black people. But it clearly makes some people uncomfortable, and in that particular example is trivially easy for engineers to come up with alternatives. We don't have that ease here, and as you note, removing "women" from a situation where one might expect to see the word upsets a different group. Nobody here is denying that, Crossroads. My point is that you are acting like you personally need to be convinced that writing in a certain way makes sense to you and doesn't cause you any offense since you can put on blinkers and see only the sexed meaning, which is your intended one. What matters instead to me is that some reasonable readers will read that text in a way that upsets them, and we've been exploring if there are ways to avoid that. I think we all agree there isn't a universal solution that doesn't upset someone. But also we have seen that some approaches, like slipping in the occasional "pregnant people" can actually be invisible even to the biggest culture warriors like Daily Mail journalists and their readers. Doing it the lead sentence of "pregnancy" probably won't wash. As noted before, reasonable professional people are writing in various of these styles (though nobody is reasonably writing about "people with uteruses" in general articles on pregnanacy and mestruation).

Nobody is saying this issue is "equivalent to" sexist or racist writing. I do despair a bit that you can't just take the useful bits of an analogy and stop attacking the irrelevant bits. There are analogies with both those issues, but they aren't equivalent.

You continue to fight this as though giving an inch will see "language revolutionaries" erase "women" from Wikipedia. I don't think that is helpful.

Outside of when people are foolish enough to ask at MOS whether to write this way or that, editors do not go about wondering if the word or phrase they are about to use is "the norm". Editors write the way the feel natural writing, modulating that for what they think is appropriately encyclopaedic and formal. I would expect an International English volunteer project to have a variety of styles and approaches and expect that some editors will write about sexed health topics using gender neutral language, but most of them to not do so. The issue of whether editors should be permitted to enforce their preference globally is one of editor behaviour, and separate from whether certain word choices are ever acceptable.

I think sometimes editors impose hurdles on word choices they don't like that nobody imposes on their own writing in general. When there's a contentious issue and editors want to be conservative, they insist that this newfangled writing must become the norm, widespread, and insinst we must use the same words as our sources. We don't do that for any other writing we do. On the other hand, if they want to use words that many sources now avoid, for reasons of causing offsence to some or because they are old fashioned, for example, they insist that as long as some of our reliable sources are using those words then they are acceptable and can be used and must never ever be reverted once someone uses them. I've seen the same with medical sourcing debates, where editors make claims about the sources an editor must use that are simply among those MEDRS considers "ideal". I don't think either of these ideas, that word choices have to be in widespread use or that we must use the language choices of our sources, have any currency, and only ever appear when editors think it suits their case in a language choice war. -- Colin°^Talk 11:35, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

So if we write pregnant women exclusively, then:

• some readers will interpret this as a biological/sexed statement ("Ah, they mean 'human who is pregnant, and therefore is physically/biologically capable of being pregnant, regardless of age/gender/role/identity/anything else'"), and
• some readers will interpret this as a gender/identity statement ("Wikipedia is excluding my non-binary friend, whose baby is due next month!").
• some readers in each of these two groups will interpret this as Wikipedia affirming of the primacy of biological sex and recognizing that pregnancy is a "women's issue". Some of these readers will be happy that Wikipedia has taken this stance, and others will be angry.

If we write pregnant person at all, then:

• some readers (probably most older readers) will think it's a strange phrase but understand the meaning anyway, because anyone old enough to read Wikipedia is also old enough to know where babies come from
• some readers (probably mostly younger readers) will think it's a normal phrase and not really notice it
• some readers in each of these two groups will interpret this phrase as Wikipedia affirming of the primacy of gender identity and recognizing that not all pregnancies occur in a person with a feminine gender identity. Some of these readers will be happy that Wikipedia has taken this stance, and others will be angry.

These reactions will be automatic and emotional. All of them will happen no matter what our intentions are. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:00, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

Agree, though I think we've got evidence that the occasional gender neutral formulation may not be noticed even by older readers and by readers who, if asked about it, would say they don't approve. Like the gorilla in the basketball game, if readers are concentrating on the topic then there are probably all sorts of things one can write they won't notice. Whether that gets past an editor's watchlist is another matter, and is an issue of editor behaviour. -- Colin°^Talk 08:58, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

I agree with you. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:10, 25 February 2022 (UTC)

150% Colin hit the nail on the head here. People focus on the things they find political when asked about it explicitly, but 99% of the time they won't notice if you just have a specific style guide and it flies under the radar. Like with the gender neutral singular "they are." — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:48, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not supposed to assume prior knowledge, like "where babies come from". Sex-ed is part of what Wikipedia basically does. I am reminded of a "progressive" parent on Twitter who proudly said that they taught their young child simply that both men and women can get pregnant and got plenty of likes. Or how it used to be that if you Googled "can men get pregnant", the top result was a snippet from a site that said "Yes, it's possible for men to become pregnant and give birth to children of their own." Accurate and clear education, that is not.

The same sort of issue applies to so many statements, as shown by the ten-author paper linked above. Desexed language has a different meaning and can create many inaccurate statements.

And with the "pregnant person" version, you forgot how many (arguably more than by the other) readers will be offended by it, e.g. "Wikipedia is pretending that men and women are equally affected by pregnancy!" Can't put it better than this in The Atlantic: The same progressives who push for pregnant people have no problem saying “Black Lives Matter”—and in fact decry the right-wing rejoinder that “all lives matter.” Yet, hopefully, all lives do matter—and about half of the people shot by U.S. police are white. So why insist on Black? Because the phrase is designed to highlight police racism, as well as the disproportionate killing of Black men in particular. Making the slogan more “inclusive” also makes it useless for political campaigning. Pregnant people does the same. 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. I venture that there are far more readers who perceive this negatively far more than even know a pregnant non-binary person (remember that many such persons would find that pregnancy exacerbates dysphoria). And this is to say nothing of the fact that many, frankly, strongly disagree with the idea of defining womanhood as a gender identity and disconnected from sex. We may personally disagree with them, but that is a deeply held belief that, in this analysis where "offense" is being considered, does have to be accounted for. There are much better ways to cover transgender pregnancy.

Lastly, I'm a younger reader, and I very much notice it. This idea that Millennials or Gen Z are all talking like this now is blown way out of proportion by older activists who wish to present it as inevitable and 'the right side of history'. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:20, 26 February 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not supposed to assume prior knowledge: Where is this rule or principle written down? WP:ONEDOWN appears to say exactly the opposite. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:51, 27 February 2022 (UTC)

"Lastly, I'm a younger reader, and I very much notice it. This idea that Millennials or Gen Z are all talking like this now is blown way out of proportion by older activists who wish to present it as inevitable and 'the right side of history" This is a straw man argument. I have yet to see someone actually express this view in these terms. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:46, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

....as if that last, off-hand comment, were the entire substance of Crossroads' whole post? None of the points made before that are of any worth because...the comment at the end was a strawman? I can't speak for Crossroads, but that last comment does not even appear to be an argument, and if it's not an argument, then it can't be a strawman. Calling it out as a "strawman" seems to imply that Crossroads' position relies on that, when as far as I can tell it was nothing more than a response to Colin's "even older readers" comment, as if younger readers do not notice abnormal constructions such as "pregnant people". Now, I get that many of you editors (generally speaking, of the WP editor base at large) live in the UK, where healthcare is universal and women's reproductive healthcare is a non-issue and its being in jeopardy is not even a conceivable notion..but understand, in America, women's reproductive medical care IS under open fire, and de-sexing reproductive language wrt to pregnancy would undermine things even further (i.e., if they can hide behind desexed language then it is less obvious that their attacks affect women speciifically). 2600:1702:4960:1DE0:9500:B796:F20:CB93 (talk) 08:02, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

Shibbolethink hasn't been (AFAIK) following the whole rambling conversation so they may not have seen the earlier comments, even if just a few paragraphs above. It is largely speculation (on all sides, including Crossroads, who's experience extends to "Crossroads' experience", and not to a national survey with statistical power) what generational differences might be. My guess is that even if Crossroads claims to be "a younger reader" they are not still at school, so, then, there's "young" and there's "younger". All these social language change issues have generational and geographic and religious and political divides to some degree, so let's not pretend there isn't any difference here. What is "strawman" is Crossroad's argument that a certain age group "are all talking like this", which isn't a claim anyone has made, and therefore its lack of veracity means nothing and does not weaken the argument of others about generation likely having some effect. What is ironic, is that you propose that de-sexing reproductive language wrt pregnancy will allow the patriarchy to reduce funding of womens' health unnoticed. On the one hand, you are saying that the revised text is glaringly obvious even to younger readers, and on the other hand, you think those who control the budget are so stupid that after seeing "pregnant people" written for a few years, they will forget which sex is the one that has babies. Oh, and AFAIK, I'm the only participant in the conversation based in the UK, and healthcare may be universal and free at the point of need, but don't assume for a moment it is being well funded and is not subject to political fighting over the budget. -- Colin°^Talk 08:47, 24 March 2022 (UTC)

And yet, we must also accept our word choices have an effect that we take responsibility for. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:16, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes. I see editors willing to take responsibility for the effects of their word choices when those word choices are more inclusive. They are willing to own those values. But I haven't seen anyone here who is willing to take responsibility for deliberately choosing heteronormative and cisnormative language. I don't even see anyone presenting with any specific value that supports choosing the values in that language, even though it seems like at least one editor here would very much like to ("accidentally on purpose"?) end up with a result that just ("coincidentally"?) happens to be cisnormative.

So maybe we should take this on directly: What good reason(s) can we think of for intentionally preferring heteronormative and cisnormative language choices?

NB that this means choosing pregnant women or similarly cisgendered terms because heteronormative and cisnormative words are the best words to use because of our cultural value of _____ or our human value of _____, and not trying to cloak that choice in Wikipedia's policies. That is, please fill in the blanks with words that could plausibly appear in lists like this one or this one, not with SHORTCUTS. For example, Wikipedia has shared cultural values around transmitting knowledge to readers, and those values could (at least sometimes) support preferring words that reflect the most common situation, instead of than words that reflect every possible situation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:39, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

This comment is poisoning the well with such extremely morally-charged descriptions, which I reject. It is an activistic framing, not endorsed by the vast majority of sources unless you think that most academic researchers are "cisnormative" and transphobic. Values-based reasons to use "pregnant women" have been noted repeatedly elsewhere on this page and have even been articulated (not necessarily endorsed) by you. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:38, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

"Cisnormativity- A discourse based on assumption that cisgender is the norm and privileges this over any other form of gender identity.": "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." / "without needing to account for a small minority of people with gender dysphoria.....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" / "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." Crossroads, while some activists may equate heteronormative and cisnormative writing as homophobic or transphobic, many acknowledge that it is usually unintentional and naturally how a majority group would default to behaving and thinking. It is allowing that something is a majority and traditionally accepted to prejudice what we assume, expect and accept for ourselves. If Wikipedia assumes that people who get pregnant are "women" then that is cisnormative and it remains so even if we add a section at the bottom about pregnant trans men. -- Colin°^Talk 22:31, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Really, just about anything can be 'problematized', as they say, and claimed to be offensive or upholding some "norm". So are the overwhelming majority of women's health... oops, I mean "people with uteruses' health" researchers "cisnormative" when they write simply about "in pregnant women"? Is Human body ableist or able-normative when it says "The human body has four limbs (two arms and two legs)"? Is using "women" instead of "womxn" exclusionary? Is rewriting AAVE racist? Crossroads ^-talk- 05:56, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Why are you asking me those questions? I didn't invent the term cisnormative nor is anyone here (AFAIK) insisting Wikipedia must entirely eliminate such writing. It is what it is. If you look back at the early years of our marriage article, it was plainly heteronormative, describing it as a union between man and woman for the purpose of creating a family, and gay marriage was nothing more than a controversial proposal. It no longer is. I don't think mocking the various attempts by trans or queer activists to address issues with language is useful or at all nice, any more than I'd expect someone on the talk page of marriage to mock the idea of two husbands or two wives. WhatamIdoing asked what values-based reasons there were for us writing as we currently do, they didn't ask you to make a mocking joke. -- Colin°^Talk 12:24, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

This evening my news has the story of Jamie Wallis, a Tory MP who has come out as trans. This news broke shortly after Wallis attended a dinner where our prime minister opened with an anti-trans joke, as reported by Politico. The culture war in the UK has developed into a game where journalists bait Labour politicians to define "woman" and watch them squirm. Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer, told The Times "A woman is a female adult and, in addition to that, trans women are women, and that is not just my view, that is actually the law." Later they were asked on LBC "Can a woman have a penis", which he refused to answer, and has drawn criticism that the debate has descended into asking about genitalia. Johnson had earlier emphasised the importance of biology, signalling which side he intends to fight on, and last night opened his dinner speech with "Good evening ladies and gentleman - or as Keir Starmer would put it, people who are assigned female or male at birth." Politico speculated "Expect plenty more of that as we gear up for the next election". This speech appears to have provoked Wallis into coming out, and afterwards a torrent of Twitter hypocrisy from fellow Tory MPs who previously had mocked the idea of a trans person self identifying. I wonder if Wallis's move will dampen Tory enthusiasm for mocking trans issues as a vote winning tactic. Anyway, it really isn't nice to poke fun at stigmatised minority groups, directly or indirectly. -- Colin°^Talk 15:56, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

I have seen many, many comments by trans people who say that such language is mostly pushed by self-proclaimed cis 'allies' and/or DEI make-work types who cherry-pick which trans people to listen to, that they hate being associated with body parts and functions that give them horrible dysphoria, and that such language sets back trans acceptance. Trans people are not a monolith. The Marriage article from the beginning included gay marriage, though the exact framing varied over time, and obviously changed as gay marriage became mainstream. If the desexed language actually does win out in sources, then of course I would revisit my position. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:02, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

This sort of "I have personal information that trashes your entire argument" isn't any use on Wikipedia. I've cited Lal Zimman, who is trans. If there are trans people who are fine with the current language and indeed to despair of any attempt to change such language, please cite your sources. Further, I really don't know why you keep banging on about "with uteruses" and "being associated with body parts and functions" other than for the same tiresome reason that that dead-in-the-water approach is the one that opponents keep strawmanning. We have found zero publications taking that approach when it comes to providing health information, so please, Crossroads, it isn't funny to mock that or keep using it as an argument. If you are a trans man, it is rather the point to no longer be considered a woman, and vice versa, and likewise for nonbinary. So I'm not sure how you plan to support an argument that pregnant trans men are quite happy to be considered "women".

Wrt marriage, the article changed radically and frequently for several years, but always presented man+woman & family as the norm and gay marriage varied from being a controversial proposal to being a feature in a minority of countries. Merely "including gay marriage" does not change the txt from being heteronormative and you need to appreciate what those terms mean, and argue on that basis, otherwise what really is the point? Arguing for the sake of it? -- Colin°^Talk 11:34, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

There are biases in whose viewpoints get represented in academia. Anyway, it should be noted that some sources already cited here touch on this. The Economist: 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. The Telegraph: activists suggesting the term is “unhelpful” for broader debates about inclusivity. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:15, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

When I pointed out that opponents to trans inclusive language consistently strawman this "body parts" approach, and that it is not only tiresome when they do but tiresome when you repeat it in a discussion where other participants are intelligent to recognise that, why then do you feel the need to cite two sources which strawman this "body parts" approach. Can I remind you that The Economist is a right-wing political magazine, whose opinion pieces are not really a serious source for anything other than the opinion of their article writers. We've already covered The Lancet's infamous front page, and really I don't understand why an intelligent person would include that in a debate on trans language. I'm rather of the opinion that the editor of the Lancet did it to poison the trans debate and anyone repeating demonstrates their lack-of-clue and grasping approach to serious argument. Which does rather sum up many of the opposition arguments, as others have noted: "I have made my mind up and will dig up and fling into the debate any old rot that seems to support it". We've heard it before, Crossroads, and weren't impressed the first 20 times you moaned about body parts. -- Colin°^Talk 09:00, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

The Economist is a centrist magazine, liberal in both economics and social issues. This stuff about The Lancet amounts to a conspiracy theory and deploys a No True Scotsman fallacy - 'no true advocate for including trans people would do something so stupid, so I can call it a "strawman"'. I've seen with my own eyes many, many edits that, yes, are that stupid. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:33, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I was getting The Economist confused with The Spectator. It is still just an opinion piece. And well, The Telegraph is right wing and very conservative.

Crossroads, the "stupid" edits you see do not represent any official editorial policy or practice by any professional or government body. If there are some, please list them here. That there are stupid people on the internet isn't a strong argument for or against anything. By going on about the body parts you are engaging in a disruptive argumentative approach, by mocking one's "opponents" for something they have never said or advocated. There is not a single person here who defends that approach for writing articles on pregnancy or breastfeeding, say, so why do you go on about it. Well you do for the same reason that politically motivated (as opposed to dispassionate writers) do, because you think it is funny and mockable.

The Lancet front page was stupid. It did not represent some new editorial stance for the Lancet to describe women in their medical articles. And yet some cite it as though that was the Lancet erasing women from the "medical journal". When people make stupid arguments as the opening paragraph, as that article in The Economist did, you can spot straight away they are not at all interested in fairness, open mindedness, or even the truth. The idea that one of the worlds most important medical journals was erasing women was just too good a story to be concerned with accurately report the facts. Which were that the article was a review of an exhibition at the "Vagina Museum" on menstruation. One can't get more body-parts and bodily-function than that. Yet the people whose arguments you cite and presumably respect, think it it is fair to single out this as evidence that the patriarchy is erasing women from health matters. It stinks of political tripe, and anyone citing it as the basis of their argument just demonstrates the vacuity of their position. If this is the level at which you want to discuss, I'm done. -- Colin°^Talk 09:20, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Sadly, Colin, that was not even the most frustrating comment Crossroads made on gender identity issues within a one-hour period, as I noted here. See also the prior context for his comment, discussed here. Newimpartial (talk) 11:47, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Newimpartial, the invention (or over-strict application) of policy rules that happen-by-chance to support one's own opinions, is not unique to Crossroads, and probably something we are all susceptible to. It seems particularly common in social-language-change debates, for some reason, possibly because participants want to believe their opinions are grounded in something unarguable rather than being what they are, mere opinions. -- Colin°^Talk 13:27, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Starting with an "instinctive" approach is universal. Every educated human does this (although not necessarily on the same subject; for example, I would not be able to make the equivalent, instant judgments in an unfamiliar language). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:45, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Crossroads, are you saying that the fact that some trans people find the "people with body parts" approach to be dehumanizing is evidence that some trans people object to other types of gender-neutral language? For example, that "people with uteruses" is not desirable, and therefore we shouldn't write about, e.g., "people who could get pregnant"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:35, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

For practical purposes, I tend to interpret this more straightforwardly as WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour, as discussed here. Newimpartial (talk) 13:44, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

You don't see me bringing up past arguments of yours that I considered particularly poor or discrediting. You should not be bringing up irrelevant matters as an attempt to discredit me. I address this matter here.

WhatamIdoing, I'd flip that on its head - if someone wanted to claim that all or nearly all trans people supported that phrasing, rather than agreeing with the arguments against it or feeling that it reminded them of bodily functions that gave them dysphoria - that really would be an WP:EXTRAORDINARY claim and would be their burden of proof. There is basically no data in this area, but my starting assumptions go against essentializing groups of people. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:33, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to know more about that. I certainly haven't perceived you as opposing essentializing groups of people in this discussion. Perhaps I have misunderstood something about your views, or perhaps we have different ideas of what gender essentialism means. Would you like to explain more about what you mean? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:53, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I think Colin in his OP is on point here particularly re: "textualism" and "purposivism" like on the Supreme Court. Textualists care about what the intent was in writing a passage. Purposivists care about what the purpose of the statue is in context when applying it. We in wikipedia, since we are grappling with text written by many different people all the time in overlapping edits and revised articles, are fundamentally a purposivist enterprise. The other option would be disastrous. We care about what our readers think, not what editors intended when they wrote something. It doesn't matter if the intent was correct if the purpose was screwed up. All of this is also what WP:V fundamentally tells us to do. We are supposed to write, and cite, based on what the interpretation of the reader will be re: verifiability, not veracity. It doesn't matter if the intent was correct in using a source, if any random person who comes across it would likely believe the citation to be wrongly applied. — Shibbolethink ^{(♔ ♕)} 16:50, 19 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm sure you're correct, and I found this paragraph more confusing than I expected. Would it be fair to say that, if editors are given a choice between these two items:

• The reader becomes educated.
• The editor had a good intention.

that the first is the only one that matters in the mainspace? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:42, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Values-based reasons

Values-based reasons to use "pregnant women" have been noted repeatedly elsewhere on this page: Great, @Crossroads. Can you give me a bullet list of the reasons? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:14, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I'm still hoping to get this list of values-based reasons. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:54, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing Could you please clarify whether you're asking for values-based reasons to use the term "pregnant women" specifically, of whether you're asking for values-based reasons to use cis-normative language? The latter would include a wider range of statements such as "breastfeeding offers benefits to the mother". Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 13:47, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm open to either, as I imagine that there will be considerable overlap. @Crossroads says that such values have already been named elsewhere on this page, and I'd just like to have a list. The values list for inclusive language is always short and simple: Inclusive language is preferred when you value including marginalized people (e.g., people who are producing milk but who don't identify as "mothers", regardless of whether that's due to gender identity, the baby dying, etc.). Inclusive language can also be preferred by people who value precision (e.g., because "humans who can get pregnant" is a smaller group of people than "women", no matter which definition of women you are using).

I'm less clear on which values support cisnormative language. "Don't erase women" isn't a value, though it might hint at one. "I'm used to this language" isn't a value. I'm pretty sure that there are values to support this option, and I think that it would be good to identify them. If we had a list of values, we could approach the community with a request for information about principles. It might look something like "If a tradeoff must be made, in general, would you advise editors to prefer inclusiveness and precision at the expense of (whatever the other values are), or to prefer (whatever the other values are) at the expense of inclusiveness and precision?" But, of course, until we can name what those other values are, we can't really talk about which ones are most important. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:43, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

I think you'd have a hard time getting the community to agree values in ignorance of the end-effect of their choice wrt gender language or some other social language choice. It is assumed we work forward from values towards decisions, rather than make decisions (or agree with decisions made by people we respect/trust/like) and then try to rationalise those decisions. This is why we see people both appealing to experts and dismissing experts depending on which result suits their preference. A serious discussion among a small group of good-faith people could benefit from drawing out values if you then want to steer a decision towards an outcome everyone thinks respects their values. But straight-up asking hundreds of people? Value go out the window when emotions get involved. You could have a values-based conversation about the UK accepting refugees and get a different result depending on whether you had it when the Syrian war was in the news (brown, Muslim, mostly ended up in Turkey) or whether Ukraine is in the news (white, Christian, mostly ending up in Poland). Honestly, on a political hot topic culture war like this one, having a wide community discussion would be about as productive as a Twitter storm. If we can't even decided whether ships are gender neutral, this topic has no hope. I think you'd be better off crafting some brief wise words and making a modest proposal at talk-MEDMOS and not raising your hopes very high. -- Colin°^Talk 19:43, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

Here's a list of some of the values I think people have been talking about for the past four months:

• Inclusion of lower-literacy and ESL readers
• Communication - We want readers to understand what we say
• Simplicity
• Accuracy - Preventing clumsy factual mistakes
• Honesty - Not suggesting that we know things we do not know
• Political neutrality - Avoiding language that most readers would strongly associate with a narrow section of the political spectrum. Preferring language that is used by a wider section of the political spectrum.
• Civility - Preserving/promoting a civil environment for editors
• Respect for the time and morale of article watchers

I also find myself reluctantly agreeing with Colin's pessimism. Maybe in a few years our culture will be in a place of being able to discuss these issues without the kind of deep polarization that we would get in 2022. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 05:06, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the thorough list. One more I'd add is something like 'Not marginalizing women's health by making women less visible or invisible in matters that overwhelmingly affect them'. As was said in The Atlantic: The same progressives who push for pregnant people have no problem saying “Black Lives Matter”—and in fact decry the right-wing rejoinder that “all lives matter.” Yet, hopefully, all lives do matter—and about half of the people shot by U.S. police are white. So why insist on Black? Because the phrase is designed to highlight police racism, as well as the disproportionate killing of Black men in particular. Making the slogan more “inclusive” also makes it useless for political campaigning. Pregnant people does the same. 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.

I do agree with Colin when he says that you'd have a hard time getting the community to agree values in ignorance of the end-effect of their choice wrt gender language and on a political hot topic culture war like this one, having a wide community discussion would be about as productive as a Twitter storm. If we can't even decided whether ships are gender neutral, this topic has no hope. On that note, I'd say that if the community can hardly decide not to gender ships, degendering the actual male or female body is extremely unlikely. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:04, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

This might be the first time on this page Crossroads has agreed with me :-). I wish you hadn't spoiled it with a rhetorical quote arguing that race or gender can matter if one is making a racial or gender inequality argument. Well, duh, I do really scratch my head at some times, at the desperately poor quality of argumentation by those authors on the gender critical side. It is disappointing, because there are some valid points to make, but then they overload their case with a dozen pathetic, irrelevant or plain idiotic arguments. Crossroads, you keep reminding us of the evils of activism and yet the "value" you added (not marginalizing women's health) is.... activism.

Clayoquot's list of values are (at least in their single-word expression) things we might all agree are good to have. The problem is when they compete. If being accurate means we need to use a more complex word or detailed sentence, we lose simplicity. We might sacrifice honesty about something because it could could impair communication (for example, we could fill half a drug article with all the side-effects, but this might not communicate correctly if the reader feels negative aspects outweigh the positive aspect that takes only a sentence to state). We might value simple language more in some parts of an article than others, where the need to be comprehensive forces us to get technical. Making an editing environment that is inviting and accepting to newbies with all their faults is likely to increase the burden on established editors.

Political neutrality is a difficult one, though. One's idea of normal varies depending on where you get your news and information and who you hang out with. I think Wikipedia's positions on some things represent editor political values and not our global readership (for example, on LGBT+ issues). Style discussions naturally tend towards conservative because of the fear of editors revising hundreds of articles to conform to some new restriction or preference. That's a weird side effect of our editing model, and probably would be different if we were a platform where editors published articles that were read-only.

Perhaps in WAID's list of values, "traditional" is more important than we accept. It seems, to me, to be the only reason for maintaining "she" for ships, and that debate remains unsolved. Why is "pregnant people" so upsetting but "pregnant teenagers" isn't? Nobody reads "Foster care youth are more likely than their peers to become pregnant as teenagers." and turns purple at this liberal woke nonsense suggesting 15-year-old boys in care might become pregnant. Our source for this puts it neutrally too, so there isn't an OR problem, but their summary does break some of the sex/gender academic guidelines we have read. The study really was on "girls" and they extended this to "youth" or "teenagers" and ... well actually it is just fine isn't it. Nobody is sitting there thinking "they've said 'teenagers', not 'teenage girls'" so this deliberate gender neutrality must be suggesting they studied some trans boys or nonbinary adolescents, and they haven't, the liars!! I'm not trying to dismiss the reaction and implications we currently perceive when we read "pregnant people" -- those are real -- but perhaps that reaction isn't grounded in anything more than what one is familiar with right now. -- Colin°^Talk 11:01, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Just a reminder that there isn't really a uniform we that reads "pregnant people and perceives implications while having reactions. In some parts of Canada for example, the term is used, nobody seems confused and nobody seems to mind. Newimpartial (talk) 11:48, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Re: Clayoquot's list of values are (at least in their single-word expression) things we might all agree are good to have., the same is true for WAID's list of values. I agree that tradition, which I didn't think of putting on my list, is valuable to many of us at least on a subconcious level. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:06, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

AFAICS, WAID only linked to a long list of possible "values" that people may have, not to a subset of values they think are motivating the desire to retain language that some may call heternormative or cisnormative. Clayoquot, can you think of other reasons than "we're used to it and fail to spot it" for why it is entirely acceptable to "de-sex" under-20s wrt pregnancy both from a social-reaction point of view and a technical writing point of view (nobody is saying it is statistically flawed or dishonest to represent pregnancy study results on "girls" as "teens" or "adolescents", but would complain if the study was on "women" and this was represented as "people").

I suspect another factor influencing us is that it hasn't been easy to find acceptable words that are inclusive of both groups (the cis-women and the trans-men) while at the same time retaining the sex indicator that is relevant to the biological topic. Yes I know I've just pointed out that nobody seems to care one jot when we fail to do that for teenagers. But I've frequently remarked that language change isn't rational and I've complained that people who moan about a change not being rational are missing the point. So perhaps this is an example where our existing language choices wrt girls and women are different for no rational reason. Whether it is "tradition" or "inertia" or "traditional values", we are stuck with an apparently poor set of choices that fails to satisfy all reasonable complaints. I would like to think that if good alternatives existed then we'd embrace them, but the "commit suicide" debate has made me pessimistic about that (there were perfectly acceptable alternatives, but tradition was too powerful an influence). And there's the "Use 'she' or 'it' for ships" debate, which concerns a subject (ship) that has no feelings or thoughts on the matter at all, that most definitely has no sex, and still Wikipedia cannot find a solution (though many others have). People are stubborn. -- Colin°^Talk 09:02, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Regarding: Nobody reads "Foster care youth are more likely than their peers to become pregnant as teenagers." and turns purple at this liberal woke nonsense suggesting 15-year-old boys in care might become pregnant. and …(nobody is saying it is statistically flawed or dishonest to represent pregnancy study results on "girls" as "teens" or "adolescents"… Since you have raised the question, I do think it is statistically flawed and dishonest. (Though I don’t go purple, as far as I am aware.) My guess is that the sentence would get less reaction than the expression ‘pregnant people’ solely because of the arrangement of the words – if it said ‘pregnant youth’ the reaction might be different. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:40, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Sweet6970, I don't know why you think "teenage" would be different to "youth" but if you google "pregnant youth" or "pregnant youths" or "youth pregnancy" you'll find that's quite common. Yet strangely there's nobody writing articles about desexing our pregnant girls. I challenge you to find anyone on the internet complaining that our youth/adolescent/teenage pregnancy campaigns are desexing girls by using these non-gendered terms. It seems this "statistically flawed and dishonest" approach is used absolutely everywhere, including US government departments. This Cochrane review almost seems to regard the pregnancy as something that happens to "adolescents" rather than to girls. Their sources sometimes have male and female participants but many are female-only and yet the results are collated. -- Colin°^Talk 14:30, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

In my experience, when the word ‘youth’ is used, it refers to older teenage boys and young men in their early twenties, usually in the context of what used to be called ‘juvenile delinquency’. So my expectation is that ‘youth’ would refer to males. If the results on teenage pregnancy are collated, that must give odd results, because including boys would affect the calculation of the incidence of pregnancy.

I think the only useful result of our discussions is that it shows that our experience of vocabulary is very different. Since I claim no expertise in medical matters, and don’t edit medical articles, I believe that my experience is probably more typical of our readers. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:58, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

The association of youth with young men specifically may be regional and is probably old-fashioned. Special:Search/prefix:youth lists many youth-focused articles (e.g., Youth Olympic Games, Youth activism, Youth culture, etc.), and the gendered sense of the term is not noticeable. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:59, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

It's true that a lot about language can seem arbitrary or non-rational, and yet we just have to deal with that and work within our language's system of spellings, meanings, etc.; it's locked in that way and we need to be understood. Words and phrases have not just ordinary meanings but also connotations: an idea or feeling that a word invokes in addition to its literal or primary meaning. And, whether we like it or not, "pregnant people" has different connotations than "pregnant teenagers". The former invokes transgender identity and pregnant men and has increased in use for that purpose. The latter is designed to emphasize age and was never meant to invoke pregnant boys - and so it doesn't. And that connotation of "pregnant people" happens regardless of whether one likes that connotation. Someone can be a big fan of the phrase, but if they read that in an article, they will still think we are making a claim about trans men.

Regarding the fact that the value I added is "activism" - yes, I know. So is using certain phrases for "including marginalized people". Really, I think the whole 'values' (rather than 'sources') approach is misguided - but while we're on it, I aim to show that it cuts both ways. My point doesn't apply only if making a racial or gender inequality argument. If "pregnant people" can be argued for because of "including marginalized people", "pregnant women" can be argued for because of "not marginalizing women's health". But, again, I'd rather not be arguing about values and I don't think the community would either. Crossroads ^-talk- 07:13, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Crossroads, you are wrong that language is "locked in that way". Language can change at a surprisingly rapid pace. Newimpartial keeps reminding us that Canada has more rapidly transitioned to "pregnant people" than USA or UK, say. While language changes, there are always fuddy duddies who bemoan how some people talk or write. I have books on language that amusingly quote journalists and other writers complaining about what they considered newfangled words or styles that you or I would find utterly mundane. (Some are in fact of Shakespearean vintage, and crossed the Atlantic, fell out of style in the UK, and returned when America became a world power). I think your claim that "pregnant teenagers" "was never meant to invoke pregnant boys" but "pregnant people" is always deliberately chosen to include trans men again demonstrates that for this topic you are constantly assuming the writer is trying to poke you in the eye with some woke neologism. Why do you then think those who try to avoid cisnormative writing are always activists? Do you think the Duchess of Cambridge was being activist when they said they were "not the happiest of pregnant people" or do you think it just fell out of her mouth? Do you think someone who avoids sexist writing is always a feminist activist or virtue signalling? That you find "pregnant people" upsetting but not "pregnant teenagers" suggests that there is not in fact anything fundamentally odd, wrong or problematic about the phrase, only that you have yet to adapt your mindset to finding it ordinary. You are not alone in this, and we have to be considerate of all our readers, but that also includes those who find that cisnormative writing upsets them. I think some of the time we spent fretting over original research and other potential issues is perhaps making a mountain out of a molehill. We need to be mindful of creating hurdles inconsistently just to win some argument. At the moment, I'm wondering if there is little more here than "I don't like it".

Sweet6970, I have no medical qualification higher than the first-aid-badge I got at Scouts in the previous millennium. I've no expertise in writing sex-related medical articles. You say "I believe that my experience is probably more typical of our readers" but really I don't think any one of us here can express any more than our personal opinions and limited personal experiences. We need to also be mindful of the "tyranny of the majority", where the wishes (and ignorance) of the majority can mean the needs or wishes of a minority are ignored or dismissed. -- Colin°^Talk 10:05, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Of course language changes, but that is not my point. My point is that we have to deal with the system of connotations that exists, not what we wish existed. Your few examples of "pregnant people" being used without comment do not demonstrate that these connotations don't exist. I think most editors would say they do, and there are articles like the Atlantic article about it because it does carry such connotations. And the term appearing slightly more in Canada in no way disproves this either. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:47, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Colin, re: AFAICS, WAID only linked to a long list of possible "values" that people may have, not to a subset of values they think are motivating the desire to retain language that some may call heternormative or cisnormative., I was referring to WAID's comment from 16:43, 5 April 2022 in which she mentioned "including marginalized people" and "precision" as values. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 15:45, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Replying to Colin on various of your comments above: I get the impression that you think that everybody should ‘adapt their mindset’ to new uses of language. But that is not what Wikipedia is for – we are supposed to be informing our readers, not reforming them. So we should be using the current version of language, which, as has been discussed, is different for different groups. I think it is fair to say that if the Guardian (The paper's readership is generally on the mainstream left of British political opinion, and the term "Guardian reader" is used to imply a stereotype of liberal, left-wing or "politically correct") uses ‘pregnant women’ in articles about the UK, then the usage ‘pregnant people’ is not established in the UK, even in ‘politically correct’ circles.

You have referred to the tyranny of the majority. That’s a strong expression to use to refer to saying ‘pregnant women’ rather than ‘pregnant people’. I am not intending to tyrannise anyone, and I don’t see how I could do such a thing on Wikipedia. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:15, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Crossroads associates gender-neutral phrases such as pregnant people with trans rights. But those phrases were also used in previous centuries, when that wasn't a consideration. I think we need to avoid turning "here's what I feel" into "here's what it means to everyone everywhere". WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:31, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

The phrase was used extremely rarely back then, and that fact is completely irrelevant to its connotations today. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:42, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Sweet6970, I'm not accusing your of tyranny, it is a well known term and I'm just pointing out that if we only attempt to please the "typical" reader, then lose sight of the concerns of untypical readers. For example, our efforts to make the site accessible to blind readers. So there's only so far one should take "typical of our readers" as an argument. I don't think that one should assume that being on the left or liberal in the UK means one might be more inclined to support trans rights and agendas. This article explains the left/right differences. This article perhaps helps US readers understand the UK is different (note both article express views I don't necessarily share and use language I wouldn't necessarily repeat). And we've already noted that sometimes even the Guardian and the Daily Mail say "pregnant people". I don't think "everybody should ‘adapt their mindset’ to new uses of language" but after all the many arguments put forward for why we shouldn't write "pregnant people", I'm thinking that if none of them apply to "pregnant teenagers" then all we are left with is a dislike of the unfamiliar or a over-sensitive ear by activists like Crossroads. -- Colin°^Talk 18:05, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

To Colin: Thank you for clarifying that you are not accusing me of tyranny. I didn’t think you were, and I’m sorry if my post came across as accusing you of accusing me of tyranny……… I’m acquainted with the meaning you linked to, and I assumed that meaning was what you meant. What I was trying to convey was that I think your comparison is way over the top, and inapplicable in the context of editing Wikipedia.

You refer to ‘a dislike of the unfamiliar’. My view, which I have tried to express before, is that unfamiliar language is a barrier to readers’ understanding, so it should be avoided if possible. Where it’s not possible to write articles in a way which is ideal for everyone, I think we have to give precedence to the understanding of the majority, over the preference of any minority.Sweet6970 (talk) 20:32, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Surprising the reader with the unfamiliar is to be avoided, all things being equal, but all things are not equal. There are more English speakers in Nigeria than in the UK, and 98% of them would be surprised by the idea that gay marriage is anything other than an abomination before God. -- Colin°^Talk 21:00, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it's true that unfamiliar language is a barrier to readers’ understanding. Using completely unknown (and undefined/unexplained) words can interfere with understanding (even though you can usually glork what I'm saying from context, right?), but using slightly less familiar language can help people focus. A little jolt of unfamiliar or unexpected content engages the brain in a way that business-as-usual boredom does not. Editors might object if you re-wrote articles in blank verse, but there is a certain amount of educational value to it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:48, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

I completely disagree with everything you have said in your comment (apart, obviously, for the point about blank verse). ‘Educational value’ is an irrelevant consideration. It would be patronising to think that our purpose is to educate our readers – our purpose is to inform them. Sweet6970 (talk) 11:51, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Goodness me. Sweet6970, go find a good dictionary. Look up "encyclopaedia" (or whatever incorrect spelling your country insists upon :-). Scan down to the etymology. -- Colin°^Talk 15:32, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

You ought to be aware that the etymology of a word is not its current meaning – that’s why it is an etymology, rather than the current meaning.

‘Encyclopedia n. (also encyclopaedia) : a book, often in several volumes, giving information on many subjects, or on many aspects of one subject, usu. arranged alphabetically.’ The Concise Oxford Dictionary

Please, let’s not get sidetracked into personal remarks. Sweet6970 (talk) 15:54, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

@Sweet6970, I wonder what distinction you would draw between becoming educated about a subject and becoming informed about a subject. Is it possible to become educated about (e.g.,) pregnancy without becoming informed about pregnancy, or vice versa? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:01, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Here's the difference between informed and educated. Informed is when I ask "ok Google, what's..." and it gives me a sentence or two in reply. Educated is when I look at the article and click on a link and another link and before I know it, 10 minutes have passed, and I learned far more than what I sought. Informing is when you answer the person's question. Educating is when you fill their brain. Wikipedia is very very much here to do the latter, otherwise we wouldn't bother with hyperlinks and daughter articles and probably not even bother with anything more than a lead paragraph to be honest. -- Colin°^Talk 20:50, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Education is a different process from getting information. Education involves acquiring a different mindset. One does not become educated about a subject, but in a subject. But one would not become educated in pregnancy, because it’s not that sort of subject. Rather, one would become educated in medicine, or in nursing/midwifery, or in pharmacy, or in public health, or in biology….. apologies to anyone I have left out. Each of these different educations would give you a different perspective on the information about pregnancy. Sweet6970 (talk) 22:04, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Sweet6970, do you realise you are arguing that "our purpose" is not "to educate our readers" with someone who works for WMF. Perhaps you should try that argument at talk Jimbo. Honestly, this one is best handled with "oh, ok, that was a brain fart, my bad". -- Colin°^Talk 22:54, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

So long as nobody's claiming that "supporting editors" is a legitimate charitable purpose for a 501(c)(3) public charity, then I'm unlikely to complain. Education is one of the charitable purposes specified in the relevant US law, and it's the one that the WMF tax exempt status was approved under, but there's no legal requirement that education be limited to the change-your-mindset definition.

Supporters of the liberal arts should find Sweet's narrower definition familiar, though; a good education should liberate you and lead you out of darkness. That's what I think Wikipedia's volunteers do. We light the path of knowledge and liberate people from ignorance and misinformation. We do this on a smaller scale than a good university education, but we still do this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:43, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Language differences and political differences

W.r.t. Colin's question on why "pregnant people" is more controversial than "pregnant teenagers": I could speculate on why, but I don't think the reasons or even the quality of reasons matter to editorial decision-making at Wikipedia. What I care as a Wikipedia editor about is choosing language that a broad section of the political spectrum uses when they are speaking to a general audience. The paths by which subcultures adopt different ways of speaking are complex and not always rational. The path doesn't matter. What matters from our perspective is where the path has led.

It's occurred to me that there are two questions: 1) Do we prefer to use language that is used across the political spectrum, avoiding language that most readers would associate with a very narrow segment of the political spectrum?, and 2) Which specific language forms/phrases are used by a very narrow segment of the political spectrum?

For clarity, I'm referring to language that people use when they are speaking/writing to a general audience. For instance, doctors might say to a transgender nonbinary female-bodied patient, "These are the symptoms of a heart attack in people who are assigned female at birth." The same doctors might not want to have a poster in their waiting room whose headline is "Heart Attack Symptoms in People who were Assigned Female at Birth". When addressing a transgender individual, "assigned female at birth" is something centrists and probably even some conservatives would say and be proud of saying. But they wouldn't want to say it in the headline of a poster for their waiting room.

I have followed this page enough to know that people can argue forever about whether "pregnant person" is used by a wide or narrow segment of the political spectrum. Have we gotten around to discussing question #1? What do people think of the principle of avoiding language that's strongly associated with a narrow segment of the political spectrum? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clayoquot (talk • contribs) 23:56, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

You are right that the reasons why one phrase is more controversial don't matter to editing. I was hoping wise heads might have a good reason why one phrase leads to us spend days wondering which scenarios are original research or are dishonestly reporting statistic from a study, and why nobody (either us, or the authors of our sources) seems to mind (or have noticed) the same exact problem with the other phrase. There's nothing about being aged between 12 and 20 that makes the rules vanish. Anyway, if that is worth discussing, it can occur in another section.

To your question on "the principle of avoiding language that's strongly associated with a narrow segment of the political spectrum". Hmm. Well you seem to spot a problem with it already when you say "people can argue forever about whether <<a given phrase>> is used by a wide or narrow segment of the political spectrum". It seems like a licence for further labelling of editors and negatively viewing their motives, for those who are conservative to disparage language as "woke" or "politically correct" and eliminate it. When you say "strongly associated with", and later say "used by", I wonder... There's nothing wrong with a small group using a phrase. But then politicians go to war on groups they dislike. So "global warming" becomes a myth. And "white privilege" can't be mentioned in classrooms. And "pregnant people" can't be used on Wikipedia? These phrases become highlighted because those who are politically motivated bang on about how much they hate them. And Boris Johnson makes after dinner speeches where he mocks "assigned female at birth". The groups (climate scientists, academics studying race and society, people who are trans or nonbinary) are not themselves political. No, the political groups are the ones who hate what they have to say and would love you to dismiss them as some crank minority. Let's not give them power to censor us.

The UK Census asked questions about sex and gender identity and said "Q Is the gender you identify with the same as your sex registered at birth?". That's a government document that every household is required by law to complete, and which is not political in nature, and has to be accessible and understandable by a very general audience. It includes concepts of self identifying one's gender and disagreeing with the "sex registered at birth", words which you suggest might be "associate[ed] with a very narrow segment of the political spectrum". -- Colin°^Talk 10:19, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Clayoquot’s first principle - we should prefer to use language that is used across the political spectrum, avoiding language that most readers would associate with a very narrow segment of the political spectrum. The (non-Scottish) census succeeded in this, by referring to sex registered at birth. This is a factual, objective criterion which avoids the politically-charged term ‘sex assigned at birth’ which is, also, probably unknown to many people. Labelling of editors and negatively viewing their motives goes on already, and I think having a principle that we should use language which is generally accepted would avoid much of this. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:13, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

I've been unable to find a source explaining why you think "registered" is "factual, objective" but "assigned" is "politically-charged". I can see that for census purposes it might be relevant to record what sex was registered on your birth certificate, which in cases of intersex might be different to the sex you were raised as, which perhaps "assigned" could be felt to mean. But I'm not sure the difference is important for our purposes, as you were a crying baby at the time, and both are things other people decided about you. My point isn't really to debate if the census wording is good or bad, but just to note this sort of language appears on official government forms. And we've got a proposal here to ban it. I mean, if the CDC can advise "pregnant people" about covid vaccination, under what kind of rationale might Wikipedia decide "We're going to be even more conservative in our language than the U.S. Department of Health & Human Services"? Or Kate Middleton's ('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."' -- you can't really get more Establishment than the royal family, and Kate was upper-middle-class, private school, aristocratic family Establishment before her marriage. So Wikipedia is more conservative than the Royal Family? -- Colin°^Talk 13:06, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Colin, you yourself referred to Boris Johnson’s joke, so I don’t understand why you say that ‘assigned at birth’ is not politically charged. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:00, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Em, just because someone writes a bigoted joke that makes fun of a discriminated minority in order to score political points over the opposition leader, doesn't mean all the words in his "joke" are politically charged. Boris was deliberately using the words out of context in order to mock them, as Crossroads has done with the body parts. I don't think that was Clayoquot's intention, but I do think they chose a bad example for their strategy of banning politically charged language. Let's not let the bigots, using words out of context to mock, dictate what we can write here. There's plenty on the right wing who find themselves unable to say "global warming" without making little air quotes with their fingers. Do we ban that too because Trump says it is some Chinese conspiracy theory? -- Colin°^Talk 17:55, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I found Sex assigned or registered at birth in the NHS manual. It suggests the trans community is familiar with the term "sex assigned at birth" but they feel the general audience better understand "the sex someone was registered with at birth". That latter is quite clunky and we saw above is abbreviated to "sex registered at birth". Therefore they suggest using the former in trans related topics and the latter elsewhere. I don't know if that might be relevant to us. This may shift over time. I'm not seeing, however, anything suggesting that one phrase is "politically-charged". For example, if talking about a trans man, would anyone insist that it is politically charged to refer to their sex assigned at birth rather than sex registered at birth? -- Colin°^Talk 17:48, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

This isn't an answer to those specific questions, but my go-to source of concepts and definitions, Statistics Canada, uses "Sex at birth" as the name of the relevant variable, immediately defines it in terms of "sex assignment" and then mentions "sex recorded at birth" as how the term "may also be understood". Newimpartial (talk) 18:00, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Useful site. See also Gender of Person. Their Modernizing the Government of Canada's Sex and Gender Information Practices: summary report is also useful. Their "Engagement" objectives seem wise and respectful.

I think this sort of approach at the information-gathering / research stage will necessarily follow through to the need to present sex-related health information as applying to those "registered female at birth" (say) and social-related information as applying to "women" (the gender). We are just going to have to get used to these and other forms of defining people-groups. -- Colin°^Talk 08:59, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Sigh, I didn't expect this to be controversial (smacks forehead). Colin, you've argued over and over that "pregnant people" is used across a wide segment of political spectrum, which implies to me that when editors making decisions about whether to use a term, they should think about whether the term is used across a wide segment of the political spectrum. Am I understanding you? Would you agree that when editors making decisions about whether to use a term, they should think about whether the term is used across a wide segment of the political spectrum?

"Pregnant people" in the context of vaccination is one of the difficult cases to classify as being political or not, but there are many easy cases. I joined this discussion because of of the easy cases, which are often brought in by new/student editors.

With our principle around not having article content that sounds like advertising, there are also cases that are easy to classify as sounding like advertising and there are cases where editors disagree about whether the content sounds like advertising. But we have consensus on the principle and we accept the fact that there will be difficult-to-decide cases.

Speaking of which, as with our policies and guidelines around promotional article content, we need to look at the overall impression on the reader considering things like context and quantity. We have never written our guidelines in terms of "never use positive adjectives because they will make the article sound like advertising. We look at the context of the positive adjectives, the quantity of them, and the topic itself. Same thing with "assigned female at birth": perfectly fine in some contexts, but not good if it were used to replace "women" all over an article like Heart attack. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 14:21, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the "political spectrum" question is useful. For example, people across the political spectrum talk about creation stories, but we use the technical term, creation myth. (The second sentence of the article defines the term myth, which has excellent educational value but which might have been motivated more by a desire to avoid the pitchforks-and-torches crowd than purely for the educational value.) Do we stop using technical terms, just because non-technical terms are more popular across the political spectrum?

Similarly, one might not replace the too-few mentions of women in Heart attack with the longer phrase assigned female at birth, but one might replace it with females. Is this a politically charged word? I don't think so. Is this something that people across the political spectrum use? Yes. Would someone claim this word is "unfamiliar" or "politically motivated"? Well, it's a big wiki, with tens of thousands of active editors, so probably.

If you wanted a rule along these lines, I think it would be more helpful to suggest something like "any language used by health agencies in English-speaking countries, when writing for people who are not healthcare professionals". This would be an inclusive rule, not a "pick the single most popular term and use only thatt" restriction. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:10, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Referring to how health agencies word things is a reasonable approach. Note that I was not suggesting that we prefer the most widely-used term. I was suggesting that we avoid language that is strongly associated with a narrow segment of the political spectrum.

Also I'd change "when writing for people who are not healthcare professionals" to "when writing for a general audience that is not healthcare professionals". When health agencies are writing something that is intended for a more narrow audience such as trans/nonbinary people, they might use language that they would not choose for a general audience. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 17:31, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Would you exclude something written for caregivers dealing with a rare disease? That's a much narrower group than trans folks. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:16, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

We're talking about use of gender in language. I don't think health authorities change the way they use gender in language when they're writing for caregivers who are dealing with a rare disease. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:45, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

So a special rule for sex and gender?

Health authorities do change the way they use other language when writing about rare diseases. There is some debate, for example, about whether it is inappropriately exclusionary to refer to "parents" instead of "parents and other caregivers". WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:56, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

The rule could apply to any style issue where language that's best for a particular audience has limited acceptability to a general audience. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 21:56, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

How do you identify "acceptability"?

Here's a pretty simple real-world example: School teachers fairly often need students (especially younger ones) to obtain permission. In the US, about one in 60 kids is formally in the foster care system. A roughly equal number are in informal care situations. An average class size is somewhere between 20 and 30, depending on age and budgets. This suggests that something around half of the public school classrooms have one child for whom "your parents" are not the adult(s) who take care of you on a day-to-day basis.

Is it "acceptable" for the teacher to say "Take this home and give it to your adults" instead of "Take this home and give it to your parents"? Does that language erase and devalue parents and parenthood? Some people think this language is acceptable, and others don't. Some people are appalled at the idea of a teacher using exclusionary language that could emotionally hurt a child who, through no fault of their own, isn't able to live with their legal or biological parents, and others aren't. How would you figure out whether this language has limited acceptability to a general audience? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:09, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Here's one way to identify "acceptability": Type "assigned female at birth" into Google and switch to the News tab, where it gives you a list of articles such as BBC makes correction after referring to women as people 'assigned female at birth'.

I'm back to thinking that the time I'm spending on this page is not helping us identify areas of common ground or moving us towards consensus, so I might not have more to say. If anyone has a specific question for me, please ping me. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:52, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Backlash from "gender critical feminists" in the UK may show up on a "News" tab, but I don't think that makes it news nor does it really help to define "acceptability". It seems to me that terms used in MEDRS sources for public communication are generally a better indicator, in this domain, than "terms to which nobody takes offense" - the latter offering a vanishingly short list for these topics IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 18:28, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm struggling to think that "acceptable to the Daily Mail" should inform our thinking, other than pragmatism (to a degree) and defensiveness (at being censored by prejudice). Would we judge our covid articles based on whether Fox News disagrees voluminously and the POTUS (then) tweets constant nonsense. Haters gonna hate, as they say. This was a web page on BBC Bristol local news, not national TV. The story featured Megan Morgan, who's Academic page says "One in 10 people with uteruses have Endometriosis". The BBC link to Endometriosis-UK, who's website says "around 1.5 million women and those assigned female at birth are currently living with the condition". Morgan's twitter feed includes (among many many other things) links to LGBTQ+ and trans inclusive material covering endometriosis and period health. I can see from linked twitter groups that researchers, particularly those involving younger ages, are targeting their material to include trans, and some actually seeking trans participants. For example "Who can take part? You can take part if you are aged 18 or over and have a menstrual cycle." I can understand that academics dealing with these body parts and patients (Morgan is both) can be far more familiar with using words like "uterus". I think we are going to increasingly see these precise phrases used in research and by researchers and we shall see how much that transfers to public-facing text. The endometriosis-uk site took a "women and those assigned female at birth" approach.

Consider this, the BBC did not use a racist or homophobic or antisemitic or even rude word. Rather than being hateful towards some group, the author was trying to be kind. The writer of the piece may well have been influenced by the trans-inclusive views of their subject. The piece was promoting Endometriosis Awareness month. The person who started the backlash against the piece, "Milli Hill", well you can look at her twitter feed by following the link in the article Clayoquot gave. This is someone who daily, sometimes several times a day, attacks trans rights and inclusive language. There is literally nothing else in their twitter feed than gender critical posts and mocking trans ideology. Should I be looking for acceptance from the Morgan's of this world or the Hill's, from those trying to make the world a kinder more inclusive place, or those making it a more hateful and divided place? -- Colin°^Talk 21:52, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

WP:BLP applies to talk pages too, regarding Milli Hill. Asserting that replacing "women" with "assigned female at birth" is more inclusive assumes the very matter under dispute. I see that any resistance to the new language is being tarred as "gender critical" and equated to attacking trans rights and spreading hate and division. And on that last point, it's funny how the 'we need to revolutionize X' camp never gets accused of spreading "division" or of starting a culture war, just the people who don't see the change as on net beneficial. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:03, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I note that ITV News also uses the phrase "women and those assigned female at birth". Which mirrors what endometriosis-uk said. Perhaps at last we are finding real-world examples of where the "additional" approach is being used. Actually I did a search '"women and those assigned female at birth" site:twitter.com' on Google and that phrase seems to be getting repeated by those posting about Endometriosis Awareness month. What I am not seeing, Crossroads, is everyone responding with hate. Crossroads, have a look at Hill's twitter and Morgan's twitter. Surely you can tell the difference between them? Here's a clue, which one contains sympathy posts about fellow gender-critical activists who have been blocked on banned on twitter for violating the terms and conditions: You may not promote violence against or directly attack or threaten other people on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, caste, sexual orientation, gender, gender identity, religious affiliation, age, disability, or serious disease. We also do not allow accounts whose primary purpose is inciting harm towards others on the basis of these categories. Should we listen to someone who appears to be themselves hurtling towards a twitter ban? -- Colin°^Talk 07:43, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Health agencies are a class of MEDRS, are they not? I agree with the idea of imitating sources, yet it's odd that this should be based on such a small subset. And this puts us right back on the issue of people misleadingly using such terms when they do not apply when citing sources that don't use them. And this idea contains no protection against an editor wanting to replace everything with their preferred new terminology. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:00, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

It depends on the agency, and it depends what they're writing. If NICE publishes a guideline, that's MEDRS's ideal. If a small health agency publishes a report on their local practices, that's not MEDRS's ideal. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:58, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Just as an aside, though maybe not strictly relevant to the discussion here, one thing that Endometriosis-UK has missed in their awareness campaign is that the condition is not exclusive to those assigned female at birth. Though substantially rarer, it is possible for those whom are assigned male at birth to suffer from it. There is some anecdotal evidence, though I cannot find any clinical evidence at this time due to what appears to be a lack of studies into it, that HRT in transfeminine individuals (ie both trans women and non-binary) can exacerbate already existing endometriosis or cause latent endometriosis to become active as the hormone levels within the body change.

Now while we can't make mention of transfeminine individuals in our relevant articles on Wiki, due to a lack of citations, should we otherwise include in our articles that it is possible for those assigned male at birth to be afflicted as well? Sideswipe9th (talk) 14:27, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Interesting. Though 20 cases, ever, doesn't really warrant an awareness campaign, or shift the "1 in 10" figure. Even adding or subtracting trans or non-binary people to include/remove whatever definition you pick, you won't shift that "1 in 10" figure.

If Endometriosis-UK successfully used "assigned female at birth" was it because that term clearly applied to the supplementary trans men group, and wasn't used to "erase" "women". I know it is only one case, but perhaps this is evidence that "assigned female at birth" may be appropriate for very specific study criteria/questions and professional-level publications, but for lay audience, only currently acceptable if used for the trans population, and not for "women". Are there any examples of successful lay publications that just use "assigned female at birth" on its own to refer to the whole uterus-having population? -- Colin°^Talk 17:11, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

It looks like that's happening:

• Migraine isn’t just a headache—it’s a neurological disease that affects about 12% of people in the U.S., the majority of whom are people assigned female at birth.
• People assigned female at birth shouldn’t eat fewer than 1,200 calories a day and those assigned male at birth should stay above 1,500 calories.
• People assigned female at birth may also experience increased symptom severity around their period.
• The most at-risk group for osteoporosis is white people assigned female at birth.
• Infertility in people assigned female at birth.
• More than one-third of respondents identified as Black; about 53% were assigned female at birth; 32% belonged to a sexual minority; and 10% were gender diverse, meaning they identified other than male or female alone.
• While the recommended daily intake for fiber is 25 grams per day for adults assigned female at birth and 38 grams per day for adults assigned male at birth, most Americans get less than 20 grams per day

The third item reminds me that we still need an article on menstrual magnification. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:35, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that these are outliers among sources, I'd consider it extremely likely that many of these sorts of articles (I suspect the 1st, 2nd, and 6th (edit: 7th) especially) sloppily replaced a typical term with "assigned X at birth" to be "inclusive" without actually taking care to be sure that it applied to trans people, ironically being sort of transphobic in assuming that a trans man is the same as a woman physiologically. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:41, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Crossroads, perhaps you could expand your idea of trans beyond the concept of a "trans man" who has transitioned surgically and hormonally. It is an umbrella term and there is a spectrum of how much, if anything, trans people change their bodies or take hormones. People can be trans or nonbinary without doing anything at all to their bodies. So I think it would be better if you started from the position that your idea of a "woman" (cis woman) is identical to a person "assigned female at birth" unless you have evidence that they are different.

Again you assume those writing this material are politically motivated and, well, stupid. The second article in Telegraph India mentioned calorie intake below which it was unwise to go below when dieting. Do you think that declaring oneself to be non-binary changes that? Don't you think perhaps these figures (1,200 calories a day and 1,500 calories a day) are likely to be so approximate that they don't take into account all sorts of human variation such as height, age or ethnicity and that worrying the odd trans person is the least of their problems?

This second article was based on material from www.livestrong.com. The latter wrote Why We Use the Words We Use and What They Mean to Us. This does not sound like a publisher who "sloppily replaced" words, but who has carefully considered their audience and their values. They are not a trans-activist organisation, but are focused on informing and promoting healthier lives. Stop thinking that those who write differently to you are activists and stupid and perhaps consider your own prejudice. Why do you find it necessary to complain that a calories-per-day figure "assum[ed] that a trans man is the same as a woman physiologically" but was perfectly fine in saying "women" which includes an 18-year-old with an eating disorder, a 40-year-old obese woman, a 30-year-old pregnant woman and a 75-year-old woman with lung cancer. -- Colin°^Talk 22:20, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Crossroads, I just looked at the 6th article, which you said was extremely likely to "sloppily replac[e] a typical term with "assigned X at birth" to be "inclusive". It is reporting on Exploration of Experiences and Perpetration of Identity-Based Bullying Among Adolescents by Race/Ethnicity and Other Marginalized Identities. The "53% were assigned female at birth" in the "sloppy" US News article corresponds to .... "2086 (53.7%) as assigned female at birth" in the JAMA investigation. You know, "prejudice" is when you assume something negative about people you disagree with or dislike without checking the facts. I wonder, perhaps, how Wikipedia would phrase the results of this JAMA study (via any secondary source of course). Would you perhaps "sloppily" replace "assigned female at birth" with "women" to be "exclusive"? Colin°^Talk 22:32, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I suspect that "6th" was meant to be "7th". WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:11, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

The 7th has much the same problems as the 2nd (calorie figures for men/women). Here it is US official adequate intake figures of 25g and 38g fibre for men/women. The expert they were talking to published a meta analysis here recommending between 25g and 29g for the best-evidence of health benefits. Their analysis did not specify sex or gender at all. They also noted the poor quality of existing evidence on the quantity of fibre to consume.

I think both calories and fibre recommended daily figures represent a good example where worrying about including/excluding trans people is the very least of the problems with the figures. Both are likely based on an average height/body-build that is different between the groups but of course has huge variation and overlap, as well as other health and age factors. These figures are notoriously approximate and low evidence and vary from country to country. A good example is the UK alcohol recommendations, which used to be different for men and women but in the UK are now the same. There are various reasons for that, and they aren't that men and women are absolutely identical in their individual risk profile, but also for example take into account the increased problems with alcohol among men and simplicity has merit in a public health measure.

This comes back to the earlier point I made that if your statement is appropriately vague then that gives greater freedom to reword population groups. These fibre/calorie/alcohol figure are merely consensus figures for campaigns. -- Colin°^Talk 11:59, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I did mean "7th", that is my bad. I overlooked one of the tiny bullet points when counting.

Regarding the JAMA study, to be clear I'd go by how secondary sources phrase it. If you think livestrong.com isn't engaging in linguistic activism I don't know what to tell you.

Variation within sexes does not negate the existence of differences between them nor the need to specify that when the due weight of sources requires it. It appears that just as some fear, however, we see that obfuscating the existence of sex differences ("being vague") is being argued to be good under this particular POV.

I well know that someone can identify as trans without any medical transition at all. However, typically, trans people do at minimum take hormones or seek to as a form of gender affirmation. Even non-binary people often do this. And many topics have a psychological or 'social determinant of health' aspect where even non-medically-transitioned trans people cannot be assumed to be equivalent to their respective cis people. All this is why 'trans women in sports' is an actual research topic - I doubt anyone here in favor of extrapolating from a source's wording would be okay with doing so when it comes to sports medicine papers about men's higher performance having "and trans women" appended on to it. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:37, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Yes, your view that Livestrong's decision to "best serve and represent ​all​ of our readers" is "linguistic activism" just emphasises how fundamentally wrongheaded your views on activism are. You conveniently label anyone you disagree with as an activist and can't understand why anyone would want to include people different from themselves other than to make some political point. There are linguistic activists in the world, but not everyone who is not as strongly linguistically conservative as you is an activist. I appreciate it is handy to believe what you believe, because then you can throw WP:UPPERCASE at them, but it doesn't make it real.

I think your views on trans population were never true and are outdated. If you have a current citation?

Crossroads, you know what section of the population regularly take hormones... women on the pill. The fact that you can only see problems with trans people being included/excluded but fail to see any problems with other groups of women being included/excluded, or recognise what kind of figures these calorie/fibre recommendations are, is a problem. Can you imagine if someone did a study of kids in Denmark and concluded some intervention helped them get better grades. And then you objected to language that suggested black children might also get better grades, since the Danish study only looked at white kids? That's the kind of prejudice that could get you banned from the topic Crossroads. I think you need to be careful here if you strongly appear to double-down on (often imaginary) trans differences vs other differences.

Wrt secondary sources for the JAMA review, I only found this, which isn't ideal MEDRS but does repeat the same language. In fact I find it hard to imagine any MEDRS secondary source using different language to the very precise terms used in the study. If that were the case, would you use the phrase "assigned female at birth"? -- Colin°^Talk 09:16, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Regarding the last question: Yes.

Of course Livestrong describes it that way. As we've been over on this page, "inclusivity" isn't so simple, however.

The comparison to race is just so far off. Assuming that trans people are the same as those of the opposite gender but same assigned sex - that trans men are a type of woman etc. - is what's considered offensive, you know.

Regarding rates of medical transition, the 2015 US Transgender Survey reports on its page 99: Seventy-eight percent (78%) of respondents wanted to receive hormone therapy at some point in their life, but only 49% of respondents have ever received it....A large majority of transgender men and women (95%) have wanted hormone therapy, compared to 49% of non-binary respondents. Transgender men and women were about five times more likely to have ever had hormone therapy (71%) than non-binary respondents (13%). The following pages discuss rates of receiving and of desire for various surgeries. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:18, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

If half of TGNB have never taken hormones (which is what the USTS says), then I don't think that we can say that "at minimum" people take hormones. And, of course, hormones that you might want to seek but don't actually take have no effect. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:20, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Ah, but I said: "or seek to". Also, we would expect that those who seek to eventually do, even as there is turnover within that category with new people who come out that want hormones but don't get them yet. So the number of trans people who do take hormones eventually is higher. Remember that this survey is in the US, too; other countries with universal healthcare likely have higher rates of hormone use because of greater availability. It's also from 2015 when hormones were likely harder to get. And, again, psychological differences and social determinants of health are important. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:27, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Or not. The number of non-binary people seems to be rising, and only 13% of them had hormone therapy in that study. It is entirely possible that the 2022 survey will find that fewer than half of TGNB people have ever taken gender-affirming hormones. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:34, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I think what both of you are missing is that the 2015 USTS says

"Although the intention was to recruit a sample that was as representative as possible of transgender people in the U.S., it is important to note that respondents in this study were not randomly sampled and the actual population characteristics of transgender people in the U.S. are not known. Therefore, it is not appropriate to generalize the findings in this study to all transgender people.".

This is a self-selecting online questionnaire, with promotional campaign. They went online-only because of the question-path complexity but acknowledge 'that online and paper surveys may reach transgender respondents with “vastly different health and life experiences.”' Their new survey for 2022, also online, has extra effort on "reaching trans people who are least likely to be reached by an internet-based survey, due to race or ethnicity, income, age, geographic location and other life circumstances, such as being an immigrant"

I think it would be reasonable to assume that the figures of those receiving hormones represent the upper limit, and the reality, among those without internet access or healthcare insurance is likely to be far lower.

Crossroads, I think you have to appreciate that trans/nonbinary is primarily something that involves the mind of the person, much like being gay or bisexual. You wouldn't assume a gay person had a different calorie requirement or fibre requirement in their diet. So why does identifying as a different gender to the sex assigned at birth suddenly alter one's dietary requirements? That some trans people go on to have surgery or take hormones is a variation just like some cis women go on to take the pill or to have lots of babies or no babies or get cancer or run marathons. Those gender affirming medical interventions aren't inevitable nor necessarily relevant (does "top surgery" change your fibre requirements?) You are over focusing on them in a way that I think could get you into trouble. -- Colin°^Talk 09:46, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Colin, I think you are also making assumptions that could get you in trouble. From personal and anecdotal evidence, I think you are understating the relevance of gender-affirming interventions and of related physiology. First, stating that trans/nonbinary is primarily something that involves the mind of the person is partly true but also importantly false: it is true in reflecting the defining attribute (gender identity), but false in that, even for many of us who are nonbinary and are not dysphoric, medical interventions are a key part of our sense of self, in a sense without parallel when being gay or bisexual - there aren't any medical treatments that members of queer communities pursue as part of their sexual identities, the way many, many of us see medical interventions as following from our gender identities.

Second, I think you may also be assuming, wrongly, that sex assigned at birth is inherently a valid criterion for biomedical categorization while gender identity is not. I know that isn't literally what you are saying in your comparison - some trans people go on to have surgery or take hormones is a variation just like some cis women go on to take the pill or to have lots of babies - but your overall tone (e.g., does "top surgery" change your fibre requirements?) would tend to lend credence to those who want to see the physical/biological characteristics of AFAB people as one statistical set and those of AMAB people as another, within a straightforwardly bifurcated universe, while interpreting the differences between cis and trans people as essentially "involving the mind" and not the body. I think this is at best, unproven and at worst, profoundly misleading about real world trans and nonbinary populations. Newimpartial (talk) 11:55, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

You are absolutely right that sexual identity and gender identity are not entirely equivalent in many ways, including the desire for medical interventions. The BBC defines it as "A trans person's gender identity is not the same as the sex on their original birth certificate." That definition does not include or require any affirming intervention. That's what I meant by "primarily". There are of course important other aspects to being trans, as you say. Earlier Crossroads kept speaking of those who are trans as though they all had "gender dysphoria", which I felt sounded way too much like saying all trans people are mentally ill. Now they suggesting that dietary requirements are so likely to be different that a rewording that even merely suggests they might be included breaks the whole thing. Perhaps another analogy with trans and medical interventions is that being a woman doesn't imply you have had children, or even want them. Many do, and many may think doing so is part of their identity as a woman. But it isn't really what defines a woman. Wrt diet, we know the dietary requirements during pregnancy change and yet nobody is complaining that the US dietary intake figures for "men/women" are horrendously wrong for not separating out "pregnant women". There are also parallels with the "pregnant teens" issue where we seem to apply different rules if the pregnant person is under 20. When we are unfair and harsh on one set of people but not another set of people, and yet all other things are essentially equal, then there is a word for that: bigotry. I think therefore Crossroads needs to be careful their passion for coming up with any old nonsense to support their argument, doesn't dig up that kind of nonsense.

I'm not suggesting that the differences between trans and cis people is entirely mental (or any further extension of this that therefore it can be changed through conversion therapy). But, in the absence of any trans gene or blood test, the definition remains what the person thinks about themselves? Does it not? How researchers best divide up the population and whether it even makes sense to chop it in two, is a problem I'll leave for researchers. -- Colin°^Talk 12:55, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Cool it with the personal attacks. But good point in the last sentence; how Wikipedia divides up the population is also best left up to researchers (for our purposes, the writers of secondary sources).

An online based survey can also over-represent people who have not medically transitioned because it catches people who are 'out' only to themselves.

Again, if it's okay to extrapolate from "women" to "AFAB" or trans men regarding diet, then is it okay to extrapolate from "men" to "AMAB" or trans women regarding athletic performance? (I emphasize that my answer is "no" in both cases.) Crossroads ^-talk- 13:54, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Crossroads, I think you should take my concerns about your "line of attack" seriously. I would hope this page is a safe space for people to explore arguments and ideas, make mistakes and hopefully learn from their mistakes. If you continued this sort of arguing elsewhere, I could see someone making a fairly solid case for a topic ban. Let's examine the sentence that got you all ranty about sloppy writing:

"People assigned female at birth shouldn’t eat fewer than 1,200 calories a day and those assigned male at birth should stay above 1,500 calories.

Presumably you'd prefer

"Women shouldn’t eat fewer than 1,200 calories a day and men should stay above 1,500 calories.

You wrote "sloppily replaced a typical term with "assigned X at birth" to be "inclusive" without actually taking care to be sure that it applied to trans people, ironically being sort of transphobic in assuming that a trans man is the same as a woman physiologically". In what way does the first sentence apply to trans people, but the second doesn't. I think your mind has assumed "Ah, 'people assigned female at birth' is one of those trans advocacy phrases so they are including trans people". But trans men are men, are they not, and trans women are women, are they not? So the second sentence suggests that a trans woman should not eat fewer than 1,200 calories a day. And it permits a trans man to eat 300 calories more. Is there any evidence that those assigned female at birth but who have a gender identity of male can enjoy 300 more calories with no ill effects on the waistline than those who are cis gender? You see, if we take your nit picking approach to this, there are potential problems with either sentence. (I suspect the calorie figures are related to body height and build, which more probably correlates to sex assigned at birth than it does to gender identity). Both statements have serious limitations in that they don't factor in health situations like pregnancy or old age. The latter sentence is not inclusive of those who are nonbinary, which make up around a third of the trans respondents in that 2015 US trans survey.

Pick your battles, Crossroads. Those 1,200/1,500 calorie figures are sloppy to begin with and were sloppy afterwards. Just like the edit war at Methoxyflurane, if all you see are trans-inclusivity problems, then people are going to conclude you cannot be impartial and trusted to edit this topic. -- Colin°^Talk 15:22, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

When I read that the first time, I wondered how we could know that this author "sloppily replaced" anything "without actually taking care to be sure that it applied" to any group. It sounded like an assumption based on – I suppose the word would be prejudice, but I mean this in the sense of having made up your mind first, and then tried to find reasons to justify your pre-existing conclusion. I'm sure there's a less loaded word that is escaping my mind at the moment, but it's sort of like the editors who begin with "Masks are bad and don't prevent COVID transmission" and then dig up cherry-picked studies that show inconclusive results under certain circumstances, and claim all the studies showing the "wrong" POV have problems. In this case, we begin with the belief that this language is only used by "bad" sources, and then say that "obviously" a good source wouldn't use this language, and if they did, then they'd provide a huge explanation to WP:SATISFY us that they were scientifically justified in doing that bad thing, instead of just writing down the correct information. Since this one didn't give us a long speech about why they used "bad" language, then it's "sloppy" and "didn't take care".

OTOH, if you know anything about the physiology here, it's likely correct. About half the difference in caloric requirements is due to the metabolic effects of biological sex, and about half is due to the differences in the assumed height and weight. Trans men who are taking testosterone might pick up some (not all; probably not even most) of the metabolic increase associated with being a biological male, and they may pick up some muscle mass, but they don't get the extra four or five inches of height. If you've ever seen a large group of trans men together, one thing that really stands out is how short they are, relative to cis men and trans women. The numbers are probably correct, they are certainly supported by clinical reasoning, and we have no solid grounds for claiming that the source is "sloppy" or "didn't take care". WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:13, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

As an aside, from personal experience the 1200/1500 calorie figure, along with a great deal of other relevant information, isn't adequately explained by the NHS. While I've been given some information on HRT; how to use, what effects to expect from it (the more obvious physical and mental changes), any side-effects to watch out for, there was also a lot of information I had to find out on my own. I was told nothing about the differing risk profiles between HRT formulations; conjugated, synthetic, bioidentical, nor was I given any information on the differing risk profiles between delivery mechanisms; gel, pills, patches.

I've had to do a lot of reading on my own, from some very dense medical literature, such that I'm actually at the point now where I need tell my endocrinologist where they're wrong, and give them citations to update their knowledge. Bringing it back to the calorie count, I still don't know, and can't find adequate information, neither from the NHS nor in research, as to what calorie count I should aim for while I'm transitioning and beyond. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:13, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

You probably won't find any. This source is talking about what's generally considered the low end of sustainable, on average, for a group of average people hoping to lose weight. Any individual dieter needs to deal with their own specific circumstances, not group averages. Applying this group average exactly to any individual is like saying that all women's clothing should be made for a person who is 5'4" (160 cm), even though "normal" adult women could be 6 inches (15 cm) taller or shorter than that (in the US). See also https://dilbert.com/strip/1998-03-16 on the difference between group averages and individual circumstances. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:56, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Colin, of course I am approaching things differently on this page than 'on the ground'. And I also spoke as I did contingent on the fact that the source speaking that way was a random news media article. Of course it's different if it was a MEDRS, as I said above. We know that such news media sources are poor at accurately describing the state of medical knowledge - one might even say "sloppy". It also doesn't matter if some editor concludes according to their own "clinical reasoning" that the news media claim is plausible. MEDRS exists for a reason.

Sideswipe9th's comment reminds me that we shouldn't in our text imply that more is known about trans people's physiology in any given context than actually is.

Colin and WAID, I ask again, if it's okay to extrapolate from "women" to "AFAB" or trans men regarding diet, then is it okay to extrapolate from "men" to "AMAB" or trans women regarding athletic performance? (I emphasize that my answer is "no" in both cases.) Crossroads ^-talk- 19:07, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Crossroads, if the reliable source is doing the extrapolating, then the Wikipedia editors really have no business trying to decide whether the reliable source is justified in doing so.

With respect to athletic performance, I would expect a reliable source that goes into any level of detail to mention that it depends on the sport. Trans women (at least those who do not start medical transition before puberty) probably have an advantage for some sports, such as middle-distance running, and definitely have a strong disadvantage for some other sports, such as women's gymnastics. But for the Wikipedian, the real question is whether the reliable source extrapolated that, or if a Wikipedia editor did. Wikipedia editors should not usually switch "women" (a term that could refer to identity or biology) to "AFAB" (a term that refers only to biology) [or vice versa] when writing about that subject, unless the reliable sources indicates that the editor-chosen word is definitely the relevant meaning (e.g., the source includes some sentence like "In this particular article, when we talk about 'women', we mean 46,XX biological females who have never taken cross-sex hormones"). Reliable sources, on the other hand, are entirely free to use whatever language they believe is best for their purpose. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:37, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

You keep going on about us needing to know about trans people's physiology. Both of those sentences make assumptions about cis and trans people's physiology, though the latter one has the added issue of ambiguity and of eliminating nonbinary people. As WAID notes, these figures are drawn from population averages. Do you really think that a figure with at best 2 significant figures would shift if we took the US population of "women" and added or subtracted AFAB people who don't identify as "women". Let's do the maths and make it worst case. Assuming the figure is around 1% population for trans. Let's imagine that these gender incongruent AFAB folk need 0 calories but all the other "women" need 1,200. In 100 "women" that's 1 who is trans. So (99 x 1,200 calories + 1 x 0 calories) / 200 = 1188 calories, which if I round to 2 significant figures is 1,200 calories. And that's assuming trans people can exist on air. THIS is why your nit picking about this, and not nit picking about the figures not mentioning pregnant women, say, is so utterly ridiculous and very very transparently trans-specific. -- Colin°^Talk 20:10, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Mmm, I suppose so. While you're correct on tailoring diet plans to an individual, public health agencies still issue blanket guidelines. For example NHS recommended daily intake is 2000 calories for women, 2500 for men, without any direct guidance on how to adjust that for other factors such as activity levels, age, height, etc. And I've had GPs recently who refuse to deviate from that "one size fits all" approach to guidance in the past when it comes to weight management. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:59, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that we should avoid language strongly associated with a narrow slice of the political spectrum when talking about people in general. And the idea that these terms are not associated in that way I think the community would find preposterous. A couple of anecdotes about Kate Middleton etc. don't change that. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:00, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Re: "Language that's strongly associated with a very narrow segment of the political spectrum" - I'm going to dispute the premise a bit, so I thought it was worth quoting the relevant phrase at length. I don't think any of the terms we are talking about are themselves strongly associated with any part of the political spectrum - it seems to me that any political/cultural salience of these terms arises from the context in which they are used.

As a non-MEDRS example, most of the times I see WP editors trying to insert "born female" or "female sex" into articles is in the BLPs of nonbinary and trans people, and inserting those phrases in that context is at the very least a culture war dogwhistle, and in many cases a rather more straightforward expression of anti-trans sentiment. So in this context, that usage seems strongly associated with a particular stance.

On the other hand, in Canadian media (and I have previously produced a long list of links on this), "assigned male/female at birth" is the standard way in which nonbinary or trans people's pre-transition sex assignment is discussed. So in this context, and based also on how these sources are actually read, "AFAB" and "AMAB" do not seem to be strongly associated with any politics.

But I really do think this depends on context. I can read a cis biography on Wikipedia that uses terms like "female sex" without thinking that any POV editing or political intention went into composing or editing it. And if I saw "assigned female at birth" used universally in coverage of the news - outside of contexts where sex assignment is actually the relevant concept - I would wonder whether some kind of agenda was at work.

So in MEDRS issues as well, I don't see how we could identify "Language that's strongly associated with a very narrow segment of the political spectrum" except in the context of much more specific domains of language use. Newimpartial (talk) 17:55, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

I think we're saying the same thing: Context matters. That's why I refer to language rather than terms. The term "assigned female at birth" doesn't bother anyone if they see it in some contexts. In other contexts it would bother a lot of people. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 19:49, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Aside from the difficulty of determining political language (and the potential abuse of that by those who hate something) I'm puzzled at the idea that replacing "woman" with "assigned female at birth" in an article on heart attacks, say, would need any kind of new rule. AFAICS, the "assigned XXX at birth" phrase is only used when discussion gender/trans issues. As with Crossroads below, can you find any example of any mainstream publications that have adopted this language as their method of communicating to a general audience about "women"? If not, then why bring politics into play as the means to prevent it. As Newimpartial notes, and we have seen in our publications, the use of "anyone with a prostate" or "assigned female at birth" is occasionally necessary when one is explicitly highlighting a trans issue. I don't think any publication uses it as a way of referring to women outside of that. Do they? -- Colin°^Talk 11:47, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm interested in your statement that replacing "woman" with "assigned female at birth" in an article on heart attacks wouldn't need any kind of new rule. Which of our existing rules covers this scenario? If you saw this edit in your watchlist, what edit summary would you use to revert it? One of the things I was hoping to get out of this discussion was civil language we can use in edit summaries. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:25, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Does any of the professional literature use that expression as a replacement for "woman" or to generally indicate those with female anatomy? I don't think we've found any. It would see odd then to suggest that writing this phrase for that purpose was "used by a very narrow segment of the political spectrum". It isn't used for that purpose at all. It is used carefully by experts of no political persuasion when discussing gender issues, and even appears in a variant form on my census. When used that way, where's the politics? The only people using it as a random replacement for wherever they might see the word "woman" are ... right wing politicians making bigoted after dinner speeches. Or perhaps some misguided newbies on Wikipedia. Do you see this often on Wikipedia? And are you sure it is good faith and not someone just jerking your chain? If it is a common good-faith but badly executed mistake then write some guidance specifically saying that these specific replacements are rarely appropriate (and never seen in professional writing). But I really think making this more political than it already is is a bad idea. -- Colin°^Talk 18:13, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

That language is used in the medical literature, e.g.,

• Participants were eligible for enrolment if they were assigned female sex at birth (HIV treatment)
• Participants were 7,185 youth assigned female sex at birth (abuse prevention)
• suicide rates among those assigned female at birth (PMDD)
• the speech of children assigned male at birth (AMAB) and children assigned female at birth (AFAB)
• PARTICIPANTS: Providers sex-assigned female at birth
• 363 participants (68.2%) were assigned female at birth and 169 participants (31.8%) were assigned male at birth
• Participants who were assigned female at birth were more often concerned about their fertility

None of these are specifically about trans-related issues, and some of them do not use words like women or girls at all (except in the title of sources they cite). WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:37, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Interesting. Are there any publications that are general-public facing that use this language? The first link uses "women" in the title, and AFAB in a very precise definition of participant criteria. The second is dealing with LGBT issues. The fourth concerns gendered speech. The last uses "women" and "men" frequently and I'm not sure why they used that term once. Really, in contrast to Crossroads, I'm more interested if any significant body or publisher of health information aimed at the general public uses this term as a general substitute for "women" or to generally identify those with female anatomy. I could imagine even that some study on cancer had "people with a uterus" as the definition of the group under examination. The need for extremely precise participant definitions might call for this sort of language, but do any publishers consider it appropriate for a general audience? -- Colin°^Talk 20:23, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I think it's rare, but they exist, e.g., Why Is Pain Dismissed in People Assigned Female at Birth? and Anatomy of a person assigned female at birth WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:59, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

And that's an article "explor[ing] the “gender” side of the sex and gender bias in medicine", not an article about sex differences in heart attacks. -- Colin°^Talk 22:39, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Btw, all those usages referred to a precise definition of study participants. In that way it was not unlike the census question. And all are primary research papers. So, what happens in the secondary and tertiary literature? Do they feel the need to be so precise? None of them are going the other way, taking an imprecise "male/female" or "men/women" in their source and calling them "people assigned female at birth". Have we got any examples of professional public-facing writing doing that? -- Colin°^Talk 20:55, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Colin, what difference does it make? Do Wikipedia's rules that cover the case of changing "women" to "people who were AFAB" in heart attack care whether people can find sources of such-and-such a type using the term? Is this really a question that's decided by doing a web search, as opposed to by using common sense? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 22:01, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, if you can't find anyone who is writing for a general audience, and who's source is a study of women, but who chooses to say "people assigned female at birth", then what's the problem? It sounds like you are asking "I have these people who keep replacing "black people" with "people with a low dermal spectral emissivity" and I don't know how to deal with that." I think, like Crossroads, you are mistaking a behavioural problem with a editorial problem. If there's no consensus about the best way of writing something, then flip flopping between the options is a behavioural problem. We can say that is a behavioural problem without needing to ban one option. Particularly if your ban would prevent perfectly acceptable words that academics use but that activist use out-of-context in order to mock a minority they hate. -- Colin°^Talk 22:39, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Such behavioral problems are also editorial problems. A justification alone of "no flip flopping" won't work if they are writing new text in an article that way, even though their underlying sources do not. What then?

It seems like we do have some grounds of agreement here in that you recognize that "assigned female at birth" can come off like that skin color example, and that what the sources use is relevant in the context of what 'sources for a general audience' use. Do we agree that the way sources for a general audience write is relevant for our purposes here? Crossroads ^-talk- 04:20, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Well we do now have an example of "people assigned female at birth" in general-public facing material, all based on the endometriosis awareness campaign. The BBC Bristol one, which missed out "women" got picked up by a gender critical activist and forced to revised their text. The ITV one and numerous other tweets, which wrote "women and people assigned female at birth" seems to have found acceptance. Wrt flip-flopping and new material, well this is exactly where I see the behavioural rule applying. If we can't find resolution (and it isn't resolved in the real world) then we prevent editors flip-flopping existing text. But if editors write new material or substantially rewrite and update existing material (think, replacement paragraph with new sources) then they get to choose what language to use. And you, Crossroads, would be prevented from flipping that to "women". And based on our experience with pregnant teens/youths/adolescents/patients, we'd need to guard against editors attempting to apply stricter rules around gendered language for adults than they do for adolescents. For example, replacing "1 in 10 women are affected by endometriosis" with "1 in 10 people are affected by endometriosis" is very clearly wrong, but "1 in 10 women and people assigned female at birth are affected by endometriosis" or "1 in 10 people with a uterus are affected by endometriosis" would be ok.

Our sources and other publications can all enlighten us about language to use. But I'm not seeing a good policy reason why someone who wants to write trans-inclusive or gender-neutral text should be prevented from writing how they want to write. We can write guidance about which forms are currently more successful or common than others, but all these forms have their place and are in use. If you want articles about these matters to give primacy to "women" then write those articles and write about "women". If someone else, who writes differently to you, wants to write about these matters in a way that is more inclusive to trans and nonbinary people, then let them write their articles and material. -- Colin°^Talk 09:05, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

A lot of what I could reply to this has been covered elsewhere on this page, but I will focus on this: It seems to me that if zero general-public-focused sources use a certain wording, if we can't find anyone doing it, then you agree that we shouldn't either. Then it gets equated with bizarrely written stuff like low dermal spectral emissivity. But if even one general-public-focused source does, then it becomes a matter of personal editorial style choice regardless of what the particular sources being cited say.

Have I accurately grasped your position? Crossroads ^-talk- 05:18, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Well I've said "nobody doing it" a few times recently, only to find some cases. You are determined to find algorithms for this. These surveys of the expert and lay-focused literature advise us and yes "nobody doing it" is pretty strong advice. Let's not get too focused on my extreme alternative for "black people", because none of the examined phrases are as invented or ridiculous as that. We have to remember that a Wikipedia article can be more detailed on a subject than an NHS page (which typically uses second person anyway) or health campaign tweets. I think it is difficult to rule out there being somewhere in an article where that language may be appropriate.

We always have to think "why is the author writing this way". We saw that the ABM's primary goal is "broader global support for breastfeeding" and I think they were prepared to recognise inclusive writing as a worthy goal but sacrifice that if it meant getting censored in an LGBTQ+ -hostile country (of which there are many). The BBC's rewrite may be to do with their word choice vs ITV's word choice in their endometriosis coverage, but there's also the fact that they are (unlike the privately owned ITV) under pressure for their very existence from the political right (the Daily Mail, for example, want it gone). The Netflix series The Principles of Pleasure featured a group of women speaking about their experiences, and one was a trans woman and another was a nonbinary person, and was widely praised for the diversity. I think if the BBC had done that, Nadine Dorries would have self combusted. We may have neutrality as a goal, like the BBC, but we aren't (or shouldn't be) politically censored like the BBC.

Look at Prostate Cancer UK Trans women and prostate cancer. That uses language that some of the proposals here would ban. And yet I think, in that context, there is nothing wrong with the language on that page. Would you agree? You'd have to be at the "trans women are really just perverted men in dresses" end of the gender-critical spectrum to have a problem with that page. That terms like "cis women" and "non-binary people who were assigned male at birth" are unfamiliar with many of the general population is a reason to be cautious like we are with any less familiar terms. I don't want to put phrases into some trans ghetto where they are only permitted in sections or articles on trans people. This isn't just about personal editorial style choice, but as with any choice of language, about good writing practice that recognises different parts of our articles and different articles may have different priorities and needs. -- Colin°^Talk 07:52, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think anyone here has had an issue with the use of such terminology in trans-specific content. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:44, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

This language was described earlier as being associated with a very narrow segment of the political spectrum, and therefore to be banned. Are you saying we can ban terms as being "narrow politics" in some content but not others. That Wikipedia's voice is allowed to be "political" in some places but not others? Is there any precedent for this on Wikipedia? Was it "narrow politics" when the England & Wales census asked the entire adult population to state not only their gender identity but sex assigned at birth? Is it "narrow politics" when increasingly we see health/medical surveys/studies ask participants for their "sex assigned at birth", and therefore use that when reporting their findings? -- Colin°^Talk 18:40, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Colin – As we have already discussed, the question asked in the England and Wales census was not about sex assigned at birth, it was Is the gender you identify with the same as your sex registered at birth? [my emphasis] [28] Sweet6970 (talk)

You have mentioned this before but also failed to specify why "assigned" was "political" and "registered" was not. I found an NHS site that mentioned familiarity with the former among trans audiences and they felt the latter was more understandable by a general audience. I don't really see what your point is. I really really really don't think if someone suggested substituting "women" with "registered female at birth", then Crossoards would say this was just absolutely fine, go ahead, no problem with that whatsoever.... -- Colin°^Talk 21:54, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I am concerned that you don’t seem to be concerned that you know that the census asked for sex registered at birth, and yet you have still referred to it as asking about sex assigned at birth. These terms are completely different.

And I have already said [29] that sex registered at birth is an objective criterion – it has an undisputed factual meaning, whatever your views on gender. And I have already said [30] that you have referred to the joke made by Boris Johnson. The joke was political, and was aimed at Keir Starmer. The joke would not have worked if Mr Johnson had referred to sex ‘registered’ at birth. Sweet6970 (talk) 22:27, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

The joke would not have worked? Really? I don't find this convincing at all. And, well, Crossroads can tell us if he is happy for all sex-related articles to have "women" replaced with "registered female at birth". You really think that those who hate that language prefer "registered" over "assigned"? If you did a Mums.net poll, would you find any difference in the degree of dislike at erasing women with either term? Colin°^Talk 22:39, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Sweet, I'd like to know what the "complete" difference is between the two terms. Are you aware of instances in which someone was "registered" female by the hospital but "assigned" male by the hospital (or the other way around)? I'm not. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:49, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

To Colin: I was not suggesting using ‘registered female at birth’ instead of ‘women’. I was pointing out that what you had said about the census question was wrong. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:40, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

To WAID: As you can see [31] (which I have previously linked to) the question about ‘sex registered at birth’ on the census is about what was on your birth certificate when your birth was registered. I do not see how this has any similarity to the expression ‘assigned at birth’. I don’t know what you mean by being ‘registered’ as female by a hospital. Births are not registered by hospitals (at least, not in the UK). And as a patient, your sex is recorded (not ‘registered’) on your medical records already. I find it difficult to believe that you don’t know the meanings of the words ‘register’ and ‘assign’. So I have no idea what you’re talking about. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:45, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Sweet6970, on this page it says "Further up you wrote". If that was referred to as "Further up you said" would it be "wrong"? They are both, in a conversation like this, ways of saying much the same thing. One could nit pick that we are speaking at all, but I suppose I'm typing not writing, or may be it is both. This is all I see with "assigned/registered". Really, I think you are making a mountain out of a molehill. One way of putting it may be a bit more common and thus recognisable to trans groups and I suppose to the haters also. The other way, the NHS thinks, might be a bit easier to not misunderstand, as one "registers a birth". But we don't really get to choose which idioms win the popularity contest and I suspect "sex registered at birth" may either die out or else remain the minor player. Either way, both are language used to refer to trans and gender issues, and I'm sure Johnson could have made a political joke with ether expression --- remember Sir Kier Starmer, whom Johnson was mocking, used neither term. Since neither term will please those who hate this language, I continue to not see any point in arguing, without any evidence, that one word is "political" and the other not. -- Colin°^Talk 18:05, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

This language was described earlier as being associated with a very narrow segment of the political spectrum, and therefore to be banned. By this I clearly meant when describing people in general. Sources on average talk about trans topics differently, by necessity, than general topics. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:49, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

@Sweet6970, what's the birth certificate process in the UK? In the US, most babies are born in a hospital, the physician or midwife "assigns" the baby's sex shortly after birth. That assignment is written down on the official paperwork, which is submitted by the hospital to the state. There should never be a difference between the "assigned sex" and what gets written on the birth certificate (although there might be the occasional error, I suppose). How does this differ from the UK process? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:28, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

@WhatamIdoing: It is the parent/s who register the birth, except in exceptional circumstances, and this is usually done at a register office. I have no children, so I’ve never done this, but here is the overview [32] for the procedure in England and Wales (which has links for Scotland and Northern Ireland) and includes a link to ‘Who can register a birth’ [33] There is no process by which sex is ‘assigned’.Sweet6970 (talk) 12:02, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

There are two separate systems. There's the birth certificate, which as Sweet6980 says, is done by the parents going to a registry office, and usually happens a short while (days) after the birth. But there's also the NHS system into which one is inserted as soon after birth as possible. The process is different between Scotland and England&Wales. In Scotland, one gets a Community Health Index in the database, which is encoded with the baby's date of birth and sex. There's an odd-number digit for men and an even digit for women. No scope to deviate from the gender binary there! You can see details of how this is entered in this manual, page 28. It claims the details are recorded "minutes" after birth, and even uses pink and blue to make the sex really clear to the operator. In England, the NHS number is random with no personal details at all. However, their entry system does ask about gender. You can see the web form here and that it has a field for gender with Female/Male/Not Known/Not Specified as options. I assume this is how one's gender is initially recorded on the NHS records, and it doesn't wait for the parents to pop down to the registry office.

There are controversies of course about what the NHS should record wrt sex and gender and whether and how easily one should be allowed to change it. We saw from the NHS pages about being asked for cancer screening that if you are registered male at your GP practice, then you won't automatically get cervical cancer screening. So the system doesn't seem to be able to reliably work out what cancerous organs you might have.

I think therefore it is possible that one's birth certificate (registered by parents days after birth) could be different to one's NHS sex/gender flag (assigned by NHS staff at birth). -- Colin°^Talk 14:41, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Is it still typical for parents to go to the registry office? The page Sweet linked says it can usually be done "at the hospital before the mother leaves". I'm having trouble imagining sleep-deprived parents being thrilled about standing in line at a government office to do a bit of paperwork, especially if the birth involved a C-section. The deadline is six weeks after birth. The usual recovery time from a C-section is six weeks.

Sweet, when the obstetrician announces "It's a girl" or "It's a boy", that is called "assigning sex". If the OBs in the UK aren't capable of doing that, then the UK's healthcare has bigger problems than I thought. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:23, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

The page I linked to does not say it is usual to register a birth at the hospital in England & Wales, and if you go to the pages for Scotland and N Ireland there is no mention of registering at the hospital – there is mention of making an appointment to visit the registration office. And saying ‘It’s a girl’ is not called ‘assigning sex’. Sweet6970 (talk) 16:49, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

What you have said about "sex assignment" does not appear to be true, unless you are now contradicting your earlier statement that there is no process by which sex is assigned. Like the Canadian sources, the UK government appears to recognize "assigned" as a synonym for "registered" in this context. Newimpartial (talk) 17:19, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Sweet, maybe it would help if you told us what you think it means to assign a sex to a baby. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:58, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

It doesn’t mean anything – that is the problem. It is an utterly weird expression. This use of ‘assign’ does not have any relationship to any of the established meanings of ‘assign’ , and conflicts with most of them. It makes it sound as if some bureaucrat arbitrarily decides which sex a baby is to be, without any reference to the baby’s physical characteristics. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:26, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to be the case in the UK government source I just linked. Newimpartial (talk) 20:28, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Sweet6970, why do you think it would be "some bureaucrat" rather than a healthcare professional?

AIUI the language was taken from the medical establishment, and it goes back to when intersex babies actually were sometimes arbitrarily "assigned" a sex. This feeling of it being somewhat arbitrary might appeal to some people, but it's still the same action, and that's what the mainstream medical community called it. Would you rather say that the doctor "diagnosed" our hypothetical baby as being a girl? I think that would make people squirm (as if girlhood were being treated as a disease), even though nobody would disagree that "diagnosis" is a core skill set and primary activity for doctors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:01, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Is it still typical for parents to go to the registry office? I know in Northern Ireland, from the birth of my nephew, that the registry office paperwork is included in a "new mother/father/parent pack", alongside some other useful pieces of paperwork, nappies, and the like that a new parent will need. That form can then be posted or hand delivered to a registry office and a birth certificate can be ordered after. As far as I'm aware, only one hospital here has a registrar office on site (Downe Hospital).

From what I can gleam from NIDirect, and reading the form, the sex is assigned/recorded by the parent on the form, not by an obstetrician or midwife. Whether or not the parent(s) take lead from their clinicians is a matter of personal preference.

However with health and social care being a devolved responsibility within the UK, the exact process will vary across all of the nations. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:27, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm still boggled that the hospital doesn't do this paperwork for the parents. If it can be sent through mail, then why doesn't someone at the hospital just fill out the form and mail it? Their electronic medical records system could probably print the form out automatically, or even submit it electronically. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:16, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

In Northern Ireland those systems aren't connected in any way. It's actually so bad here that even hospital, outpatient, and GP Electronic health record systems are almost entirely separate. For example, if I attend an outpatient appointment, I need to provide every time a list of my current medications, despite that information being available on my GP surgery's EHR. If I have an X-ray, ultrasound, or MRI done at my hospital (for any reason), my GP surgery is completely unable to access a digital copy of that imaging without filing a written request to the hospital and waiting for the hospital to respond. Oh and some information, like ECGs, are never stored on a patient's EHR. Haven't quite figured out why for that.

The only place where our EHRs are synced up in any way appears to be a very basic level biographical information; only Name, date of birth, and patient registration number. All other information appears to be siloed or otherwise not kept in sync, and it is not unusual for a patient to move home, register with a new GP, and that patient's specialists to never receive notification of it.

As for why the hospital doesn't do the paperwork on the parent's behalf, I suspect a mixture of bureaucracy says no, as legislation says it must be the parent who registers the child, and overwork of hospital staff due to staff shortages and funding cuts. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:15, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Even when I see my regular doctor, they ask me to bring a list of all drugs. I suspect that they are trying to figure out who is "self-medicating" with dietary supplements or over-the-counter drugs that wouldn't turn up in a list of prescribed drugs. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:54, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

I think I see where Sweet6970's views on "assigned" are coming from, when they say it sounds like the person doing the assigning was "without reference to the baby's physical characteristics". The word assignment doesn't itself suggest the allocation to a group was anything more than arbitrary. But it also doesn't suggest that it is arbitrary. I could be assigned some work to do that was very much based on my abilities, for example. What it does indicate is that I don't have any say in the matter, which is also true for the baby. And that is I guess the important bit. But I think we have to live with the words that officials use, and it seems that wording is used widely.

WhatamIdoing, I can see from some websites that registering a birth can be done in some hospitals (in England and Wales) though I can't find such a service at any hospital local to me. If done at the hospital, it has to be done before the parents leave, and I guess is still done physically by the parents meeting the registrar in an office. In Scotland you only have 3 weeks, not 6. You'll need some ID documents. If you are married, then only one parent needs to go (so mum could stay at home if their C-section prevents them attending), but if unmarried then it gets more complicated. The main thing, for most parents, about the registration is not "assigning" or "registering" the sex or gender of their child, but in choosing the child's name and recording who the parents are. And not everyone has decided on the name before they leave hospital. -- Colin°^Talk 09:32, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

To WAID: I said It makes it sound as if some bureaucrat….. I was not saying that bureaucrats assign sex to babies. Sweet6970 (talk) 09:56, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

A modest proposal

Colin and WhatamIdoing:

-Suppose on an article on women in society, such as Women in the United States, someone replaced each instance of "women" with "womxn". Should this be reverted, and if so, why? If not, why not?

-Suppose that we added to the MOS text that editors may choose to write "women" or "womxn". Is this a bad idea? Why or why not?

Crossroads ^-talk- 05:24, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Can we deal with one culture war issue at a time please. That isn't even a medical article. Can you even point at any mainstream publications that have adopted this language as their method of communicating to a general audience? I don't mean one tweet, btw, or one poster. If you can't, like you can't with the "people with body parts", could you please stop bringing it up. -- Colin°^Talk 11:36, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Under current rules, I'd revert the first with an edit summary of "standard spelling", just like I'd revert anyone who changed all right to alright or espresso to expresso. But if MOS were to accept both spellings as some sort of ENGVAR thing, I'd leave it alone. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:06, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Colin, it looks to me like we may have limited agreement that what mainstream publications writing for a general audience use does in some sense constrain how we should write. Since none use it, "womxn" is not what we should use, it seems. Regarding "people with [body part]", Clayoquot proposed rejecting such language above, but you demurred.

WhatamIdoing, so we agree that what is "standard" matters. Does this apply to "standard phrasing", or only "standard spelling"? As for MOS, that's the very question I asked: should MOS allow "womxn", and why or why not? Crossroads ^-talk- 04:29, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

Children

I read through a bit of a proposed law recently. One section of the law affects "children". The written term in the law is "children"; the word used by all of the politicians (that I've seen) is "children". As you'd expect, the word "children" is defined in the law. As you might not expect, the definition is: any "person under the age of 18".

If you were writing about this law for some reason, would you write about:

• "children",
• "minors",
• "children and teenagers", or
• something else?

The first option chooses STICKTOSOURCE over educational value (e.g., over readers discovering that it applies to 17 year olds). The second option chooses readers who understand technical/legal jargon over those who don't (e.g., over many of those teenagers discovering that it applies to them). The third option is clear enough – nobody will read that and believe that 17 year olds are exempt – but it says what the source (explicitly) means rather than using the language of the source itself, so it could be accused of not sticking closely enough to the sources. (I suspect that the politicians themselves don't really want any of the 17 year olds among their constituents to notice that the politicians have decided that they're all a bunch of children – children, by the way, that this particular country is very happy to have enlist in their military, but still "children" in the eyes of this law.) Under "something else", I suppose we could say children and add a note saying that "for the purpose of this article, the word children means all children plus some non-children".

Which would you choose? WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:16, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

I would like to have the freedom to choose. What I picked may depend on what I'm saying about the law. There are times when I might want to avoid putting words into people's (politician's) mouths and so may feel I had to use "children" even when I felt it was misleading (and maybe that could even be the point). If I wanted to be very clear about which age group the law applied to, I might write "under 18s". I wouldn't write "minors" as the age rage varies too much (in Scotland, it is 16 for legal matters, and in the US, for alcohol or gambling, it is 21). One might also be picky that teenagers includes 19-year-olds, but precision isn't always necessary, and we've already had a discussion where I argued that if one's point is imprecise, then one has more freedom to vary the language.

I'm reminded of the #Teenage pregnancy section. I think that is worth re-reading (if I do say so myself) because I think it is weird that we are more than happy to use the gender neutral "pregnant teenager" but some feel we must use the gendered "woman" at other times. Why should that be? -- Colin°^Talk 09:26, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

While ultimately my answer would depend on the exact context of the text and article it's appearing in, as the example is written here I would very likely take the fourth option and say explicitly something like "the law will apply to any person under the age of 18". If the definitions in the text of the law, or the supplementary explainers, or in politician statements in media made in support of or against it, state that "children" is being used very and possibly unusually broadly, then I don't think it's inappropriate for us for the sake of clarity to say what the actual meaning is in more usual/normal terms, even if/when that diverges from what the written text of the law states.

That said, I'd imagine that any media worth their salt that are covering the proposed law would have made such a clarification. As such, we would very likely have a selection of reliable sources upon which to fall back upon for citing the words we chose in our article. Sideswipe9th (talk) 17:27, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I think there is a lot to be said for not sticking to the exact language in this source.

If you needed to write a long paragraph about this, would you repeat "any person under the age of 18" in every sentence? It seems like that would get rather awkward. I could imagine starting off with "the law will apply to any person under the age of 18", but I can't imagine then going on to say "It will prevent any person under the age of 18 from jaywalking, require politicians to give candy to any person under the age of 18, and require the Secretary of People Under the Age of 18 to mail an annual letter to every parent of any person under the age of 18 to recommend that any person under the age of 18 spend a minimum of two hours a day playing outside. Any person under the age of 18 will be prohibited from working more than four hours on a school day, because any person under the age of 18 needs time to do homework and to get enough sleep" – and so forth. That does not sound like a candidate for WP:Brilliant prose.

I don't think that we can take your advice to say that the term is being used unusually, unless we have a source that says this (and I haven't seen any. The media seem focused on more fundamental flaws). It's one thing to provide a definition ("a group of younger people that this bill calls children, which they define as any person under the age of 18") or to use a description instead of a specific word ("any person under the age of 18"). It's another thing to post an editor's evaluation of the word choice ("what they call children, a term that normally includes only pre-pubescent people up to the age of about 12, but which these politicians are applying even to teenagers old enough to join their army"). That would probably violate SYNTH by comparing and contrasting the definitions in several sources without any source that provides that comparison in this specific situation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:54, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Re: would you repeat "any person under the age of 18" in every sentence? It depends on the context.

Re: I don't think that we can take your advice to say that the term is being used unusually, unless we have a source that says this (and I haven't seen any. The media seem focused on more fundamental flaws). That is why I said If the definitions in the text of the law, or the supplementary explainers, or in politician statements in media made in support of or against it, state that "children" is being used very and possibly unusually broadly. If the sourcing isn't there, then we can't state as such.

However I was under the impression that this was a hypothetical, and not an actual law currently being discussed? At least some of what you've suggested would be hypothetical, unless some country somewhere really has proposed politicians distributing candy? Though that does make an interesting reversal. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:44, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I agree with most of the comments by Colin above. The exception is that I would not use the word ‘teenagers’ because it would not be correct: 18 and 19 year olds are teenagers, but in this example, they don’t come under the definition of ‘children’. Sweet6970 (talk) 18:08, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

Without knowing the specifics of the bill and what one might want to write on Wikipedia, it is hard to give an example of when using the imprecise "children and teenagers" would be ok. Would perhaps "Some children and teenagers affected by the bill started an online petition...." be ok? We are talking about a vague group of young people, rather than precisely delineating the set of those affected. And if the paragraph had earlier already made it clear we were talking about under 18s, then the fact that "teenagers" falls slightly outside the group could be accepted. Our source for Teenage pregnancy uses the term "adolescent pregnancy" and defines this as "pregnancy in a woman aged 10–19 years". On the one hand, they are very correct in using "adolescent" but on the other, a bit odd in describing a 10-year-old as a woman. But regardless of this, our Wikipedia article says "teenage" even though that age range only goes down to 13. -- Colin°^Talk 21:28, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

I think this sort of analogy is once again a case of apples-to-oranges; so different in fundamental aspects that it is at least as likely to mislead as to clarify. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:49, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

What analogy? WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:11, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't think "analogy" is the right word, but the implication is that this section (and the #Different topic section on epilepsy before it), where we discuss writing in our own words vs the source words, and whether that is OR, is relevant to the discussion on sex-related medical articles. I think it is relevant and both clearly show that it is possible to use different word choices than our sources, but we need to be careful, and surely then the same is true of sex-related medical articles.

When you said that this law defined "child" as "under 18", I'm reminded of the NICE guideline that stated "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". It is one thing for a formal official document to have a sort of glossary or footnote to clarify terminology usage for that specific document, but isn't generally practical or IMO acceptable, for Wikipedia to attempt the same Alice in Wonderland stunt. -- Colin°^Talk 08:53, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I would guess that NICE would be surprised, and probably displeased, to hear that you think that they have been engaging in an Alice in Wonderland stunt. Their approach seems reasonable, and in fact, similar to The top of pregnancy could say "in a biologically female human", and the rest of the article could proceed on with whatever language the editors thought best, because once you got past the first sentence, it should be entirely clear what those words referred to. in WhatamIdoing’s post of 01:19, 28 March 2022. Sweet6970 (talk) 14:47, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

That part of Through the Looking-Glass runs like this:

"When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, 'it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'

'The question is,' said Alice, 'whether you can make words mean so many different things.'

'The question is,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'which is to be master — that's all.'

Deciding that a word in an article means just what I choose it to mean, with complete disregard for what others expect it to mean, would not be appropriate. One would not expect editors to be impressed if you write "This person is a complete snollygoster" in an article, and then turn up at BLPN saying "Oh, I just meant that he's a very fine human being. Words mean what I choose them to mean, and not what readers think they mean." Having said that, I don't think that NICE is really pulling any sort of stunt here. I think they're just being cheap. It's faster and easier to spam a note at the top of a page than to re-write all of their pages.

Back on the question here, the definition of children is as variable as many other common words, including man and woman. When it's used in a very precise but perhaps less-common way, it appears that most editors think that we should not be afraid to use descriptions or other relevant instead, always bearing in mind those alternatives must be appropriate and reasonable to the purpose. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:57, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps "stunt" was too harsh, and I have great respect for NICE whose job is to evaluate medical treatments, not solve culture wars. -- Colin°^Talk 17:29, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

I'd make it clear that the law is referring to people under 18. We should always convey what the source means. We need to be especially cognizant of the need to convey the intended meaning when a word is used in a different sense than it's used in day-to-day English. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 16:25, 31 March 2022 (UTC)

Banning gender-neutral language

Do you believe that the community would support a ban on using gender-neutral language when writing about sex-specific but not trans-specific content? Imagine that there was an RFC that proposed something like "Never use the term pregnant people or other gender-neutral or gender-eliding phrases when discussing matters of gynecology and obstetrics, except when unavoidable (e.g., direct quotations) or explicitly writing about trans-specific subjects. Always specify females, women, or girls; do not use phrases such as people with gynecological cancer, a person recovering from childbirth, or those who could become pregnant".

Would you personally support such a rule? Do you think such a proposal would be accepted? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:43, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you are asking this. The first sentence of your imaginary RFC is something I could imagine being proposed by someone. But you spoil it with the last sentence, which is awful. Was it meant to be awful? It make it more difficult for someone to support the former, since there are so many problems with the requirements or examples.

I think at the moment with this topic being such a political football, part of a ongoing and unresolved culture war, anyone proposing Wikipedia clearly take one side in this might possibly face sanctions, or at the very least, a wet fish. -- Colin°^Talk 18:49, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Comment so that the peanut gallery doesn't things out of context: The proposal to ban gender-neutral language was made by a proponent of gender-neutral language. I wanted to make this clear so that it doesn't get spun as "some people in the discussion want a ban on gender-neutral language." Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 18:24, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Actually I don't think it was even a proposal, just a hypothetical one for us to consider. -- Colin°^Talk 20:45, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Gender-eliding phrases

We haven't really discussed "gender-eliding phrases". One of the midwifery editorials warned against eliminating the person altogether, but that's not the same as having some sentences that don't refer to gender. Perhaps you mean something else, but here's what I took it to mean.... Look at the lead of pregnancy if I "fixed" all the "gender-eliding" in green ink.

Pregnancy, also known as gestation, is the time during which one or more offspring develops inside a woman's womb. A multiple pregnancy involves the woman carrying more than one offspring, such as with twins. Pregnancy usually occurs by a woman having sexual intercourse, but can also occur through the woman undergoing assisted reproductive technology procedures. A pregnancy may end in the woman having a live birth, a spontaneous miscarriage, an induced abortion, or a stillbirth. Childbirth typically occurs around 40 weeks from the start of the woman's last menstrual period (LMP). This is just over nine months (gestational age). When using fertilization age, the length is about 38 weeks. An embryo is the term for the developing offspring during the first eight weeks following fertilization (i.e. ten weeks' gestational age), after which the term fetus is used until birth. Signs and symptoms of early pregnancy in a woman may include missed periods, tender breasts, morning sickness (nausea and vomiting), hunger, and frequent urination. A woman may confirm her pregnancy Pregnancy may be confirmed with a pregnancy test. Methods of birth control—or, more accurately, contraception—are used to avoid a woman becoming pregnantpregnancy.

Other than if someone actively removed the woman/person out of the entire topic, I don't think you could tell the difference between "gender-eliding" and merely good writing that avoids repeating the obvious. -- Colin°^Talk 18:49, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

To Colin: I think I see your point – that it’s possible to write clearly and informatively about pregnancy without using the word ‘woman’ all the time. But it’s still necessary to use the word ‘woman’ at the beginning, as in the current version of the article. Sweet6970 (talk) 20:36, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Do you think that the word "woman" is necessary in the phrase "inside a woman's womb"? I don't have a womb. It is fairly clear who has a womb. It seems redundant to me. The four lead paragraphs of Pregnancy could nearly eliminate "woman" without anyone other than talk-page-watchers noticing. There's not really any difference between needing the word "woman" to refer to a "womb" as to refer to a "missed period". The final paragraph uses "women" three times. I think you could eliminate the first, but not the second (shift the "aged between 15 and 44" to the second). For the third ("60% of the women used birth control") it does reflect the source, but I suspect "used birth control" also includes their partner wearing a condom and so possibly is a little misleading. With some investigation on other sources for that claim, I think one could eliminate that too. -- Colin°^Talk 20:57, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

Btw, I'm not saying pregnancy should or must be written to eliminate woman/women from the lead. Only that it is actually very nearly there and probably only one usage is necessary for the current material. Which brings us back to an issue WAID raised when they said pregnancy was a social thing, not just a biological thing. Look at that lead. It is entirely biological. In fact, the article is 99% biological. An article I linked recently quoted a Mumsnet contributor: '“Being pregnant, giving birth and breastfeeding are the only time in my life that I felt a proper awareness that I am female,” another woman wrote recently. “I don’t mean in a gender identity sense, I mean in a ‘I have a female body and am doing something only a person with a female body can ever do’ kind of sense.”' That writer might have used "female body" but some do feel that creating and feeding that new life is very much an identifying feature of what it means to be a "woman". Perhaps it is a greater problem that our Wikipedia article neglects women not through word choices but because it really isn't talking about them at all. -- Colin°^Talk 21:19, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

First, I think that ‘woman’ is necessary in the first sentence, both for clarity (all female mammals have wombs), and to make the language more natural and personal. If the article doesn’t ever use the word ‘woman’ it would look like it was trying to deny the existence of women.

Regarding the final paragraph of the lead: I think ‘women’ is necessary, but I agree with you that ‘60% of women used birth control’ is unclear, because it does not say whether condom use is included. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:09, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

To differentiate between human and non-human wombs, I suppose would be possible to re-write the first sentence as "...develops inside the human womb" or "...develops inside a female human's womb."

Looking at Colin's re-writing, it appears that the existing article uses a gender-specific word once out of nine available opportunities. That suggests that naming women in a small fraction of sentences, and avoiding gender the rest of the time, is accepted on wiki. Does that sound like a fair description of the situation to you? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:38, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

It would not be a good idea to refer to a ‘human womb’. As I said, using the word ‘woman’ here is more natural and less impersonal, and if we don’t start out by using the word ‘woman’ it would look like we are trying to deny the existence of women. The aim should not be to remove the word ‘woman’, but to use language which is clear and informative. Sweet6970 (talk)

Encyclopedias are written in a formal style, which I would not describe as a "personal" style.

I find it somewhat unnatural to write about the womb (rather than the uterus), because womb sounds old-fashioned to me. I gather that the UK usage is different from the US on this point. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:58, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

What is the point of this? It does not follow that because it is possible to over-state "women", that women could be not mentioned at all. Telling editors that they can write so as to avoid mentioning men or women entirely, or even telling them to do so, would lead to bad and awkward writing and invisibility of women and men in their own health issues. It would also mislead our readers by obscuring the impact of sex. Putting trans issues aside, we never needed a guideline telling people not to overuse or underuse the word "women"; they just wrote as came naturally and it created text that was balanced in this regard. Any encouragement to "elide" gender will upset this balance in favor of contrived writing, because apparently invisibilizing sex is a virtue nowadays, or something. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:12, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Crossroads, you seem to not have spotted two things. The first is that WAID's proposal, among other things, was to ban gender-eliding, not to tell editors to do it. So once again you are ranting about something that hasn't been proposed. The point of this sub section was to point out that in fact we do it naturally all the time (just as we naturally don't use the words our sources do). It would be impossible to ban something for the purpose of gender politics, that in fact was far more likely to be simply good editing. The second is that I actually suggested our article on pregnancy should mention women more. Only, it should aim to do so by actually writing about them, rather than occasionally sprinkling the word about in a mostly redundant fashion, while actually going on about wombs and terms and embryos. Crossroads, you keep panicking about what editors will do if you give them an inch, which is a behavioural matter, and it is very unhelpful for you to confuse this with whether individual sentences are ok. -- Colin°^Talk 15:24, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Colin is correct, except that I am technically asking for your opinion about whether a rule encouraging editors to maximize the use of women and related gender-specific and sex-specific terms (and therefore to minimize gender-neutral and gender-eliding language, through a loss of opportunities to have sentences that do not already contain a word such as women), rather than making a proposal to have such a rule.

I'm pretty sure that "invizibilizing sex" was considered a public virtue from the Victorian era through the Baby Boomers, at minimum. A hundred years ago, people talked about expectant mothers so they wouldn't have to say anything so sex-oriented as pregnant women.

OTOH, if the modern goal is to avoid "obscuring the impact of sex", then we would need to encourage editors to write about females (sex) instead of women (gender). If we want to be specific about the effects of biological sex itself, then the term female is much more to the point. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:51, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Except for the fact that the usage of female (for humans) as though it referred to biology and not society/culture isn't particularly well-attested in sources, isn't notably applied in the corpus of reliable sources, and is for all practical purposes a neologism. Newimpartial (talk) 16:59, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

Yup, the sex–gender distinction that makes terms like postpubescent female be preferred for strictly biological information and terms like woman be preferred for strictly non-biological information about the same human comes out of modern scholarship, and it is not universally observed, especially in non-scholarly writing. However, if Crossroads is correct that the goal is to emphasize the impact of biological sex, then this scholarly distinction gives us a straightforward way to emphasize that biology. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:18, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think it is an accurate generalization to say that this specific terminology comes out of scholarship. Outside of medical/biology sources, I doubt that these particular usages can be discerned at all - certainly sociological and historical literature continues to use the adjective "female" to refer to gender. As far as MEDRS are concerned, as well, while there is now an accumulation of literature warning researchers and writers to be attentive to the distinction between sex and gender, it would be radically premature IMO to conclude that scholars had settled on "female" as meaning only biological sex. If anything, I would say that the use of "female" (and especially the neologistic noun "females" for humans) has developed in certain pockets of non-scholarly writing rather than within scholarship. Newimpartial (talk) 18:28, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

The article about the Sex and gender distinction indicates that it comes largely of feminist studies, not biology. AIUI, an oversimplified history is that feminist theory first said that the social aspects are separate from the biological aspects, and later queer theory said that individual identity trumps social expectations. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:08, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

As a CC contributor to the Sex and gender distinction article, I support this content. Newimpartial (talk) 21:25, 10 April 2022 (UTC)

The goal is not to emphasize biological sex so much as to not attempt to de-emphasize or elide it. Likewise, we don't want to disconnect women from the topic either. Don't invisibilize sex, don't invisibilize women (or men).

I am unclear on if WhatamIdoing is proposing this seriously or not. I assumed not, since she seemed to be defending use of "pregnant people" and the like through the vast majority of this page. Perhaps that was a giant exercise in being "the devil's advocate", or perhaps this is. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:53, 13 April 2022 (UTC)

I am genuinely and seriously asking the question "Do you believe that the community would support...", which you may notice is different from "I propose that we should..."

I am not sure how we could communicate your goal to editors. "Neither emphasize nor de-emphasize biological sex" is not the kind of advice that editors can easily implement in an article. Do you think that the existing first paragraph of Pregnancy tends to emphasize or de-emphasize biological sex? Does it emphasize or de-emphasize women?

Also, am I correct in believing that you're okay with invisibilizing trans people in this article? WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:10, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

The community is more likely to support basically that than anything else that's been floated on this page IMO. At the same time, I don't think proposing this at this time is necessarily a good idea (much like Colin).

I never said anything that encouraged "invisibilizing trans people". Under #Analysis (Crossroads) I made mention of how the article menstruation covers trans people - without going to an extreme of rewriting material away from the mainstream or underlying sources or stuffing the article with phrases like "assigned female at birth" or "people with uteruses". An approach largely like that is what WP:Due weight looks like for most Wikipedians I believe. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:50, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

We have editors who believe that the first paragraph of Pregnancy invisibilizes trans people. If they didn't believe this, then they probably wouldn't be making edits with edit summaries like Edited definition to be trans-inclusive. You reverted that edit. The lead of that article does not mention trans people. It does not use the word female (which could be interpreted in a gender-inclusive way); it only uses the word women (which can be interpreted in a trans-exclusive way). Gender diversity is not visible there. Are you okay with that? WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:33, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Crossroads, you were asked about pregnancy not menstruation. AFAICS, pregnancy does not cover trans men except except in the "see also" section, which includes a mix of "not really pregnancy" and "not human pregnancy" which to be honest, is a tad offensive. It would be hard actually, to demonstrate "cisnormative" quite so well. Trans and nonbinary people, for all the article, don't exist, and then when we remember they exist, it is in the same thought as those strange seahorses, a disputed "syndrome" and fakery. -- Colin°^Talk 19:43, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

General Public Health Websites

Listing some major general-public facing websites that deal with health and medicine. I'm not judging the content of these websites, and don't claim they are reliable sources (or even reliable reads). I'm listing them because they are big, show up in google search results, and have health information as their business model rather than, say, trans rights, or racial equality.

Livestrong

Livestrong.com would appear to be our first example of a general-public facing health website that is widely adopting trans inclusive language. Their article Why We Use the Words We Use and What They Mean to Us explains their values and mission influence the choices they have made. They accept they will make mistakes. They also acknowledge the need to use the language of sources at times (and in quotes) which might not align with their preferred choice.

They appear to use a wide range of language choices available. The most obvious is saying "people assigned female at birth" rather than "women" for many topics. But they also include "pregnant people", "menstruating person", "people with endometriosis". -- Colin°^Talk 12:50, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Their image where "women" is crossed out in favor of "AFAB" and "pregnant people" is surprisingly revealing as to what's happening.

This is a site riddled with excessive ads, and weirdly informal writing and listicles, and more importantly is far from a high-quality WP:MEDRS. It contains articles on nonsense like ear magnets for weight loss based on the pseudoscience of acupuncture, articles touting naturopathy, and so on. Above all, its writing style is not the norm. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:07, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Healthline

Healthline.com is another general-public facing health website that appears to have widely adopted trans inclusive language. Their website emphasises it provides "health and wellness advice that’s inclusive and rooted in medical expertise". They do this through the use of Conscious language, which is described as "the intentional use of words and terms to create empathetic, inclusive, and non-stigmatizing content". Their editorial process "prioritiz[es] accuracy, empathy, and inclusion". As a result, there is frequent use of "assigned female at birth", "pregnant people", "if you have a vulva", "if you have male genitals", etc. They also have a lot of articles on gender and trans issues, which AFAICS are entirely supportive. -- Colin°^Talk 21:58, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Verywell

Verywell.com is another similar website, which I can't link to as it is on the blacklist. Their "2022 Diversity and Inclusion Pledge" commits them to inclusive content, citing examples covering ethnic diversity, sexuality diversity and gender diversity. They have an "Anti-Bias Review Board" which is helping to make "pregnancy and menstruation content gender-inclusive". A quick search shows their content currently uses less such language compared to Healthline. -- Colin°^Talk 21:58, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Webmd

Webmd.com is yet another public health website. Its editorial policy does not mention inclusion or diversity. Although they have a few articles about trans gender and other genderqueer topics, which are positive about the topic, they don't have much. Searching for "trans" gets autocompleted to "trans fats" typing "nonbinary" has nothing though really wants me to read about "non-hodgkin lymphoma. -- Colin°^Talk 21:58, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

"Assigned female at birth" vs "Sex? Male/Female"

The England/Wales census asked "What is your sex? Male/Female" and then asked "Is the gender you identify with the same as your sex registered at birth?" The Sex question asked respondents to use the value on their birth certificate or Gender Recognition Certificate. For the Scottish census, it said "If you are transgender the answer you give can be different from what is on your birth certificate. You do not need a Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC). If you are non-binary or you are not sure how to answer, you could use the sex registered on your official documents, such as your passport." This ability to "self identify" is controversial and legally challenged by a feminist group, which lost. The Scottish follow-on question is different, and asks "Do you consider yourself to be trans, or have a trans history". Both follow-on questions were optional, but the sex question was not.

We have seen studies defining groups as "assigned female at birth". In the UK, one can change one's sex with a GRC (and on the Scottish census, don't even need that). Much of our discussion has focused on gender, and perhaps assumed sex was fixed and related firmly with binary biology. But if that were so, we'd see "women" replaced by "females" perhaps, and that isn't what is going on. Instead the complicated "Assigned (or registered) female at birth" is used. -- Colin°^Talk 13:12, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Methoxyflurane

This turned up on my watchlist today. The change had edit summary "pregnant people" -> "pregnant women", we're not yet at the point where grammatical gender is absent from English. The previous text existed since 2019, when Doc James made this edit replacing "obstetric patients" with "pregnant people" (no edit summary). As far as I can see, this is the first time that has been challenged. The source dates from 1961 and speaks of "500 cases", "a series of 500 unselected consecutive anaesthetics", "500 patients", and "500 unselected consecutive cases of vaginal deliveries". So the source is gender-neutral as was the longstanding text. I wonder what editors make of today's edit. -- Colin°^Talk 19:52, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't get why Doc James made that edit. The old wording was perfectly good and was close to the source. The source did not say "pregnant people", which as noted above generally carries connotations of considering trans people (which is why there are articles about the phrase). The typical term in MEDRS and general RS for this group is "pregnant women" and so I'd argue that is the term that should be used. Let's not debate this again here though.

This turns out to be a moot issue. When searching for up to date sources to replace these primary sources from the 1960s (!) I found this 2016 review article which stated, Methoxyflurane is no longer a drug of use in obstetric practice. So, outcomes from its use in obstetrics, gastrointestinal or otherwise, are not relevant and should not be presented as though this is something that still goes on. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:17, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

While I agree that the whole paragraph should be removed, you only removed it after getting into an edit war. Newimpartial restored "pregnant people" with summary "Another misleading edit summary. "Pregnant people" is the stable version of this article, and has been syntactically and grammatically standard in English for hundreds of years. Wikipedia doesn't care about your personal opinions when they are not backed up by sources or policies.". You then reverted Newimpartial, taking the text back to the previous (but not longstanding) "pregnant women". Your edit summary 'Per 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." The source does not use "pregnant people". Searching Google Scholar & PubMed shows that the actual standard terminology in sources is "pregnant women"'. Now, I don't understand this. It is interesting you keep quoting that sentence as though it is gospel when it is in fact nothing more than the personal opinion of one editor and their own interpretation of what some of the 16 or so participants at a 4-day brief discussion said. We have already discussed how it is not in fact true and never has been true, so it would be good perhaps to get that idea overturned more generally (i.e. not a discussion about trans issues, but to correct the idea by some conservative language advocates that we are slave to our sources when it comes to word choices). That aside, you then throw that in the bin. The source does not use "pregnant women" either. I quoted all the terms it uses. You decided in your second sentence to invent a rule that Wikipedia is constrained to use "standard terminology" to describe men or women, and that you personally have determined this through analysis of Google Scholar and PubMed that the Standard According to Crossroads is and will forever be "pregnant women". I am quite boggled.

Does WP:STYLEVAR count for nothing? Crossroads, your edit warring could lead to ArbCom sanctions if the issue arose. You really need to take care here. -- Colin°^Talk 09:48, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

Crossroads, to be clear: if you want to remove "pregnant people" and insert "pregnant women", you can't base that on a VP discussion about the terminology used in the sources when "pregnant women" isn't used in the article's sources. Have we come to the WP:IDHT part of the discussion, where you ignore everything that multiple editors have said on this page and just go on to make up imaginary rules to enshrine what your google-fu tells you are the "typical terms"? If so, we may nearing the time to petition for AE sanctions, to minimize the disruption ensuing from your one-against-many crusading. Newimpartial (talk) 12:40, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

We discussed that VP (Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 161#Gender-neutral language in human sex-specific articles) earlier and I agree with your assessment that really all we can take from that is "Q: Should sex-specific be required to be written in gender neutral language? A: No." Anything more than that is the personal opinion of a few editors who conveniently ignore actual editing practice. I'm tired of folk quoting WP:UPPERCASE without reading the linked guideline or policy, so let me say clearly that I can't really put it better than WP:STICKTOSOURCES, which says "The best practice is to research the most reliable sources on the topic and summarize what they say in your own words". Do I need to take the "in your own words" bit and enlarge it to 24pt flashing red letters? Or the lead of WP:OR, which says "Rewriting source material in your own words while retaining the substance is not considered original research." But mostly we have WP:STYLEVAR, which says "When either of two styles are acceptable it is inappropriate for a Wikipedia editor to change from one style to another unless there is some substantial reason for the change." and that "Edit-warring over style... is never acceptable". -- Colin°^Talk 15:44, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

We've been over this before.

I made one edit to the term. Newimpartial made two. But you single me out for "edit warring". Interesting. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:56, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Reading the edit summary, in order:

1. Aidan Kehoe makes what could generously be described as a BOLD edit, removing a long established stable term
2. Newimpartial reverts it, could generously be described as part of the BRD cycle
3. Aidan Kehoe restores their preferred version, instituting an edit war
4. Newimpartial reverts to restore the status quo, adding to the edit war
5. Crossroads reverts to Aidan Kehoe's preferred version, supporting Aidan and continuing the edit war
6. Crossroads removes entirely the Gastrointestinal subsection

At no point in this six edit exchange was a talk page discussion section opened. Nor has Aidan Kehoe been issued an edit war warning according to their personal talk page history. Newimpartial's second revert is does meet the technical criteria for edit warring but is understandable in the circumstances, as it could also be argued that Aidan's edits are vandalism. However @Crossroads: you should not have reverted to Aidan's preferred version, especially without establishing any form of consensus for it on the talk page. That could be considered WP:TAGTEAM editing if it continues.

I also would not be surprised if another editor was to revert your removal of the gastrointestinal subsection, and I would urge you in that circumstance to open a talk page discussion per BRD. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:22, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Not to double down, or anything, but I really do think the edit summaries offered by Aidan Kehoe and by Crossroads are unconscionable. Kehoe's first is rationalized in terms of grammatical gender, which has nothing whatsoever to do with their edits on any construal of the prior or the proposed language. Kehoe's second doubles down on "grammatical gender" and then raises a non sequitur point about "He gave birth", which has nothing to do either with grammatical gender or with the article text in question. Crossroads then based his rationale on using the same terminology presented in said sources while reverting to Kehoe's text that was not based in any way on the article's sources. Mendacious edit summaries like these are a direct violation of the first bullet of WP:SUMMARYNO and ought always to be reverted as disruptive when they are made. BOLD edits that offer bogus rationales should never be accepted on principle. Newimpartial (talk) 03:46, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

@Crossroads: in a related note, this revert you have just made would also be considered starting an edit war. The text was boldly removed by one editor, this was challenged when it was restored, and the onus now lies on those arguing for removal for why it is undue in the article. Again this could have been avoided if you had started a talk page discussion. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:54, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm afraid you are missing the key point, which is that WP:IMPLICITCONSENSUS is only a relevant policy when it agrees with Crossroads' personal aesthetic, but in any other case it becomes a dead letter. This is one of the many things we are expected to accept when interacting with his edits. Newimpartial (talk) 03:58, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Interesting that this is being called TAGTEAM now, but when the same strategy was being used to force through 3 sets of changes to rapid-onset gender dysphoria controversy, as documented here, Newimpartial and Sideswipe9th were quite okay with it, with Newimpartial even participating (in what I called edit war 2). A case of personal aesthetic? Admins didn't care and didn't institute "consensus required", either.

Regarding Aidan Kehoe's edit summaries, yes, he misunderstands what "grammatical gender" technically is, and I don't endorse his poorly written edit summaries, but they show that "pregnant people" carries the exact connotations of pregnant men that I said it did. If one is going to complain that the exact phrase "pregnant women" is not in the source, they can't possibly also think that "pregnant people" - also not in the source - is okay. Now if one had gone back to "obstetric patients", before Doc James changed it, that would be fine - in fact, it seems the source isn't about all women who happen to be pregnant, but those who were currently "patients" needing anesthetics - i.e. giving birth. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:17, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Re: they show that "pregnant people" carries the exact connotations of pregnant men that I said it did - the summaries show no such thing. They simply show that Aidan has a prejudice preconception about the term "pregnant people" that you happen to share, so you think it proves something. Complete, illogical, illiterate nonsense.

Just to be clear, I wasn't "complaining" about language being or not being in the sources, I was calling you out on using "source-based language" as a rationale for an edit where you reverted to BOLD language that wasn't in the source given. You just can't accept that as what you actually did, can you? Newimpartial (talk) 04:29, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

The rationale seems off. So, on the one hand, Crossroads' edit summary says "it is expected that editors would use the same terminology presented in said sources", and he complains that "The source does not use "pregnant people". Fair enough, I suppose, if you think that it is necessary to "use the same terminology presented in said sources", even though in some circumstances MEDMOS advises you not to do that.

But then Crossroads changes the text to a different word that the source also does not use. This sounds like a case of Do as I say, not as I do, or at least that double standard in which other, lesser editors have to use the words in the "said sources", but some among us are exempt from that restriction.

So: Why is Crossroads' choice of words not present in the cited sources supposed to be better than Doc James' choice of words not present in the cited sources? Crossroads claims that the article should follow the terminology used in sources that have nothing to do with this particular drug. Doc James seemingly chose to maintain the gender-neutral wording of the cited sources. I do not find either argument to be especially compelling. I think that both rationales are equally weak, and that either language is acceptable. That suggests that a STATUSQUO approach would be appropriate.

What I'm certain of is that clinical trials from the 1960s fail MEDRS. I'm actually surprised that Doc James didn't remove it at the time, as he was generally quite good at noticing such problems. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:55, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

After reading Sideswipe9th's summary I realise I failed to spot the edit war between Aidan Kehoe and Newimpartial. I didn't look that far down the history and thought Newimpartial's second edit was in fact their first. So, yes, all parties were edit warring, even those who only made one revert. There is no consensus on what the correct language is. Surely Crossroads, after four months of discussion, you appreciate that now? Aidan Kehoe's change could have been reverted per WP:STYLEVAR and that would have been a stronger signal (assuming editors actually read the policy vs throwing WP:UPPERCASE at each other) that further reverts would not be allowed.

Wrt Doc James edit, yes we are all puzzled that the paragraph was retained but the source said "500 cases", "a series of 500 unselected consecutive anaesthetics", "500 patients", and "500 unselected consecutive cases of vaginal deliveries". Both "cases" and "patients" is language used when health professionals talk to other health professionals, not language used to talk to the general public. That is why MEDMOS generally recommends replacing "patients" with "people". The problem, as Crossroads notes, is "the source isn't about all women who happen to be pregnant, but those who were currently "patients" needing anesthetics - i.e. giving birth." So neither "women" nor "people" makes any sense (and yet is what the edit warring was about). What about restoring to the original text:

In a series of 500 consecutive obstetric patients, Boisvert and Hudon observed vomiting in 12 (4.8%) patients during or after administration of methoxyflurane anesthesia.

Hmm. That doesn't really make a lot of sense either. It doesn't indicate they were giving birth and what kind of birth ("vaginal deliveries" in the source) so they could have been having some kind of examination. Doc James replaced it with

"In a series of 500 consecutive pregnant people, vomiting occurred in 12 (4.8%) during or after administration of methoxyflurane anesthesia."

Which reads less like a medical textbook but I'm thinking that vomiting occurs in pregnancy all the time, so you have to work hard to guess what the anesthesia was for. Using patients gave more of a clue but is still insufficient. Furthermore, our Midwifery journals already noted that those who are in hospital to have their babies are not ill, and so in that area of medicine they are no longer called "patients".

A further problem with the sentence is that it is "a series of 500 consecutive" somethings. But none of patients, people or women are consecutive or align themselves in series all by themselves. The source, when referring to this "series" used "cases" or "anaesthetics" both of which are events when something happens, which can occur in a series and be consecutive. So the sentence really needed a much more careful rewrite than word substitution.

What is fascinating is that all four editors focused only on the word that offended them, and didn't read the sentence to check that their replacement made sense. This comes back to what Sandy said when we began this discussion, that there is far more wrong with these articles than worrying about individual words. It also confirms in my mind that this issue is primarily a behavioural one, and likely WP:STYLEVAR is going to be need to be firmly enforced to respect the diversity of editor's choice of language. -- Colin°^Talk 09:30, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Colin: I'm not sure whether you meant to include me among the four editors that focused ... on the word that offended them, but if so you have made a false statement - my edits were based on the false and misleading edit summaries; I wasn't offended by any words.

Also, your apparent belief that citing certain guidelines will send a stronger signal ... that further reverts would not be allowed seems to me, ahem, unproven, and also an attempt to "legalize" a part of our WP:EW that relies on inductive rather than deductive reasoning. Newimpartial (talk) 11:35, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

You are telling me that if the editor had twice changed "people" to "women" but left no edit summary, you wouldn't have edit warred? If the only problem was an incorrect edit summary, you could have had a chat on the editors' talk page. Clearly you had problems with the change from "people" to "women", otherwise you wouldn't have changed it back.

Have a read of WP:STYLEVAR. It doesn't care what motivates editors to change the style. Only that they are changing the style and there is no consensus in MOS for one style over another. This is the case here. -- Colin°^Talk 13:04, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

If there had been no edit summary, I would have reverted and said unexplained unsourced POV edit, or something. I do have an underlying objection to the POV/POINT nature of the edits I reverted, but e.g. if there had been a coherent rationale presented in the summary, I would have opened a discussion while possibly reverting per IMPLICITCONSENSUS. My actual reverts, however, in absence of honest and policy-relevant edit summaries, were motivated in the first instance by the summaries given; per WP:NOTSUICIDE, I am not in the habit of opening Talk discussions in such cases.

Also, I think you are trying to deploy STYLEVAR (which is ultimately a guideline, not a policy, anyway) in a situation where it does not apply. I don't see any any recognized style (in the sense of STYLEVAR and the MOS) that would require or even encourage the use of "people" or "women" or pretty much anything else, except that per MEDMOS we don't use "patients" or "you" - and STYLEVAR doesn't apply to that, either, because those are defined as "unacceptable", rather than documenting multiple acceptable styles. Not all issues about article text are "style" issues in the sense of STYLEVAR, and this one ain't. Newimpartial (talk) 13:24, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

The idea that this is a mere matter of STYLEVAR with equal community status for one or the other was made up on this page and is false. There is zero evidence for any community support for these desexed constructions. Not one piece of policy, guideline, or even explanatory supplement supports it. And in the one instance where this was discussed by the community, no one except the newbie OP (opening poster) supported the proposal to use "gender-neutral language" in sex-specific topics. Many pointed to MEDRS or said we should follow how sources (not just "the" specific sources) describe these things. The closure was, if anything, mild compared to the comments. The closure recognized that the community opposed the proposal to implement the sort of writing that Doc James used in this instance that started this mess. It is those seeking to enforce phrasings that are out of step with the rest of Wikipedia and the vast majority of MEDRS that have "behavioral" issues. Enough with the implicit threats - which is also a behavioral issue.

If we're going to believe that this is STYLEVAR, then womxn is all the more STYLEVAR given that the community never discussed it. So, if RandoEditor a couple years ago in some underwatched page about women in society slips in "womxn", am I not allowed to change this to "women" because of STYLEVAR? Or if I can, why can I change that but not this? Crossroads ^-talk- 13:42, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Why speak in hypotheticals? The word is used in articles such as Sikh feminism, Milwaukee Monarchs, and North Carolina Tar Heels#Ultimate. Do you think all of those are unverifiable and inappropriate? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:03, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

It's a big encyclopedia with very many underscrutinized pages. The first has in-text attribution to someone who uses it, although that should probably be improved, and the second uses it only in quotes. The third's use did not match the source, which used "women", and therefore I changed it. (Edit: just checked the weird inline external link, and the team does describe itself that way. The secondary source at the end of the sentence, however, uses the standard "women". Considering that the neologism wasn't even wikilinked, it's surprising that someone didn't think it to be a basic typo.)

You didn't actually answer my question; you merely pointed to articles that happened to have it in them currently. WhatamIdoing, do you think that use of "womxn" vs. "women" in article voice is merely a matter of personal style preference (STYLEVAR)? Crossroads ^-talk- 02:56, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

I think you should have converted the inline link (which you called "external link" and deleted per WP:EL) into a citation. That's likely what the IP editor intended and I think they also very much intended it to support what they had just written: "womxn". The website Pleiades has "UNC Chapel Hill Womxn's Club Ultimate" in big letters on their home page.

What happened is you changed the spelling with summary "standard terminology in source". But I looked at the citation at the end of the sentence and it didn't even mention the team Pleiades winning so I'm not convinced it is even a "source". Perhaps the page has changed since the editor accessed it. But regardless, it separates the teams into "Mens" and "Womens". Big deal. Still doesn't tell us how to refer to Pleiades.

It is interesting that 15 minutes later you removed this link with summary "Remove external links in article body per WP:EL. Full disclosure - it turns out that this external link for the team does describe itself as for "womxn". However, the WP:Secondary source does not. The correction is therefore fine." Now that sounds like someone with a guilty conscience trying to support their earlier rash edit. We know what Pleiades calls itself because their homepage tells us so. I don't see how a sports-results page (that doesn't even list the team) is a "secondary source" for what Pleiades calls itself, or how in fact being "secondary source" is better here than being a "primary source" about oneself. WP:ABOUTSELF says such sources are fine for non-controversial facts about themselves. Despite you going on and on about STICKTOSOURCES, you have shown here and at Methoxyflurane that you aren't at all interested in using the source language if it doesn't work for you.

Surely if a person or a team wish to be know as "womxn", we should call them that, especially so in sentences specifically about them. To not do that seems to be gratuitously disrespectful. It sounds a wee bit too much like when the more transphobic groups refer to trans women as "he" and "a man" in order to make the point they don't accept their gender identity.

Crossroads I ask you please would you undo your word change and fix the EL into a citation instead. Colin°^Talk 07:46, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

A Google search '"womxn" site:play.usaultimate.org' shows 70 results with the word very much embedded into what the website refers to teams and competitions. I read also of several teams using that term to refer to themselves and why they do so. I think this seems to be important language for these teams. For example this and this and this are just the first few links. this PDF has an entry for Dartmouth College which explains their use of the term. Your "secondary source" seems generaly to support and respect what these teams call themselves. -- Colin°^Talk 07:57, 22 April 2022 (UTC)

I've already given my views on that particular word. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:13, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

WhatamIdoing, that was in the context of a general article on Women in the United States. This specific example is one where the word is used to refer to a sports team who identify as "womxn". Is this not closer to misgendering a trans person? -- Colin°^Talk 13:03, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

One of the problems with applying that logic to sports teams is that the players change over time. It could be a term of self-identification (i.e., a term of self-identification that the English Wikipedia definitely could, and perhaps should, accept) for one or more versions of this team, but I don't think that we should necessarily apply the MOS standard for individuals (i.e., the latest expressed preference). The 2021–2022 team could call themselves womxn without all of the previous teams, or the program in general, being identified with that spelling.

OTOH, it's not clear that womxn is actually an identity, or if it is, which identity it is. The Womxn article indicates that it could be trans-inclusive or trans-exclusive women, and the mention of intersectional feminism suggests that it might indicate women of color. It doesn't seem to be clear yet. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:20, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

P.S. Looking back, if this hadn't been an outdated and primary source, I would have gone back to something closer to what Doc James moved it away from, and closer to the source, due to the aforementioned accuracy issues which Colin also noted. I'm not seeing where WP:MEDMOS recommends replacing "patients" with "people" by the way. It does say, Do not confuse patient-group prevalence figures with those for the whole population that have a certain condition. For example: "One third of XYZ patients" is not always the same as "One third of people with XYZ", since many people with XYZ may not be seeking medical care. This case seems very similar. What this sorry saga shows is the importance of holding closely to our specific sources, and that substitutions that even experienced editors think are fine can actually have unnoticed problems. Crossroads ^-talk- 14:19, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Umm, Crossroads, I haven't seen any more community support for interpolating phrases like "pregnant women", when those are absent in the specific sources used in an article, than there has been for interpolating phrases like pregnant people when they do not reflect an article's sourcing. You keep invoking a "most sources" ghit shell-game that neither WP policy nor the community demonstrably support. And speaking of "behavioural issues", my successful filing against Maneesh - which I dare say has a higher WP:CONLEVEL than your VP discussion - was based in the first instance on Maneesh's edits to replace sourced and stable terms with unsourced sex-specific language in the same way that you just did. There is also an interesting parallel between your recent revert, which I linked above, and your edit-warring on Maneesh's behalf to remove sourced discussion of trans people's health conditions. I would even speculate that it was Manessh's POV crusade that started this mess; the evidence of community support for your WHATABOUTISM and your general defense of Maneesh's POV editing was, ahem, limited, while the eventual consensus was that such conduct was disruptive. Newimpartial (talk) 14:30, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Hmm, we have two editors complaining about STYLEVAR, perhaps that's because they'd like permission to change the style to their preference, in the absence of any community consensus. Crossroads continues to misrepresent the VP. The OP proposed that such articles need gender neutral language, which is quite a different proposal from permitting gender neutral language should an editor happen to have written text that way. MOS is traditionally conservative when it comes to permitting wholesale change due to an expressed preference for or against some language, so it is not surprising in the least that the proposal failed. But reading more into that failure, or elevating the views of the handful of people as though respondents were the Disciples and the closing admin was Jesus is frankly silly, and is tedious to keep reading this guff.

I don't know why newimpartial thinks WP:STYLEVAR does not very much apply. Style isn't just semicolons and the length of a dash. Style guides can advise and prohibit words too, and currently MOS does neither here.

I would be interested in User:WhatamIdoing view on whether WP:STYLEVAR applies. It seems to me that our solution should be to provide some information and advice, based on what we have learned these last few months, but accept that the issue is hopelessly divided with no consensus either in real life or on Wiki. I don't think in the current political climate that this is likely to change or to become less heated. As such, I think our only way forward is to permit editors to write how they want to write for new material and for substantially revised/updated material, but per STYLEVAR, to prevent them warring over those words, or tendentiously nitpicking over those words. And if necessary, have some arb enforcement / discretionary sanctions hanging over editors who do. -- Colin°^Talk 16:48, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Re: Style guides can advise and prohibit words too, and currently MOS does neither here - true, but that does not mean that every editorial choice not advised or prohibited by the MOS is therefore a matter of style, and subject to STYLEVAR. If an issue isn't discussed in the WP MOS or in a subject-specific MOS (as are, for example, the varieties of English), then I would expect at a minimum that an editor would be able to cite at least one recognized style authority before trying to invoke STYLEVAR - and in cases where some style authorities would mandate a specific approach and others would not, it would be wikilawyering to argue that "thou shalt not edit war over style" from the STYLEVAR guideline covers all cases where one editor chooses to invoke a style authority, as though by doing so they could impose a 1RR restriction. That simply isn't what STYLEVAR means, or what it's for. Newimpartial (talk) 17:29, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

The Maneesh case? I was there. Maneesh was topic banned because he kept doubling down on his insistence on describing gender identity on ways that many found offensive and generally being uncivil. An AE case is behavioral and has no authority on content matters, which were hardly even discussed. And as for the 'removed material about trans people's health conditions', it was a random side point appended to one sentence which could have been appended to any of them, and consensus took my side in deciding to remove it.

Again: if RandoEditor a couple years ago in some underwatched page about women in society slips in "womxn", am I not allowed to change this to "women" because of STYLEVAR? Or if I can, why can I change that but not this?

Also, if in this case we suppose that the source had said "pregnant women", would we all have refrained from changing it away from that, and from claiming we can replace it with "pregnant people" because STYLEVAR? Crossroads ^-talk- 19:29, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

MEDMOS on avoiding the words patients and cases is in Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Writing for the wrong audience. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:04, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

That just says, as part of 'signs of writing for an audience of professionals', that "You use the word "patients" or "cases" when describing those who have a medical condition (see below)." And "below" notes that one shouldn't confuse patient-group prevalence and population prevalence. How does one do that without sometimes specifying "patients"? It isn't forbidden that I can tell, but it is cautioned against overuse. Ironically, I know a few instances where someone was trying to avoid saying "women", they said "patients" over and over instead. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:48, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

And the point of the section is to say that you shouldn't make those mistakes.

Sometimes you have to use the word patient. In those cases, it frequently needs an explanation, often about the condition being under-diagnosed or only people with severe disease needing medical attention. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:08, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

Crossroads, a straw poll wants what it wants. That doesn't change the pattern of you doubling down on POV edits that I have reverted, without discussion or any policy-relevant justification. And of course you were there for Maneesh - you were the first of a list of editors who shared the POV of the POV editor in question and who were unable to convince Admin that, in filing to have an editor removed who was disruptive in precisely the "sex-based" terminology issue we are now discussing, I was making an attempt to remove an opponent from the topic area. The lengths to which you are willing to go not to recognize the community's failure to agree with you on a consistent basis (while repeatedly drawing attention to a few occasions where discussions were resolved to your satisfaction) is a truly impressive achievement in rationalization. Newimpartial (talk) 19:44, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I could complain about your behavior from my standpoint too, but I won't. This isn't what this page is for. Your characterization of my edits is your opinion and inaccurate and nothing more. Again, as is common with behavioral issues, the substance of his original edits is hardly even relevant, as AE does not rule on content.

Anytime you are willing to answer my two questions, you are welcome to. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:53, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

This particular discussion of your behaviour began, I believe, with my observation that you can't base (your insertion of "pregnant women") on a VP discussion about the terminology used in the sources when "pregnant women" isn't used in the article's sources, which seems entirely germane to the current topic in detail. Later, you stated that It is those seeking to enforce phrasings that are out of step with the rest of Wikipedia and the vast majority of MEDRS that have "behavioral" issues, but the Maneesh case is a direct example of the contrary (given your rather arbitrary declarations about what is or isn't "in step"). If you are under the impression that people making edits you like don't have behavioural issues but people making edits you don't like have them - which is what your comments communicate - well, that just isn't what the diffs show, as I have demonstrated. You can't just wander through the field of editor behaviour as though it were your personal flower garden, picking what you fancy, any more than you can perform any other exercise in Humpty-Dumpty terminological fiat, and expect for other editors simply to nod and go along with you.

As far as your two questions, I have stated (more clearly than usual, I think) why STYLEVAR does not apply to these cases. I have nothing to add on that score. Newimpartial (talk) 20:09, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I think it would be difficult to apply STYLEVAR to a single sentence. If, on the other hand, an editor wrote a decent article using one style (e.g., "women" or "people" or "females"), then switching the entire article to another style would probably contravene STYLEVAR. It could also be Wikipedia:Tendentious editing and Wikipedia:Disruptive editing (a "mere essay" and a "mere guideline" that turn up in a surprising number of block log entries, which is something worth considering whenever one might be tempted to say that the Manual of Style doesn't matter because it isn't officially a policy).

I do think that we are seeing, and will continue to see, some behavioral problems around representing sex and gender. People who hold one POV or the other very strongly may be looking for wording that most people don't believe is a significant problem. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:39, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

A latent problem I see in this approach is the premise that an editor wrote a decent article. Wikipedia is by definition collaborative, and WP:OWNership is a bug, not a feature. The question is to what extent consistency is to be given weight against competing values, such as accuracy, accessibility, and felicity of prose. STYLEVAR can't be used to pre-judge the balance among those values, in any useful way - it is relevant mostly to aspects such as ENGVAR, DATEVAR and CITEVAR that, strongly as editors may care about them, are inherently somewhat arbitrary. Newimpartial (talk) 20:46, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

And yet that is how we settle ENGVAR, CITEVAR, DATEVAR, and STYLEVAR disputes: If editors disagree, then we fall back to whatever was done when the first editor wrote a decent article. Questions of whether the affected people need to be described as women, patients, cases, or people is somewhat arbitrary. Questions of whether editors should edit war to get the "right" word in the article is never arbitrary, and it is sometimes urgent. Our "if you can't agree, then first editor wins" rule is meant to stop edit wars, not to produce perfect articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:51, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

That's not actually true, though. If an editor "writes a decent article" about a BLP subject using the "wrong" ENGVAR, it will be fixed, regardless of first-mover advantage or STYLEVAR. And you haven't provided any evidence that whether affected people need to be described as women, patients, cases, or people is a simple "style" issue to which STYLEVAR might apply. We do have style guidance not to use "patients" or "cases" from MEDMOS, and the community gropes periodically towards norms on disability language, but questions about whether to describe people as people, by gender, by nationality or whatever else are in the first instance content issues, not style issues. (Although the current guidance about hyphenated nationality is found in the MOS, as is GENDERID, these both are clearly to resolve content issues as well, not only issues of style - and neither is left to STYLEVAR.) Pretending something is a style issue in order to deploy STYLEVAR strikes me as essentially disingenuous, and I would happily defend myself at 3RRN against anyone filing against me for a second revert against a clearly inappropriate language choice, regardless of the first editor's preferences. Also, we don't have a general rule saying "if you can't agree, then first editor wins" - this would only apply to one-versus-one disputes, even if it were true, and in WP:3RRNO cases it isn't any kind of a thing. Newimpartial (talk) 21:06, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

What would the "wrong" ENGVAR be for a medicine-related article? For individual people, the MOS already prescribes whether we will refer to them as a man, a woman, or a person. For larger groups, it can be a bit arbitrary: do I highlight that all of the subjects in this study were female, or do I highlight that they were all Americans, or both? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:18, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

(I will assume, perhaps generously, that these questions do not represent trolling - they certainly seem a bit tangential.)

The "correct" ENGVAR for an article is decided according to usual Wikipedia norms and procedures, and has nothing in particular to do with MEDMOS.

For "individual people", I don't think what you say here is necessarily the case. While there are certainly instances where man or woman must not be used, per GENDERID, I haven't noticed any MOS guidance about when we should use gendered vs. gender-neutral terms for individuals of known/specified gender (aside from GENDERID concerns). And while I have been around a great many of these discussions, I have literally never seen any participating editors make STYLEVAR/first-mover arguments of the kind discussed above.

As far as larger groups being more arbitrary to describe, this is certainly the case. However, I would expect such questions to be decided (1) based on the sources and (2) according in the first instance to the salience of the descriptor - which is a content issue, not a style issue, IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 16:41, 25 April 2022 (UTC)

The idea with STYLEVAR (specifically) is that you shouldn't re-word existing text solely to sound the way you like it. When you re-word existing text (if disputed, and if you care about STYLEVAR), you need to be able to claim that you are improving it in some non-personal-preferences manner. For example, editors should not 're-word to fit my personal preferences'; instead, we say that we make this change to 'Clarify' or to 'Use plain English' (to name two edit summaries that appear with some frequency in my own contributions). If there is a dispute (which almost never happens with my copyediting), then the STYLEVAR-oriented discussion will revolve around whether the previous text needed clarifying or whether it is harmed by omitting needless jargon.

I agree that there can be content questions around how to describe some groups. This will not, however, always be the case. Human pregnancy only happens in humans that have the internal anatomy of a female. Therefore a statement about whether to say "One in 15,000 die as a result of childbirth" vs "One in 15,000 pregnant females die as a result of childbirth" is primarily a style question, but a question about whether to add "In the US" to the start of that sentence is a content question. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:06, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I have to say, I'm not thrilled with the circularity of the internal anatomy of a female. Human pregnancy is a concrete possibility for what is virtually a subset of those assigned female at birth, but it is not a clear, much less an overwhelming, majority of AFAB people. And I don't regard the question whether it is one in 15,000 pregnant people, one in 15,000 pregnant women, or one in 15,000 pregnant "females" as being any more a style question than it is a content question - since each of these formulations makes a slightly different claim and carries vastly different connotations. Likewise, whether the findings of a study are more accurately circumscribed by noting that the subjects were all American, all cisgender, or all college students is something for which I would rely much more on sources than on STYLEVAR. Newimpartial (talk) 05:17, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm still reading through the very long paper that Tewdar posted at the bottom of this discussion. There's some interesting subtlty about language wrt "females", "biological female" and "assigned female at birth". But Newimpartial the differences between these terms and "women" is currently at most 1%. In a population of 15 million childbirths, 1000 would die with WAID's figures. About 1% or 150,000 of those 15 million in childbirth could be trans (let's say). So that's 10 trans people dying in childbirth if they have the same risk. But if no trans people ever died in childbirth, the figure would be 990 deaths, which is 1:15,152, and this is still 1:15,000 to two significant figures. To change the figures in the other direction we need an extra 45 deaths in this population group, which would suggest a risk to the trans childbirth group of 1:3,333 or five times higher risk of death. Quite how someone might perform a study looking at 15 million childbirths or even 150,000 trans childbirths is boggling my mind a bit, but it shows one would have to do an extremely large study to discover this, and ony then see the figure change if trans people were five times more likely to die in childbirth, assuming of course, 1% of those in childbirth were trans (including nonbinary).

The point of the childbirth figures is surely the death rate (in the US at least) and not a point about how those who go into childbirth identify themselves and certianly not whether the risks are different depending on whether one is gender conforming or not. If anything, a neutral phrase like "One in 15,000 die as a result of childbirth" or "One in 15,000 people die from childbirth" is better than the other terms imo. The focus should be "those in childbirth" and not "their gender identity". -- Colin°^Talk 08:15, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps you are misunderstanding what I am actually saying. I am not saying that the one in 15 000 claim is going to become false depending on whether it is applied to "pregnant women", "pregnant people" or "pregnant females". I am making the much more basic point that these are not synonyms to which STYLEVAR could apply. And what is more, your demonstration here purporting to show that the claims are accurate regardless of language choice is textbook OR, so not something we should be relying on for content decisions in article space. I am not saying that we need to parrot the language used in each particular study used - we can and should cite secondary and tertiary studies that make arguments about the relevance and applicability of terms, for example. But STYLEVAR doesn't apply to or even (conceptually) help with these decisions. Newimpartial (talk) 10:50, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Rewording a population group aways runs the risk of changing the claimed fact into a dubious one. Whether that rename is acceptable is an editorial judgement call. The question of whether it has problems is something editors can work out and agree on in an aricle talk page. Some maths is permitted per WP:CALC, so I disagree this is "textbook OR". It isn't like I'm using maths to get a 1:1400 number in the article, say, I'm just using it for a talk page argument. What I'm trying to demonstrate here is that you don't need to know anything much about trans people except that there are only perhaps 1% of them to feel pretty confident that any clause including or excluding them from the wider population is most unlikely to make a claim significantly untrue. I think this is an important defence against people wikilawering or nitpicking just be cause there is a suspicion of trans-advocacy.

If I wrote "1 in 15,000 die as a result of childbirth" but the source said "women", I don't really think anyone would notice let alone complain. We saw already that 9/10 of the sentences in the lead of pregnancy could include the word "women" but don't. But if I had written "1 in 15,000 women die..." then trans men and nonbinary people AFAB may feel excluded. We very likely don't even know whether the source is based on sex or gender or assigned-at-birth or something else. And the thing is we don't actually care (from a maths pov) if the source included trans men, etc, or our text excludes trans men, as the numbers are insignificant. And yet if I wrote "1 in 1500 people assigned female at birth die..." then some anti-trans / language conservative editors may complain about OR.

Those same editors are unconcerned that their dictionaries or guidelines state "adult is > 18" and "women is female adult" and so we have a lot of "not women" (or "girls") worldwide who become pregnant, some of whom die. In that regard, using "women" is more wrong if it give the impression the figures exclude teenage pregnacies. But I don't see anyone insisting we replace "women" with "people" in order to include them too.

I think therefore, editors worrying that such renames might break the claim are likely to be demonstrating subject-specific prejudice. But as I noted earlier, a rename that explicitly calls out a trans group (e.g. "women and trans or nonbinary people who were assigned female at birth") could well give the impression that we claim the 1:15000 figure for both groups, which would be both incorrect and wrong.

The problem with "synonym" is that it's definition is "exact or nearly the same". They rarely are exactly the same for all intents and purposes. If you look up your thesaurus for synonyms for "women" or "female" I don't think you'd consider any of the choices offered to be acceptable replacements other than very occasionally. The synonym I get for "women" is "the fairer sex" or "the gentler sex" which I very much doubt would be acceptable on Wikipedia.

The reason I brought up STYLEVAR was that I thought it would resolve the intractable ping-pong where neither side has consensus to support their version of the wording. And I do believe 'neither side, currently, has consensus, nor do I think a meaningful consensus is likely in the near future (any RFC would likely be a proxy for editor politics and prejudices, rather than their carefully considered views on how best to write medical articles). But if STYLEVAR isn't appropriate, then we may need something else to deal with editor behaviour. -- Colin°^Talk 13:18, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

About the math: Accounting folks deal with a concept called materiality. Is it wrong if someone at a large company forgot to record the 89¢ purchase of a box of paperclips? Yes. Is it material? No. Exactly where to draw the line depends upon multiple factors (How big is the company? How often does this kind of error happen?) and is a bit of a judgment call, but everyone agrees that slight differences are not material.

Wikipedia editors make similar judgment calls every time they write. The source says "Americans are more likely to die in childbirth than people in other developed countries"; can I write "The US has a higher rate of maternal mortality than other developed countries" instead? The first implies nationality and citizenship, and the second implies geographical location. Do you expect editors to complain about the implication? I don't. It's not a material difference.

I am confused by the claim that human pregnancy is not a possibility for a clear majority of AFAB people. Maybe a typo? If not, then consider this: In France, 90% of women give birth. In the US, 80% of them do. In Japan (one of the lowest rates in the world), 70% of them do. That's "actually give birth", not merely "get pregnant"; the number who experience one or more pregnancies ending before birth means the number for whom pregnancy is proven possible is even higher. Those numbers sound like a "clear majority" to me, and maybe even an "overwhelming" one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:49, 26 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, it is good to have examples in another subject, to demonstrate how common these immaterial phrasing changes are usually. Just to be clear, I think your "clear majority" question is for Newimpartial? I'm not sure I understand it either, but also we should remember that WAID's figures for death rate is "as a result of childbirth" so we are only interested in the section of the population who give birth, not the population who might give birth. The subset of that population that are gender nonconformant, and thus might change depending on how it is worded, is still surely 1% or less. I am surprised at your figures, though, that's higher than I thought. -- Colin°^Talk 15:14, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

For WAID, re: Human pregnancy is a concrete possibility for what is virtually a subset of those assigned female at birth, but it is not a clear, much less an overwhelming, majority of AFAB people - what I meant by concrete here was, essentially, at a specific point in time. AFAB people who do not ovulate due to life stage or chemical inhibition have no concrete possibility of pregnancy, nor do (at least some) infertile people, nor celibate people, etc. The population for whom none of these things is true is not a clear...majority of AFAB people, at least in Canada, which is my reference point.

By the way, demographers used to take a first cut at the relevant population by citing "women 16-44", or variations on that, a practice that always overstated the potentially pregnant population more than it understated it at the ends of the age range... Newimpartial (talk) 17:07, 27 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not talking about just pregnant-today people. I'm talking about the percentage of humans that ever give birth during their lifetimes, which is generally measured based on whether they've given birth by age 45 or 50. This means, e.g., that 80% of US AFABs will give birth before menopause, even if at this point in time only 50% of the women age 16–44 already have.

Pregnancy is a real possibility for any non-sterile female between menarche and menopause. It may have a greater or lesser likelihood due to various voluntary, situational, and involuntary factors (e.g., rape, infertility, contraception, relationship status), but it is a real possibility for all of them. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:42, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I seem to detect overtones of OWN from you here, WAID, and I'm not sure why. This little tangent didn't originate with you, and the original language here was my concrete possibility language, not your real possibility language. I don't think the statistical risks associated with pregnancy are best measured by the percentage of humans that ever give birth during their lifetimes - but even if I did think that, that percentage was never what I was talking about in this discussion. I introduced the concrete possibility language, you said you were confused by what I said, so I explained what I meant. Shouldn't that be the end of the digression?

Also, the number of AFAB people in Canada falling between menarche and menopause (according to their age) barely scrapes by 50% at present, according to Statistics Canada, which validates my not a clear...much less an overwhelming majority language, does it not? Even if you insist on counting people within that age range who do not ovulate for whatever reason, which I still believe to be the wrong methodology. Newimpartial (talk) 11:41, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I think the problem is that both I and WAID didn't understand your point, and after offering an explanation, I, at least, still don't understand its relevance to your complaint about "Human pregnancy only happens in humans that have the internal anatomy of a female." I don't see how that statement is at all influenced by how many AFAB are currently of fertile age in Canada. I still don't really know what the word "concrete" suggests. It seems that you are arguing about "could become pregnant today" and WAID's sentence was relevant to any point in their lives and wasn't claiming that it happens to many/most/nearly-all/very-few. -- Colin°^Talk 13:06, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

WAID's "original sentence" was Human pregnancy only happens in humans that have the internal anatomy of a female. I have two objections to that sentence - not to its truth-value, which is obvious, but to its appropriateness and relevance - but I'm sure I did not express these objections very clearly.

My first objection concerns the phrase humans that have the internal anatomy of a female, which I regard as circular and not a helpful way to describe ovaries and a uterus (assuming this is what the phrase means). Even a female reproductive system would be better, since that phrase has a non-circular referent.

My second objection is that, while pregnancy only happens to AFAB people (and maybe just maybe a miniscule proportion of non-AFAB intersex people? Maybe?) - at any point in time, roughly half of AFAB people do not experience ovulation and cannot possibly become pregnant (this is what I meant by "concrete possibility"). WAID seems inclined to break this into different subgroups, referring explicitly to people before menarche, post-menopausal people, and infertile people (the latter presumably including people who have had hysterectomies) but not wanting to count people whose ovulation is prevented by injection or other hormone treatment, for some reason.

Anyway, on the basic disagreement: to me, the point in time measure is more relevant than the lifetime measure, particularly since what we were talking about in the immediately preceding section was health risks among "pregnant females". It seems obvious to me that, in the first instance, the larger population relevant to those risks (but who are not actually pregnant) is "people who might become pregnant at a specified point in time", rather than "people who are fertile, might be fertile in the future or might have been fertile in the past". Maybe I am wrong about this, but I don't think I am obviously wrong in a way that would justify WAID's I am talking about...I am talking about language - as though it were WAID's job to define what we had been talking about all along. I was objecting to WAID's sentence, and offering my reasons for that objection, however difficult these may have been to understand at a specified point in time. ;) Newimpartial (talk) 13:46, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

We were talking about people dying ("die in childbirth", remember?). I don't think that death lends itself to a point-in-time analysis. Death from a particular cause is a concrete possibility if it could realistically happen in your lifetime, not only if it could happen today. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:00, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

In what sense is death in childbirth a concrete possibility for someone who has had a hysterectomy, for example? Newimpartial (talk) 15:04, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think this argument about "concrete possibilty" is taking us anywhere useful. The "death as a result of childbirth" stat is only meaningful in the population of people who experience childbirth at some point in their lives. Those who had a hysterectomy before ever becoming pregnant, along with those who just plain don't want children, are irrelevant to WAID's sentence that upsets you so, and to the statistical claim we were analysing. The claim "something only happens to <some population group>" isn't the same as "something always happens to...." -- Colin°^Talk 17:01, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure you have grasped my objections, entirely. WAID's statement refers to humans that have the internal anatomy of a female, and I am saying (1) that this is not the best label for any population, and (2) that the population it does refer to is not the relevant population, precisely because it includes people who had a hysterectomy before ever becoming pregnant, along with those who just plain don't want children, among many other categories of irrelevant people. This is precisely my point. Newimpartial (talk) 17:08, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

But why are you concerned taht it isn't precise? A statement "Only those in set A can do Y" is valid even if set A contains some members (or even a lot of members) who can't do Y. All it is saying is that those who aren't in set A definitely cannot do Y. Consider: "Elephant gestation is 22 months, compared to 9 months in humans" is factualy just fine, and nobody is complaining about half those humans having the wrong sex to gestate at all, never mind the odd hysterectomy. If you have issues with the term "female biology" perhaps that's worth discussing at the section below on "Assigned female at birth". -- Colin°^Talk 07:56, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

As far as the second point goes, I am trusting that "anatomy of a female" constructions are unlikely to gain traction, since the sources don't use them.

On your first point, I am objecting to misleading "pseudo-precision". Shifting the label from "humans" to "humans with the internal anatomy of..." is clearly intended to specify who can become pregnant, but it doesn't actually do that, and what is more it carries a lot more ideological baggage than simply "humans". "Gestation in humans" is clear, because "human" is a quality of these pregnancies and differentiates them from elephant gestation. "Gestation in humans with female internal anatomy" would not add any clarity, and would still reference a population half of whom cannot possibly become pregnant at their current life stage (and the vast majority of that subset will never become pregnant in future).

On the other hand, there are times where specification may be required. In discussing pregnancy and employment, the possibility of pregnancy within a group may itself be relevant for policy purposes - but this is an instance where we should be deferring to sources, as the language they use may cause or document real, practical effects. And even then, in describing policies or outcomes once pregnancy occurs, I think the reasons to use "people who become pregnant", rather than "people with the internal anatomy of a female who become pregnant", are fairly obvious. Newimpartial (talk) 11:39, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

Well WAID didn't say "people with the internal anatomy of a female who become pregnant". Their point was that the word "pregnant females" in the sentence "One in 15,000 pregnant females die as a result of childbirth" is redundant to the statistical claim, and therefore whether to include it or not is a matter of style. Just as I showed elsewhere that the word "women" could be added to about 9 extra sentences in the lead of pregnancy, but would be redundant and tediously repetitive. There may be cases where a particular sentence wants to make a subtle point by including redundant "women" or "pregnant females", but it is hard to determine those looking at just one sentence. For example, there are some here who feel that although we could remove "women" from virtually all the sentences in the lead, including the lead sentence, without making any of those sentences incorrect or misleading, they feel it important to have that word somewhere in the lead, and in the first sentence. Their desire for that word is unrelated to the accuracy of those sentences, unrelated to concerns about WP:V or WP:OR, and I think their feelings about its importance is equally as important to respect as the feelings trans people have about being excluded by the current article. Wikipedia isn't very good at dealing with emotive things like this, and our academic sources certainly aren't. But attempting, as Crossroads has many times, to argue there are actually hard rules that mean words can't be removed or changed is frustrating because it is very easy to demonstrate this is not true, and very obvious the "rules" are only being applied to suit one's views. -- Colin°^Talk 09:12, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Well, Colin, there isn't anything in this passage with which I disagree. Aside from the narrow points I was making above, I suppose the broader points I would make are that (1) introducing the plural noun, "females", which is something of a neologism as applied to humans, almost never makes any text better - partly because it doesn't actually specify anatomy vs. gender; and (2) that settling on a traditional binary of "men/male people" and "women/female people" doesn't always help writers and readers to focus on the actual group under discussion. "Participants in Women's Olympic events", for example, is now a rather complex category with respect to both sex and gender, and the most accurate phrase to describe them is probably just "participants in women's Olympic events", at least for the 2020 Olympics (and forwards, presumably). Newimpartial (talk) 10:52, 30 April 2022 (UTC)

Webster's tells me that the word, used as a noun to mean "an individual of the sex that is typically capable of bearing young or producing eggs" comes from the 14th century and the origin of the word is the Latin for Woman. It seems I think most unlikely that "females" as a plural noun to refer to women is a "neologism", and the impression that the word is more appropriate for describing animals vs humans is likely rather one of fashion. But I agree that both "females" and "women" are mixed with biological and social meanings, and that both dictionary definitions mention gender identity (i.e. a woman is a person with a female gender identity). So it doesn't help us out of the hole that there is no convenient word that solely means "those equipped to make a baby". I think your argument about "female anatomy" got horribly confused when you talked about "concrete possibility" and AFAB. Try to remember, though, we are having a conversation, not writing a legal or article text, and arguing about faults in any word someone might use, isn't necessarily productive, I don't think WAID was using that language as proposed article text, merely as a quick way of saying kind of "those with the anatomy we associate with the female sex".

What the Olympics call their contestant categories is probably best left up to them and to the contestants and their countries. In much the same way I argued elsewhere that if a sports team describe their team as womxn then we should respect that. I think, though, arguing about sex and gender in sports is a whole other minefield that isn't (IMO) the focus of WAID's sandbox. -- Colin°^Talk 07:29, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

OK, but my point was pretty much that a quick way of saying kind of "those with the anatomy we associate with the female sex" doesn't exist for some contexts, in any practical sense. Meanwhile, I gave the Olympic categories as an example of a place where any unsourced paraphrase for the category is probably counterproductive, because the actual categories themselves are complexly constructed.

And I'm sure my "neologism" point wasn't expressed well, but the attempt to use "females" for humans as an attempt to designate sex rather than gender is what I understand to be a neologism. Newimpartial (talk) 11:08, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't think "neologism" is a helpful criticism, as the need to find a way to separate sex and gender in language is less than a lifetime old. The question for us is whether it works.. is it any better than saying women? It isn't clear to me that it is. -- Colin°^Talk 13:00, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, I'm not going to defend the label "neologism" except to say that, for me, it evokes one of the problems with using "females" for humans. But the underlying fact here is that "female", for humans, is not widely enough understood as a term for "sex, not gender" that it could be used that way in article space uncontroversially and without explanation, especially as a replacement for terms used in sources. Like anything else, of course, it can be used with sourced explanations when neutrality can be achieved in doing so. (The same is true for "women", "people" and other terms.) Newimpartial (talk) 13:39, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Why does that feel new to you? Consider books such as Practical Hints to Young Females, on the Duties of a Wife, a Mother, and a Mistress of a Family from 1815, The Diseases of Females: Including Those of Pregnancy and Childbed from 1847, On the diseases peculiar to females from 1845, or A Treatise on the diseases of females from 1854. This was normal language back in the day.

Now, it's true that the sex–gender distinction itself is an idea invented within living memory, and therefore we could claim that the idea that the biology can be separated from the social is "new", but that doesn't really change the fact that people have been talking about "females" in the plural for centuries. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:35, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Are you under the impression that any of the nineteenth-century sources you just cited might be making a distinction between sex and gender, and using "females" in reference to sex to the exclusion of gender? That seems like an anachronistic (and EXTRAORDINARY) claim. As I said previously, the attempt to use "females" for humans as an attempt to designate sex rather than gender is what I understand to be a neologism (emphasis not even added - it was there already). Newimpartial (talk) 16:44, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

Any attempt to talk about biology ("sex") being severable from the social ("gender") is (sort of) new (being, depending on which milestone you count from, somewhere between 50 and 65 years old). That doesn't make the words new ("neologism"), and it doesn't make the use of females to refer to a particular group of people new.

I should add: Not only is the sex–gender distinction just half a century old, the idea of the sex–gender distinction is not universally accepted. Whether you/your culture "believes in" this distinction is primarily a philosophical or religious point. Just like some religions say that the body and soul are separate, and others (e.g., atheists and materialists) say they're part and parcel of the same thing, cultures can and do have different ideas. That's okay. We're not asking people to change their beliefs.

However, I really doubt that any educated reader, including people who do not "believe in" this distinction, would be significantly confused by the word females being used to describe a group of people with a particular biological situation. It is not unusual, and it is not wrong. The "we speak here purely of biology" connotations might not be known to everyone, but if/when (rarely?) that is necessary to clarify, that can be explained explicitly. In other situations, it is still intelligible. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:58, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

What is semantically ambiguous, and IMO likely to confuse readers, is to use "females" as though it refers unambiguously to sex rather than gender. You are perfectly right that English speakers have referred to "females" and "female persons" for hundreds of years without distinguishing sex from gender - sometimes the reference would be biological, sometimes social, and most often the references would not give a clear sense that one or the other was meant. All that is fine, and expected, for historical sources; when we want to be ambiguous about sex vs. gender within article space, using "female" or "females" is one way to do so.

What we can't do without appropriate sourcing is to use "female" or "females" to refer to human beings and assume that we speak here purely of biology. That isn't a consistent connotation in any ENGVAR of which I am aware, and - for reasons I believe I have already set out - I don't think editors or readers benefit from the pretense that this is the generally understood signification of these words, in the context of human beings. And some of the ways that have been proposed to give additional precision, such as your "people with the internal anatomy of a female, do (I think) more harm than good through misplaced specification. Newimpartial (talk) 17:55, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

We could choose to adopt that distinction as our house style. I'm not proposing or recommending it, but we could choose to do so. It seems like something that would be easy to implement in >90% of sentences in medical articles. The rest would take more effort; a very small proportion of sentences might be impossible to force into such a style.

I'm not sure which problem you're trying to solve. Your objection seems to be that people will get the facts (oh, that's the group of people who can get pregnant) but not get the underlying connotations ("The English Wikipedia supports the cultural belief that sex and gender are separate and that gender identity is more important than biology or other aspects of gender, so when you see 'female' in an article, except for direct quotations and source titles, it means 'humans whose phenotype is typical for a postpubescent genetically XX human bodies' and when you see 'women' it means 'humans with a self-labeled gender identity of women', except for when I define these terms in other ways, which I will do from time to time, especially when talking about gender roles and gender expression"). What actual difference does it make if people don't get, or don't agree on, all the connotations? People miss subtle connotations All. The. Time. It might be nice if they all recognized all the subtle meanings behind our brilliant prose, or grasped why I choose this word instead of that very similar but slightly different word, but it is not actually necessary that they understand it. What's necessary is that they understand the basic meanings. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:04, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

While I don't oppose house styles in principle, I do oppose adopting that particular distinction as a house style. For one thing, the boundaries between medical and non-medical articles are essentially non-existent (the boundaries are often within, not between articles), and adopting this "house style" for the discussion of non-medical, non-biological topics would be entirely inappropriate IMO.

As far as your second paragraph goes, I don't share your understanding of basic meanings and their relevance. At a minimum, there are some situations where a "basic meaning" would suffice and other situations where more precision is required, so a house style that was adequate only in situations where "basic meanings" suffice would not strike me as especially useful. What I take to be the best practice, on the issues we are talking about, is to describe more rather than less precisely which groups are at risk or are the targets of certain medical information. And when we are choosing among less precise alternative terms based on their "basic meanings", I think we need reasons better than the first-editor principle to choose between them. Newimpartial (talk) 19:19, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

• Can you give an example of a non-medical, non-biological topic that this language question would be relevant to?
• Right now, we use our existing house style (i.e., the word women gets used to mean at least four different things [biology, gender identity, gender role, and assigned/perceived gender]), normally with no explanation about which one is relevant. If we adopted the approach of using females to refer to biology ("females may develop uterine cancer") and women to refer to everything else ("women usually spend more time caring for newborn babies, especially if they're breastfeeding"), then that seems to me that it would provide – albeit subtly – slightly more precision in the articles than the current approach. Do you think that those two example sentences require more precision? Are the basic meanings inadequate in such sentences?

WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:41, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Surely, though, for a house style to work in an occasionally and randomly consulted publication like Wikipedia, it has to have some concordance with styles used in other publication the reader may be familiar with. I'm not sure we have come across any academic or lay publications that have adopted an approach that requires or assumes the readers interpret "females" as "biological" and "women" as "everything else". This word, when used as a noun to refer to humans typically genetically XX or whatever, does have a dehumanising effect. It is more like the language used by academics writing about any animals, since we don't talk (as grown ups) about a lady cat, mummy dog or women elephants. Perhaps its that dehumanising and thus sterilely biological implication that makes you think it it refers more to biological sex than gender. But we also use the words male and female when talking about gender and gender identity. See the E&W Census question earlier (Is the gender you identify with the same as your sex registered at birth?). -- Colin°^Talk 10:00, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

WAID, I have already given one answer to the first question - the Olympic games. Demographic studies would be another answer (demography being something of a go-to answer for me in general).

As far as your second paragraph goes, I like Colin's answer. One thing I would add - in line with my previous comments is that I regard providing additional "subtle" precision has the very real potential to overspecify and thereby mislead the reader. For example, if WP were to take this approach for medical but not non-medical articles there would be a tendency for readers who start to grasp this "subtle distinction" to then trip over (and subsequently object to) the use of "female" for gender on other topics, or to assume that "female" refers to "sex" in passages where the sources and WP intended to be ambiguous. This disadvantage, for me, heavily outweighs any "subtle" advantages. Newimpartial (talk) 11:18, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

So you believe that currently:

• women and females are both currently used in Wikipedia articles to mean the same (multiple) things, and
• readers currently have no way to know (except glorking from context) which of the multiple meanings is the relevant one.

But if we start using females to refer specifically to biology in any articles, then you believe:

• eventually, some (probably small fraction of) readers will glork from context that the word females has a higher chance of referring to biology than the other meanings that it is currently being used for, and
• then these (probably small number of) readers might then be confused when the word is used in other contexts.

Do I understand this correctly? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:24, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

Almost, WAID. What is missing is something like "without explanation and support from references". I believe that if we start using females to refer specifically to biology without explanation and support from references in any articles, then something like what you describe will happen. I also disagree with your qualifier (probably small fraction of), and I wouldn't use the more passive be confused but rather the more active be misled. I believe we would be actively misleading these readers both in the medical passages themselves (remember, I do not hold the boundary between "medical" and "non-medical" topics to exist at the article level) and also when the same readers confront non-medical passages.

Also, as a piece of anecdata (anecdatum?), I have to date encountered more readers being misled by the assumption that "female" probably refers to biology, in passages where it does not, than readers erroneously concluding that "female" does not refer to biology in instances when it actually does. Newimpartial (talk) 19:04, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

I'd like to know more about what you mean by "explanation" in your phrase "without explanation and support from references". Are you looking for explanation in the sources, or editor-written explanation in the Wikipedia article (e.g., "This article uses the word female to refer to...")?

"Support from references" is pretty simple; there are effectively no major medical topics (e.g., pregnancy, breast cancer, ) for which we can't find sources that use the word female. So that takes us into the pattern that we described months ago:

• Bob has a preferred word.
• Alice uses The Wrong Word in an article.
• Bob says the cited source doesn't use The Wrong Word, so The Wrong Word must be removed and Bob's preferred word must be used.
• Alice replaces the cited source with one that uses The Wrong Word.
• Bob says that it doesn't matter if the cited source uses The Wrong Word, because it's only one source, and other sources use Bob's preferred word.
• Alice cites multiple sources that use The Wrong Word for this sentence.
• Bob says that it doesn't matter if multiple cited sources use The Wrong Word, because the article needs to be consistent, and the other sources in the article use Bob's preferred word. Therefore, the sentence must use Bob's preferred word even though the cited sources in that sentence do not use Bob's preferred word, which was the standard Bob promoted in step 3.
• Alice changes all the sources in the article to sources that use The Wrong Word.
• Bob complains that Alice is cherry-picking sources to push a POV ('cause Bob isn't, you know!), and that none of the sources cited anywhere in the article matter (even though Bob claimed in step 7 that this was the relevant rule), because the article needs to follow sources that aren't cited anywhere in the article, to match the real world (not to mention Bob's own preferences).

Your experience suggests that readers already expect female to refer to biology. In that case, we should probably minimize the use of female to refer to non-biological content. (NB "minimize female for non-biological content" does not mean "maximize female for biological content".) WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:35, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, that helps clarify things - your recommendation here, we should probably minimize the use of female to refer to non-biological content, strikes me as precisely the opposite of what core policy WP:NPOV calls for us to do. What we have in sources for non-biological content is a broad group of authors from varied perspectives using the term "female" to refer to biological or social or gender identity phenomena depending on the context, and then we have a much narrower constellation of POV, generally Culture war authors who insist that "female" in the context of human beings designates biology and nothing else. In this situation, we fail NPOV if we adopt the latter convention.

I thought I had previously specified clearly enough what I meant by "support from references", but to further clarify, I continue to see two scenarios as satisfactory: (i) we use references that employ the same language we do in the relevant passage, and cite those references; or (ii) we use references whose terms are different from those cited in the article text AND we also cite references offering reasons to use the terms in the article text rather than those in the substantive references.

Always in the latter case, and sometimes in the former case (particularly where nuances of terminology are at issue), we should explain the terminology (in the article text, or in a footnotes reference bundle, as appropriate), which is what I meant by "explanation". And just to be clear, the scope of the relevant explanation isn't "X source uses term Y", but rather "X source uses Y term to mean Z", or "While X source uses term Y, the article text uses term A because quality source B says that A is a more appropriate term for population Z than is term Y, in the present context".

Note also that I still do not agree that we can simply assume the article level to be the relevant unit of analysis for these decisions. For a crude example, if we have a topic with two fairly distinct literatures, one medical and one humanistic, and the humanistic literature uniformly uses "female" for a social identity and the medical literature uses "female" only for biology, I don't think the only course is to make an arbitrary decision at the outset to use "female" always in the same sense, whether one or the other. Additional options worth considering would include not using "female" at all (insisting on synonyms in both parts of the article), always accompanying "female" with a specifier or in a phrase (e.g. "AFAB", "socially female", or "female gender identity"), or describing what a group of authors are talking about when introducing their work as an article section. I am not implying that one of these choices is better or worse than another (including just picking one meqning and sticking to it through the article), but while consistency of language at the article is desirable, it is only one of the aims guiding such decisions about terminology, IMO.

Another issue that arises outside of this potted example is that a very frequent occurrence, both inside and outside medical literature is the use of "female" without specifying whether biological or social referents are meant, (or, less often, with explicit reference to the combination of the two). The degree of OR that would be required to impose a distinction between female biology and female gender, in order to apply a "house style" that required editors to use differing terms in article space based on that imposed distinction, strikes me as likely to escalate he terminology brush fires to a whole new level of conflagration. Newimpartial (talk) 17:28, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

1. Your problem statement:  "readers being misled by the assumption that "female" probably refers to biology, in passages where it does not".  My proposed solution:  Avoid using language that is so easily confused for a biology-only term, when biology is not the relevant concept.  Your apparent proposal:  Um, let the readers keep being confused, so we can stick it to the culture war combatants?  But then you suggest considering the option of not using "female" at all, which goes well beyond my suggestion of avoiding it only in those circumstances that are already producing confusion.  I suspect I missed something important in your response; please feel free to clarify it.
2. What does "(ii) we use references whose terms are different from those cited in the article text AND we also cite references offering reasons to use the terms in the article text rather than those in the substantive references" look like in practice?  Does that mean that if we cite an older/pre-transition source about a trans person, that we use the correct (i.e., most recent) pronouns, but also add a source to the end of the sentence to prove that we've got the pronouns right?  Perhaps we would write "Jenner won her first athletic competition", followed by a source for the win plus another source for her transition announcement?  For a paragraph about a medical subject, would we write "Pregnant women may experience morning sickness", followed by a source that says something about morning sickness, plus a note that says "The cited source uses the word women, so the Wikipedia article is copying their language, but the source does not explicitly state whether the author meant women in a biological or in a non-biological sense, assuming you even agree that there could be a difference between the two".  The next sentence would perhaps say "Morning sickness can cause women to miss work, and can even be severe enough to result in hospitalization due to malnutrition and dehydration", and perhaps its footnote would say "The cited source uses the word patients, but we are using the word women for consistency with the rest of the paragraph"?  I think that's basically a bad idea.  I hope that wasn't what you were recommending. I would be interested in seeing what you would realistically do.
3. I don't think that it's a violation of NOR to write in our own words, including choosing to use one word to indicate biology and to not use that word when biology is not the dominant factor. I freely grant that the idea that gender and biology are severable is a philosophical view that is not universally shared, and also that some people believe that gender identity is purely or primarily a matter of biology, which would impose the same type of distinction, but with the line drawn in a different place. These people would count MTF trans women as "biological females" but say that "women provide more direct childcare" is a statement about non-biological content. If we made that choice, we would be choosing to impose that distinction (and to impose it with the line drawn in an agreed-upon, specified place).  It would also be a significant style shift away from the popular person-centered style of writing about medical conditions (which prefers using women instead of females in nearly all instances). Doing so might be a bad idea, but – back to the point – I do not agree that it would be a violation of NOR.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:20, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

1. What part of we should explain the terminology (in the article text, or in a footnotes reference bundle, as appropriate) is not clear to you? To paraphrase my position as, Um, let the readers keep being confused is a pretty ugly straw goat; I would have expected better of you WAID, TBH.

2. I am offering a statement about the use of "gender and sex" terminology in medical and non-medical articles; I am certainly *not* proposing to alter MOS:GENDERID, which governs how we refer to people in biographies and which covers your example here. But you know what? We do almost exactly what you are proposing under GENDERID - we use the most recent pronouns, and if there is any likelihood of ASTONISHment we also note the transition (typically in a footnote, and sometimes with a source - especially in articles that are not the main BLP article). But regardless of any parallels, I am not setting this out as a paradigm; I think the similarity of appearance arises because we are trying to write text that readers can understand, and which will still make sense if they examine the sources.

3. I was actually quite careful when I raised the issue of OR. I was not suggesting that all paraphrase is OR, or even that all paraphrase that employs internally-consistent terminology different from the source text is OR. What I said would require OR is to impose a distinction between female biology and female gender in texts that do not specify whether biological or social referents are meant, which is a prerequisite of the approach you had suggested above (to restrict "female" to biological content), as far as I can tell. Newimpartial (talk) 03:48, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

1. For the first point, I am curious about your claim that using female in biological contexts, and not using it in non-biological contexts, for the purpose of providing clarity to the readers that you state are being confused, is somehow a violation of NPOV. That paragraph (which perhaps I shouldn't have taken in isolation) sounds very much like you were advocating that it is better for readers to be confused than for us to write clearly, if writing clearly involves using one word to mean (mostly) one thing and a different word to mean (mostly) different things.
   It even feels to me like it is the opposite of NPOV – like the goal is to push the non-biological definition of female in articles, even though, and perhaps because, (according to you) part of the English speaking is moving in the opposite direction. I'm old enough to remember when the word gay still referred to happiness instead of sexual orientation (cue soundtrack to I Feel Pretty); it seems that I am living through another linguistic change, in which female stops meaning all of a woman and starts meaning the physical body of a young woman, divorced from the non-biological parts of her "self". It feels to me like you want to use Wikipedia to resist this real-world change.
2. I would still like to have an example of how you think this would work in practice. Assume that you are writing a paragraph with multiple sources, which use different words (e.g., patients vs women) but very clearly refer to the same group of people. What would you write?
   Related to that: Is this actually necessary? Imagine that we write "pregnant women" and the cited source talks about "pregnant patients". Do we really believe that the rare reader who clicks through to the source will think that doesn't make any sense? This feels like a simple variation on Alice and Bob's argument above. "The cited source says My Preferred Word, and you wrote The Wrong Word. This House Believes that there are readers who will be smart enough to read the cited sources but too stupid to figure out that the article and the source are talking about the same thing."
3. It's possible that there could be OR problems in a few specific cases, but I think that will only rarely be a practical problem for biomedical information. In those rare occasions, the problem can be addressed by re-wording the sentence or by drawing on other sources. So far, I don't think that we have found any sources that could be used in articles for biomedical information and for which editors are genuinely uncertain about whether a physical or non-physical process is being described, and for which there is a material difference (e.g., the number of affected trans people is so high that it's much more than a rounding error). I'd be happy to see a specific example of a sentence and its corresponding reliable source(s), if you have non-hypothetical concerns about this.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:38, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

1. I feel as though I have enough experience by now to tell the difference between a generational shift in language use and the weaponization of language on behalf of POV. Of course, actual cases may combine the two: a long generation ago, female bodies as a phrase seemed fairly unproblematic, and did not require those using it or hearing it to make decisions about sex vs. gender. Now, that phrase has been substantially weaponized, where (often, not always) people use it purposely *either* to mean sex *or* to mean gender (bodies of people with female gender identities). For Wikipedia to choose one or the other as a matter of house style would not offer actual clarity to readers or avoid the culture wars conflict, but would rather mean taking a side in it, in a way that would violate WP:NPOV. By contrast, contextual usage decisions based on sources can achieve both clarity for readers and NPOV, I believe.

2. No, I don't think we currently footnote changes away from "patients", necessarily, nor do we need to. And my own view is that we would never need to footnote a change towards "people" unless there were doubt, for some reason, whether or not we were talking about human beings. But if we have some literature using "female" or "females" but not "women", and other literature using "women" but not "female" or "females" , I think our tasks should be (1) read the sources carefully to identify where they describe their actual populations of interest, (2) make an editorial decision based on the intended population and the place of the cited claim in our article, taking into accout the sources, and (3) if the ediorial decision is made in part based on an implicit claim about generalizability between populations, find a source for and footnote the claim. Likewise, if the editorial choice is based on a higher-order preference of the kind, "X term is more appropriate for discussing Y population in context Z", find a source for and footnote that claim. I think these practices reflect normal caution in sensitive and medical topics, and I don't see any of the weirdness you seem to imply with your Do you really believe ... It feels like comments above.

3. An area where I have non-hypothetical concerns about the language to be used in a topic where both MEDRS and non-medical sources are cited is that of Intimate Partner Violence, where much of the literature does not (and arguably cannot without great difficulty) separate "biological" from social factors, and where the language used in the studies themselves certainly does not admit to the assumptions of the style that you, WAID, have recommended. To be clear, the issues arise not primarily in relation to gender identity but concern social gender and gender socialization - but I don't think that makes a difference to the issues at hand, because I can't see any rationale to force a formulation of the distinction between sex and gender identity onto sources that treat these issues in other ways, any more than it makes sense to impose a parallel OR distinction between sex and gender socialization where sources are not making *that* distinction (nor, for that matter, would it be appropriate either to equate or to impose an OR distinction between gender identity and gender socialization/gender roles, IMO - our job is to follow the sources, not to lead them). Newimpartial (talk) 11:11, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I think there is a difference between using "female" or "male" as an adjective and using it as a noun (often plural). Does this grammatical usage, where one takes an attribute and uses it to indicate a thing or person, have a name? It has the effect of concentrating on this one attribute as though that is the only and vital thing. And not everyone wants to be reduced to just a sex or a gender. I think it would suffer "dehumanising" complaints, since it may not be obvious in any isolated sentence, whether you are referring to female people or female rabbits, say. It is a subtle thing, so you are likely to get away with at times, but probably not as a general substitution for "women" whenever you are talking about human sex in biology or health.

I'm just struggling to see how using female is any firm help in saying "I'm talking about biological sex here" any more than Crossroads earlier argued that woman = adult female and since this is a biological article (apparently) then the reader should assume we mean biology. I look at Gender inequality and see "male" and "female" and "males" and "females" used when talking about biological sex or about society gender roles. For a start, if you need to talk about people's professions, then tagging on "women" or "men" or "lady" is ridiculous (the Guardian style guide makes it clear that "woman" is a noun, not to be used as an adjective). So we need to sale "female politicians" or "male college graduates", and here we are surely talking gender, not sex assigned at birth.

WhatamIdoing, I think you'd need to point to guidelines and in-practice usage of this distinction in order to sell it to the community. I'm just not seeing any indication in publications that this has been an effective communication strategy. -- Colin°^Talk 14:20, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm a GP, a medical doctor who routinely deals with pregnant women and who has worked fairly intensively in obstetrics in an English-speaking country. I have good French and German and decent Spanish, I have a good understanding of grammatical gender vs sex. I strongly disagree with most of what Newimpartial has to say. I am lucky enough to have plenty of paid work and so have no good incentive to spend energy here arguing here with Newimpartial nor with anyone else. I don't intend to argue this further, though if there is some mechanism to demonstrate that relevantly-educated professionals find some internal-Wikimedia decision not congruent with general societal perspectives nor with those of the relevant professionals, I would be happy to engage with that. My CV, including my email address is here: https://www.parhasard.net/work/aidan-kehoe-cv-en-20220212.pdf . My Irish Medical Council registration number is 406484, this can be verified here: https://www.medicalcouncil.ie/ Every good wish, Aidan Kehoe (talk) 20:02, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

If you could explain how either of these edits is related to "grammatical gender", I'm sure that would be appreciated. Newimpartial (talk) 20:14, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I believe you will find your answer at Grammatical gender#Natural gender. Strictly speaking, the word mädchen in German has a grammatical gender of neuter and a natural gender of feminine. Similarly, in modern English, the word woman has (sensu strictissimo) no grammatical gender but it does have a natural gender. English is not, as he wrote in the edit summary, at the point of having no gender at all in its words. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:34, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for recognizing the distinction between natural gender and grammatical gender. However, the existence of natural gender in English is not a relevant justification for this edit - or, for that matter, for any other edit I can think of outside of articles about grammar. Newimpartial (talk) 20:38, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

I think the only edits that could be justified to that section were removing information about what happened in the 1960s (which is what happened in the end), or maybe re-writing it to say something clearly historical, like "In the middle of the 20th century, obstetricians preferred this drug to the other alternatives available at the time". I think that mini edit war had a trees and forest problem. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:48, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

Welcome to the English Wikipedia, @Aidan Kehoe. You might be able to find some friends at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine. I'm afraid that this discussion won't show Wikipedia off at our kindest and most helpful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:27, 20 April 2022 (UTC)

"Sex Assigned at Birth" - Columbia Law Review (forthcoming), Jessica A. Clarke

This forthconing article and others by this same author might be interesting for you lot. Haven't finished reading it yet myself. Apologies if this has already been noticed - this page is rather large...  Tewdar  18:56, 24 April 2022 (UTC)

The language of maternity is alive and well – so why not expand it to include trans parents?

The language of maternity is alive and well – so why not expand it to include trans parents? by Rhiannon Lucy Cosslett. It seems The Guardian isn't entirely gender critical, after all. -- Colin°^Talk 20:30, 5 May 2022 (UTC)

There has been a letter in response, concerning the disadvantages of 'inclusive' language. [34] Sweet6970 (talk) 09:50, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

It's by one of the authors of the Frontiers paper, so doesn't say anything new and trots out the same tired examples. The author concludes with "Thoughtful, careful discussion and consideration on this subject is needed." yet their article is careless:

• "For example, when “women” is replaced with “people with a cervix”, this aids misunderstanding, particularly for those with low literacy or learning difficulties, or who are non-English speakers." aside from the awkward "aids misunderstanding", I think "non-English speakers" would have problems with anything one wrote in English. I presume they meant those without English as a first language.
• "Communicating statistics when language is desexed is fraught, as the NHS discovered when it wrote about how “8 in 10 people” will get pregnant after having unprotected sex" Except that's not what the NHS wrote. They wrote: "8 in 10 people under 40 years old will get pregnant within 1 year of trying by having regular sexual intercourse without using contraception." which limits those "people" to those "trying" to "get pregnant". Their male partners are not trying to get pregnant. The current NHS site says "If you are under 40 and have regular sex without using contraception, there is an 8 in 10 chance you will get pregnant within 1 year.", which on its own is actually worse, since a male reader could interpret this as applying to them. But then if you read it in context of the article title "Trying to get pregnant" and the preceding sentence "You’re more likely to get pregnant around the time you are ovulating. This is when an egg becomes ready and you are at your most fertile." And also remember the NHS is written second person, so it assumes the reader is reading something relevant to their own body (e.g. Cervical cancer symptoms).

It all feels a bit desperate, like the author is looking a bit too hard for problems. -- Colin°^Talk 11:07, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

This specific example is actually a good illustration of some of the issues from the previous section. It seems to me that the concretely relevant group here is those who are, or might be, ovulating and the question at issue is how to describe or address that group. Newimpartial (talk) 11:18, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

The original Guardian story was about the author's own experience, of midwife Leah Hazard and that of Freddy McConnell. Both the midwife and McConnell's comments reinforce that individuals are more likely to get appropriate language directed at them by respectful professionals but this is less likely to happen in publications aimed at a general audience. McConnell is notable for failing to be registered as the "father" on the birth certificate, though the professionals dealing with his second birth are happy to call him "dad". The midwife notes:

“If you’re in bed one and you want to talk about breastfeeding, I will talk to you about breastfeeding,” says Hazard. “And if Charlie is in bed two and is a trans man and wants to talk about chestfeeding or body feeding, what skin off my nose, really, is it to talk to Charlie about chestfeeding? None whatsoever … But it just means that I continue to provide that individualised person-centred care that I’m actually duty bound by the regulator to provide.”

In contrast, editors attempting to add "chestfeeding", for example, to our articles, are told this language is not acceptable, that they are being a bit dim since all people have breasts. The Breastfeeding article does not mention "chestfeeding", even in the sentence on trans people who have had top surgery, which cites a BMJ article Transmasculine individuals’ experiences with lactation, chestfeeding, and gender identity: a qualitative study.

It seems it is easier to show empathy and respect when you have a living person in front of you, than when dealing with a username on the internet. -- Colin°^Talk 11:22, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

I think the point is really that when you have a living person in front of you, you can tailor your language to that person, but on Wikipedia we are trying to address anyone who may read the article. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:46, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

I think that is only half the point and one reason we find it difficult to come up with language that all parties are happy with. But many of the arguments against some of the trans inclusive language options are not that they only satisfy a minority group. Instead we are told that they are unnecessary, wrongheaded, dehumanising, desexing or ridiculous. But the midwife doesn't lecture the trans man "Don't be daft, all people have breasts, get over yourself"; the doctor performing that emergency caesarean doesn't go "If you are going to insist on being 'dad' then you can go find yourself some lefty woke snowflake obstetrician in a swanky private hospital. In this hospital, if you are having the baby then you are 'mum'"; the nurse doing their rounds doesn't entirely ignore you, as our article on pregnancy does. Yet on MOS discussions, editors think it is their place to explain why others are not just wrong but also stupid about the language they use to refer to themselves and people like themselves, or about their bodies. I think that's possible because the internet disables our empathy and permits us to be rude to strangers. -- Colin°^Talk 18:52, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

A more subtle form of this, which may perhaps be construed with more charity, is that some editors have difficulty imagining that the diverse readership of those Wikipedia's articles is as relevant to how they should be edited as is some normative category of reader they can more easily imagine reading a given article. Newimpartial (talk) 18:57, 8 May 2022 (UTC)

To Colin: As regards ‘dehumanising language’ - I would certainly feel that I was being dehumanised if I was referred to as a ‘person with a cervix’. This is akin to the attitude of the Taliban demanding that women cover their faces, because the face is the expression of personhood, and to the Taliban women are not persons, we are just our reproductive equipment.

To Newimpartial: Regarding ‘diversity’ – I am not aware of any statistics on this subject, but I would guess that a significant minority of our readers do not have English as their first language, so they would find our articles easier to understand if we just referred to ‘women’ etc.

Sweet6970 (talk) 11:32, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Sweet6970, the "body parts" approach has been discussed to death already. IIRC we have not found any publications that use it seriously as the sole way of identifying subjects nor any style guides recommending it. There are a few sites dealing with trans specific issues where it is appropriate to be extra explicit about which retained body parts might still get cancer. WAID earlier suggested that an article stating "Anyone with a prostate can develop prostate cancer; however, it is most common among older men" would be likely very acceptable. Whereas the lead of pregnancy is unlikely to ever mention "in people with a uterus". It is as far as I'm concerned a disruptive digressive argument mentioned only by opponents of trans inclusivity. Outside of some IP edits and the occasional misguided tweet, this is a strawman.

The English as first language issue has also been discussed to death. There are lots of terms that are "easier to understand" but also offensive or problematic. We don't regress to using them just because they are easier to write or read. Maternity hospitals have got used to not assuming the "birthing partner" is the dad, or even male. Would you argue that people without English as their first language find "birthing partner" more difficult to understand than "dad" therefore Wikipedia should assume all such partners are male and the biological father of the child? Or how about "non-white" in population statistics? Easy to understand, but irredeemably white-normative. The "easier to understand" argument is fine "all things being equal" but they aren't equal. Funny also how language conservatives avoid certain arguments when it doesn't suit their case: "committed suicide" is archaic legalese, compared to "killed themselves", and yet those who express profound concern for our readers without English as a first language do so only when miraculously by chance it aligns with their prejudice. -- Colin°^Talk 13:27, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Sweet6970: thanks for your illustration of the phenomenon I described, that some editors have difficulty imagining that the diverse readership of those Wikipedia's articles is as relevant to how they should be edited as is some normative category of reader they can more easily imagine reading a given article. I doubt I could have come up with a better illustration if I tried. You seem easily able to imagine ESL readers encountering articles on this topic, but you cannot as easily hold in mind the family, friends, and service providers of trans people doing so - or for that matter, people looking into these topics on Wikipedia who may be involved in policy decisions regarding health care for trans people. You have a specific sense of one group of readers, but don't seem able to imagine these others. Newimpartial (talk) 13:42, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I would also like to point out to Sweet6970 that comparing proposals (real or strawman) to "the Taliban" is unlikely to be productive and just a variant of Godwin's law. -- Colin°^Talk 14:27, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

To Colin: You seem to be responding to views expressed by other people, and not to what I have said. For instance, I have never expressed any view on ‘committed suicide’ versus ‘killed themselves’.

Regarding body parts and prostates: I find WAID’s suggestion perfectly acceptable – and rather skilfully done.

You were the one who mentioned dehumanising language, and I told you what makes me feel dehumanised.

In reply to your query about ‘birthing partner’ – my native language is English, and my initial guess about the meaning of ‘birthing partner’ was that it refers to a midwife [sorry, I don’t know any term for a male midwife]. I would not use the word ‘dad’ if speaking to people who do not have English as a first language, because I think that ‘father’ is better known. (In fact, I wouldn’t ever use the word ‘dad’ to mean ‘father’ because I find it patronising. But that is my personal taste. ) So I would argue that Wikipedia should not use the expression ‘birthing partner’ because it is too obscure – for heaven’s sake, just use the word ‘partner’!

Regarding ‘non-white’ – in population statistics I would want any such term to be defined. ‘Non-white’ sounds too broad and uncertain to be useful. At one time BAME was often used, but there have been objections to this, on the grounds that it lumps dissimilar people together. But if you are intending to use the figures to investigate the effects of racism, you are bound to make some sort of division along those lines.

To Newimpartial: Catering for diversity in our readership includes catering for people who do not have English as their first language. They should not be ignored.

Sweet6970 (talk) 16:59, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

I completely agree that editors should never ignore our EFL readership as we edit article text. However, this is not Simple English Wikipedia, and one of the services we offer to our readers is to provide appropriate scaffolding for the ways English is actually used. So in biographies where the subject's preferred pronoun is the singular they, we use "they" and typically include a footnote and a link to singular they. Where "assigned male at birth" is the relevant, sourced term, we do not avoid it but we link to sex assignment. I dare say we meet the needs of readers with the full range of first languages more effectively using our present strategies than if we tried to avoid each term we thought some such readers might not understand. Newimpartial (talk) 17:48, 9 May 2022 (UTC)

Sweet6970, yes the "commit suicide" comment is a general one about MOS discussions where participants cherry pick which arguments to use based, it seems, entirely on whether they support their prejudice, rather than on their merits. The clearest examples are whether experts are dismissed or cited, depending on whether one agrees with the experts, source wording preserved or ignored depending on whether one's style aligns with older academic sources, and EFL issues prioritised or dismissed depending on whether one's preferred language appears to be simple.

I didn't ask you what makes you feel dehumanised. All sorts of things might, including imaginary Wikipedia pages that consistently replaced "women" with "uterus havers" or "menstruators". This is what a strawman argument looks like, and it is not helpful to getting us to consensus. Or do you think being upset with something nobody is seriously suggesting is important information to share here?

Wrt the rest, you seem to have missed the point. My point is to insert your argument "a significant minority of our readers do not have English as their first language, so they would find our articles easier to understand if we just ...." into a variety of other language decision conflicts. The offensive language of careless unthinking discrimination (racism, homophobic, transphobic, sexist, and attacks on other minorities such as those with disabilities) is universally simple, easy to understand and familiar. The alternatives are more complex, unfamiliar, cumbersome and may use less simple words. Feel free to argue for simpler vs complex language all other things being equal but it really is an unhelpful argument when dealing with language that is problematic for social reasons. -- Colin°^Talk 07:59, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

To Colin: You spoke with disdain about dehumanising language, as if it did not exist. I was trying to explain to you how some language is dehumanising. I have noted your contempt for my point of view.

I don’t think I have missed your point. I think that you only want to discuss a certain narrow set of arguments, and don’t want to discuss the matter in general. In any event, in view of your hostile and contemptuous attitude towards my attempts at constructive discussion, I don’t see any point in continuing this conversation, and I am taking this page off my watchlist. Sweet6970 (talk) 12:01, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

Corded ware burial from Sex and gender distinction article

I added this to the Sex and gender distinction article a while ago. To my surprise, it was never modified or removed, despite me mentioning it a few times. I can only conclude that the language used was acceptable to all, even though it contains several terms that would usually be given short shrift. Yay for me, I guess. 😁👍

In 2011, it was reported that an untypical Corded Ware burial, dated to between 2900 and 2500 B.C., had been discovered in Prague. The remains, believed to be anatomically male, were orientated in the same way as women's burials and were not accompanied by any gender-specific grave goods. Based on this the archaeologist Kamila Věšínová suggests that it was likely that this was an individual "with a different sexual orientation, homosexual or transsexual", while media reports heralded the discovery of the world's first "gay caveman". Archaeologists and biological anthropologists criticised media coverage as sensationalist, as well as criticising Věšínová's original statement, in which she conflates sex, gender, and sexuality, arguing that, although the burial might well represent a transgender individual, it does not necessarily mean that they had a different sexual orientation, or that their culture would have considered them 'homosexual'. Turek notes that there are several examples of Corded Ware graves containing older biological males with typically female grave goods and body orientation. He suggests that "aged men may have decided to 'retire' as women for symbolic and practical reasons."

 Tewdar  09:10, 7 May 2022 (UTC)

Canadian census

Canada is the first country to provide census data on transgender and non-binary people. This indicates that about 0.33% of the 15+ age group identify as trans. Within this, 28% are trans men, 31% are trans women, and 41% nonbinary. However, the trans percentage shows a strong correlation with age, and is about 0.85% in the 20-24 age group.[35]. In the younger 15-19 age group, there are slightly more trans men than in the 20-24 group, but fewer trans women and nonbinary. I don't know if those differences are significant and if they are, what the reasons might be. I haven't found similar age breakdown for sexuality, though the overall LGBTQ2+ figure is 4%. -- Colin°^Talk 11:00, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I wonder how many 15 year olds in Canada are filling out the census forms without their parents' knowledge. It will be interesting to see whether this is "generational" or "age-based". There are some effects that are seen at certain points in development (e.g., individuals are much more likely to subscribe to relativism when they are 20 than when they are 40) and other things seem to be about specific cohorts (e.g., people who lived through the 1930s and 1940s are less likely to take financial risks than people who came of age during times of abundance). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Ah, you mean if they aren't "out" to their parents then they won't be able to supply the correct answers. Could be a factor. If there is a breakdown by age for sexuality, I wonder if this is also true for the "not-quite-adults still-living-with-parents" group for those answers. In the E&W census, you had to be 16+ to answer the gender identity question, which was voluntary. -- Colin°^Talk 09:02, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, that's what I was thinking. Also, I don't know how their system works, but here in the US, I filled out the census for myself and my husband; there was really no point in both of us having to do the paperwork. So if one person fills out the whole household's census forms, then that person has to know this information plus also be accepting enough to put it on the official form. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:36, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

IPSOS 2021

• LGBT+ Pride 2021 Global Survey points to a generation gap around gender identity and sexual attraction A study by IPSOS from 2021 with PDF documents at the bottom of the page. -- Colin°^Talk 16:14, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Pew Research Centre 2022

• About 5% of young adults in the U.S. say their gender is different from their sex assigned at birth

New study by Pew Research Centre. Discussed more in the article The Experiences, Challenges and Hopes of Transgender and Nonbinary U.S. Adults. -- Colin°^Talk 16:14, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Whether it matters

This opinion column by a linguist:

McWhorter, John (2022-05-24). "Every Day, We're Told to Use New Lingo. What Does That Really Accomplish?". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. (paywalled)

wonders how much value there is in using the Correct™ words. If society disapproves of a given subject (e.g., women, trans people, poor people), then changing the words we use to describe them doesn't significantly change society's view of those people. There's definitely a Euphemism treadmill effect, and there may be a Slacktivism factor (i.e., I don't have to do the hard work of solving difficult problems, because I used the current lingo on social media, and that's enough).

This suggests that language like people who are pregnant does not have a meaningful role in social change, and therefore it should neither be encouraged in the hope of promoting equality (because it doesn't really work) nor removed on grounds of Wikipedia:Righting Great Wrongs (because it doesn't really do that). WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:31, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I can't read the article. I clicked on the WP page for the author and he said, two years ago, "professors living in constant fear for their career because their opinions are incompatible with the current woke playbook" and complained of cancel culture. I also read this which seems to cover similar issue. Here he attacks a list of potentially offensive words and phrases developed by a bunch of students. Let me repeat that again: this is a list developed by a bunch of students. Yet McWhorter repeatedly associates the list with "counsel from Brandeis University’s Prevention, Advocacy & Resource Center, or PARC". The list has moved here and appears to me as a work-in-progress and possibly a tool to propose, consider and evaluate whether words are problematic. Anyway, that dishonesty aside, his article goes on to list several word changes he wholeheartedly approves of and considers beneficial. So it seems that pushing new lingo is just fine as long as it is new lingo that McWhorter thinks is sensible. Otherwise, it is to be ridiculed and used as an example of how pushing new lingo is stupid and futile. Hm. Me thinks this is someone paid to have an opinion and write about it, rather than someone who knows where they are going with their beliefs.

It is hard to disagree that some proposed alternatives are clunky and unlikely to catch on. And that disagreement about word choices seems mostly fuel for culture wars than the most important issue facing discriminated groups today. I've just finished reading "The Transgender Issue: An Argument for Justice" by Shon Faye. Whether Wikipedia should say "pregnant women" or "pregnant people" was not covered by the book, which dealt with far more serious injustices. It is a good book, btw, though it prioritises discussing UK politics and the author sees the defeat of capitalism as a necessary aim to achieve liberation for all! That aside, it is worth reading and the details of the discrimination and attacks and killing of trans people should be read by any best selling children's authors who speculate on Twitter about the danger of a trans women in a public bathroom. But back to words, and while it might not be the #1 issue and might not change the world, surely we are all grateful that offensive language and lazy normative writing about black/white men/women gay/straight is no longer acceptable. One only has to read some newspaper articles (and headlines) from a short while ago to see language that shocks you. That tells me that this author is talking out of his backside really, and not writing any more seriously than the anti-trans authors who lazily suggest that "women" is being completely replaced by "menstruators" and "uterus havers" everywhere and anywhere. -- Colin°^Talk 07:44, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

The top of the page you link says "The Suggested Language List is one of many student-led projects at the Prevention, Advocacy & Resource Center (PARC). This list was developed, created, and continues to be managed by a team of student staff at PARC." I don't think it is dishonest to say that PARC made this list. That's what they say about it themselves. Perhaps the phrase "counsel from PARC" sounds more like "an attorney" than "advice from a student group" than it should? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:56, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

The original link from the essay is here and I guess looks different to how it did when the essay was written. Every word is taking pains to explain that the list (now hosted independently of the university) does not represent PARC's views or the views of the university. Would an essay written by a student at Harvard be honestly described as "according to Harvard University"?

Thanks for sending me the NYT text. That's a more thoughtful, nuanced and directly appropriate essay than the one I found. The arguments make a case for caution, for not expecting too much and for how some ideas for progression don't get taken up or even are considered bad moves. I'm not really convinced by his claim that in the past "thought leaders" didn't concern themselves with word choices, and that this is a new thing that has been amplified by the internet. He doesn't offer any evidence for this, and the example he gives of Jesse Jackson doing just that, is 40 years old and predates the internet. I bet there were abolitionists who kicked up a fuss about the language used to refer to slaves or black people.

His claim that word choice influences thoughts and attitudes being only a "slight" effect or even "non existent" is not given evidence beyond an unspecific claim about "recent analysis" on racist views. Without knowing what that analysis is, we've not really any way of knowing how much of a convincing argument it made. I find it hard to believe. Not least because you can read someone's language choices and very quickly sum up if they are overtly racist or homophobic or transphobic or sexist. And if you can determine someone thinks that way, and this is someone in authority or who is admired (like a teacher or a prime minister, say) then that leads clearly to the idea that thinking that way is just fine. Similarly, you can spot (though it is sometimes hard, because not using offensive terms is less obvious than using them) when someone is being careful in their language. And this indicates social respect towards the other person.

Lastly I guess the writer falls into the same problem as the male Conservative politician who recently dismissed the claim by a female Conservative politician than the Conservative party had a serious problem with institutional sexism misogyny, etc. For a man to judge and determine the claim to be baseless just looks a bit silly. Likewise, the author thinks some language changes are worthwhile and some he is unconvinced of their merits. But is that really for him to judge whether word choices that affect trans people are worthy? -- Colin°^Talk 21:31, 26 May 2022 (UTC)

I found two articles by this author on the singular they: The Atlantic in 1918 and New York Times in 2021 (letters in response). Both are far more enthusiastic about language change as an expression of the acceptance that the gender binary is inadequate and acceptance of those who are non-binary. Perhaps the point of the previous articles isn't so much that using new terms will itself directly lead to a better society, but that as society changes (progresses hopefully) then the use of new terms signals acceptance of the new beliefs. That acceptance fuels acceptance in others via this viral thing called communication: the words we use. Beliefs that it is just fine to have two female parents, or for a man to have a husband, or that someone might not regard themselves as fully male or female. These signals work in both directions, as sticking to the old terms may indicate refusal to accept, just as some gender critical people insist on misgendering trans people.

What I liked about the NYT piece was the comment that language change is a spectator sport. I think that's the flaw with the RFCs we often have, where we think it is at all reasonable to ask random people on the internet whether language change should be permitted (or enforced) on Wikipedia. It satisfies some egos to think "You're asking me? Oh, well since you are asking, here's what I think..." I also like how in both articles he considers the change to be hard work but worthwhile, and gives examples of writers in history who made a fuss about change that we long ago accepted. "And most likely, some people at first didn't like it. They died, and here we are." :-).

So perhaps this comes down to acceptance. Do you insist that there are only two sexes that cannot be changed simply by having "feelings". Or do you accept that trans men are men, trans women are women and non-binary people exist? If you accept that, then surely it follows that one would at least wish to be inclusive in one's writing. It seems to me that despite the efforts of some vocal journalists and lobby groups and some right wing politicians, that there is acceptance among health professionals and academics, and acceptance in law, with varying degrees of practicability. The television series Dr Who had their lead character, who has always been played by a male actor, regenerate into a female actor. If that's not trans, I don't know what is. They are an alien, though, so not entirely "normal". I read in the papers that for the next series (with a male lead actor again) their new companion is played by a young trans woman. Indications of a new normal?

McWhorter's acceptance of singular they comes from his acceptance of non-binary people. One of the letter writers says "Rather than dismissing their uneasiness, over language or gender, let’s admit that it’s hard to change how we talk. We should do it anyway. We’ve jumped through hoops for the gender police for millennia. We can jump through a few more when some pathbreaking soul asks us to see them simply as themselves.". -- Colin°^Talk 14:48, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Policing

The above articles (and others) refer to language police and frequently suggest it is those on the left/liberal or trans activists who are policing every word. But where is the evidence for this? We haven't uncovered any articles in the media or academia or letters to the editor moaning about cisnormative language and demanding that the publication refer to "people with uteruses" or whatever. We found one hospital that suggested that as well as referring to "women" in hospital publications they should include trans people who need their facilities, but not (as the right wing media suggested) advocating "women" are erased. But we have plenty examples of the other way around, where writers of all sorts of backgrounds take it upon themselves to get upset online and complain about people who are different to themselves and any efforts to include them. Similarly if you look at any twitter storm or Mumsnet posts about this topic, they always start with the gender critical or trans exclusionary person complaining.

The infamous Lancet front page (which I still think was sabotage) was drawn from a review of a political exhibition and itself was making political points. The author is trans friendly (may even be non-binary, I forget what their twitter said). So they chose to use certain language to refer to those who menstruate (the topic of the exhibition). This wasn't "language policed" on them. And that use of language for making political points or for protest is far from unusual. Plenty feminists moaning about those making abortion laws being people who have a penis or lack a uterus. What resulted from the Lancet front page was a torrent of language policing from the political right and from the gender critical.

Is this imbalance accurate, or have we just not discovered the articles? If it is accurate, why is it being perpetuated as a myth that "trans advocates" or the "trans lobby" are policing word use? If they are, they are a pretty rubbish police force. -- Colin°^Talk 07:54, 27 May 2022 (UTC)

Are "articles" the only way for people to police word use?

Consider an edit here that changes "affecting 3–8% of menstruating women" to "affecting 3–8% of menstruating people", with an edit summary of "‎ More medically accurate/inclusive language". Is that not an effort to police language? Aren't social media posts decrying people who use the speaker's non-preferred language an effort to police language? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:34, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

Policing means to maintain law and order, to enforce regulations. I think "policing" is only really appropriate if there is some agreed terminology and that terminology is adopted and maintained by force and by an authority. I'd say the evidence suggests that the only policing on Wikipedia is that which maintains conservative language. The opposite edits are "protesting". Protesters and police are different in real life and different on Wikipedia. So I think language protesting would be a better term for the edit you mention.

I was googling for trans inclusive language about the NHS and found

• Making digital services more inclusive Jan 2020
• Gender inclusive language on public-facing maternity services websites in England April 2022.

The blog mentions the difficulty in getting it right, and an openness to listen to and apply feedback. It is quite different in its respectfulness and kindness compared to the anti-trans posts we've cited above in magazines, where the authors seem absolutely sure of their gender critical views and absolutely sure that the other people are quite deluded. The BJM article found only 2.3% of websites were fully inclusive in their language. That doesn't to me sound like an issue that has reached the level of being "policed" like one might think about language that was racist or antisemitic. Imagine if only 2.3% of the NHS websites were fully free of racist or antisemitic language? -- Colin°^Talk 14:14, 28 May 2022 (UTC)

If that's the definition of language policing, then the behavior isn't possible in real-world English. It would be possible in French and German, but not English.

I think that the definition at wikt:en:language police is more typical. Protesting that someone uses which when they really ought to use that is an instance of language policing (or, as I prefer to think of it, promoting correct grammar). WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:08, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

There's a different between a definition and how words are used and perceived. Would you like to be called a "grammar nazi" for fixing someone's which/that mistake or would you be offended in all sorts of ways? Would me linking to wiktionary definition of "A person who habitually corrects or criticizes the language usage of others." make you go "Oh, well that's all right then, a perfectly acceptable term now that I know what it means". The choice of language here is more than just saying "this is someone who is picky about word choice". The "nazi" variant no doubt sounds good to someone of teenage mentality. The "police" one is perhaps more grown up but nevertheless suggests effectiveness and authority. And in this case I would suggest that doing so is deliberately misleading on the part of those complaining (or at the very least, lazy clichéd writing). They want you to think that as a college professor, they simply can no longer say "pregnant women" in any of their writings because the "language police" will come down on them . We know that is entirely untrue and are struggling to find publications where alternatives are consistently used.

There's a parallel with how gender critical writers speak of the "trans lobby". Julie Bindel describes this apparently powerful "lobby" as the "trans-Taliban" and "the woke Stasi". I think "police" is just a tame version of the same dishonesty. Trying to paint one's opponent as more influential than they really are.

Shon Faye wrote in that book I mention above: "At the time of writing, despite the media myth of a powerful trans lobby, in the UK there are no openly trans newspaper editors and no trans staff writers at any major newspapers, no trans television commissioners, no trans High Court judges, no trans MPs, no trans members of the devolved legislatures of Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland, and no trans chief executives at major charities."

As I noted, wrt racist or antisemitic language and tropes, those are effectively "policed". They don't appear in quality publications and if they ever do sneak in, there are corrections or articles are withdrawn. So I don't think we can say this doesn't happen in English writing. But I don't think the term is at all appropriate for trans issues. That's just hyperbolic politics. -- Colin°^Talk 10:13, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that language policing is materially different from Gender policing in style. People reward the things they like and they ignore or punish the things they don't like. Within a given publication, if you use the "right" language (according to that publication), then you get rewarded (e.g., paid to write for them). If you use the "wrong" language, then you get ignored or punished (e.g., submissions rejected or told that re-writes are necessary). Outside of a given publication, people police your writing as well: you get praised for using the right language and criticized for using the wrong language.

One need not hold a formal position to hold power, and one need not be have the identity/characteristic in question to advocate for them. One could echo Shon Faye by saying that there are no children in any of those positions, but there are advocates for children in every one of those positions. There are likely very few cancer patients in those groups, and yet we would not say that the cancer lobby is weak. The power of a special-interest group is measured by how well it gets its core message into the media, not by how many members are directly employed in the media. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:16, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes I suppose the "policing" term is often used. I just think it odd, I don't see the left/liberal/pro-trans groups describing what the right/conservative/gender-critical groups do as "language policing", even though we have plenty examples of them "policing" language. JK Rowling's infamous tweet provoked a twitter storm but AFAICS, nobody called her the "language police", even though she was critical of other people's word choices.

I'm not claiming Faye's argument is a convincing proof on its own that there is no all-powerful trans lobby but having a presence in any of these institutions is certainly a foot in the door for advancing one's views, and having no presence at all is surely an indicator. Cancer isn't a great example, as there isn't an anti-cancer pressure-group who claim it is a myth and that cancer treatments are being promoted by a cancer lobby who believe in a cancer ideology.

Having a presence among those in power is important. If there were no people of colour at all in any of those groups, or not a single woman in any of those positions (as there has been in the past) do you think those groups would find representation?

We can name (and have cited) many authors who have no apparent prior connection with trans issues and no medical training, who have, it seems, woken up one day and decided the most important hill to die on is anti-trans. For that battle, some may lose their job, career, even their wife. Helen Joyce, who we cited above, has taken leave from The Economist to join anti-trans lobby group "Sex Matters" as Director of Advocacy. This is someone with a maths degree and formerly a business journalist, who now writes letters to The Guardian (here) making medical claims about unspecified "evidence" that, well, just aren't true. I'd love to read the academic paper that demonstrated teenage girls "living in a sexist, porn-saturated world" is a "common underlying cause" of them identifying as non-binary or male. Is there an MRI scan for that? A blood test?

But what we haven't found is the opposite. Where are the non-trans people writing pro-trans books or publishing opinion pieces in mainstream media, or even getting their letters published in the press? There's an imbalance, at least as far as I have discovered, that some very powerful voices (huge twitter following, staff writer at large publication, politician in government, UK attorney general) advocate the anti-trans position, and get their views published. I'm just not seeing the opposite evidence. Which is why I'm cautious about repeating terms used, it seems, by one side. One side is complaining about the "language police" even though both sides are critical of the other's language. One side is complaining about the "trans lobby", the "trans taliban", even though it is members of the other side that sits round a table in 10 Downing St. -- Colin°^Talk 17:24, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I know this is a matter of context, but in Canada, opinions of cis people that are supportive of trans people are fairly widely published. Margaret Atwood, Justin Trudeau, Jagmeet Singh, Svend Robinson and Jill Andrew are not atypical in this sense. Which isn't to say that we have "language policing" about gender in Canada - though we have much more old-fashioned kinds. Newimpartial (talk) 17:59, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Thanks Newimpartial for your perspective. I thought Atwood had a somewhat mixed record on the issue, and not really actively pushing on it. I don't know the last three names. Are they going out of their way to push or are they merely "supportive" if asked? It is the former I'm not really seeing in the UK.

Another language example... The idea that alternative forms "erase women". It's a phrase often repeated. The UK's attorney general, appointed to wage a legal "war on woke", recently stated that schools should not "pander to trans pupils" and need to take a "much firmer line" by not affirming transgender in children. That "They don’t have to say, ‘OK, we’re going to let you change your pronoun or let you wear a skirt or call yourself a girl’s name.’". Essentially, since you need to be at least 18 to legally change sex, there is no such thing legal thing as a trans child, and they should be treated according to their "birth sex". And for the gender critical, because there are only two fixed sexes, someone cannot even be "non-binary". Those sound like "erasing" and in a way that directly impacts on how someone might be able to live their life (and not just how many times the word "woman" appears in an article). I should note that UK schools do not appear to agree with the attorney general,[36] and legally it appears to be dubious. I think this is just another example of how it is easy to repeat terms used by one side of the battle that when examined don't seem to be neutral at all, and shouldn't be repeated uncritically. -- Colin°^Talk 20:32, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

On Atwood, her most recent intervention (that I know of) was covered here. While she has expressed support for retaining the term "woman" in contexts where others favor not using it, she has also quite consistently supported trans rights and criticized "gender-critical" positions.

As far as the political figures I mentioned, taking Trudeau as an example, he mandated the Minister of Justice to draw up a ban on conversion therapy that included trans conversion therapy, and ensured that this proposed law remained a priority of the government (eventually it passed the Canadian Parliament unanimously). In Canada, I think it's fair to say that most voices with authority back pro-trans positions on most issues, while transphobic or "gender critical" voices tend to be marginal. Newimpartial (talk) 20:53, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes I read the Guardian's Atwood interview with Hadley Freeman. I enjoy reading Freeman's celeb interviews but not so much her gender critical pieces. It seems, I think, she's now decided to take those views to UnHerd. I can understand that some of the Guardian opinion writers are paid to write feminist columns and so will end up talking about this issue (mostly, on the gender critical side) but why a celeb interviewer with a degree in English Lit should decide to Right Great Wrongs on a socio-medical battle that, AFAICS, doesn't touch her, is puzzling. And this is entirely common in the UK.

There is no media (outside of gay news) that is consistently trans-friendly. Labour really don't want to touch the issue because there are no votes to be won, and the Tories do want to press it endlessly because it is a vote winner for their base. There was a "conversion therapy ban" that would have included all groups, but our government recently made an exemption for trans. The Greens are mostly pro-trans but they only have one MP, who has a climate to save all by themselves.

I should note that the Scottish government is of a different flavour altogether, and appears to be generally more trans-friendly, but I'm not closely following that, or reading their newspapers. It is interesting to hear that Canada is quite different to UK/US and that demonstrates there is nothing fundamental about this, and that of lot of it is influenced by todays political climate where you live. But that's what I think kills the idea of a site-wide discussion of this topic. It will be heavily influenced by people's politics, and consist of tediously claims of invented rules, beliefs and supposed practices that just happen by chance to align with those politics.

In the UK the war over trans children is the fiercest battleground. In a remarkably and uncharacteristic display of wisdom, the government decided to have an independent review: The Cass Review. This will listen to all sides and all interested parties, and come to various recommendations. The chair is a doctor (yay! someone who has the first clue about health and evidence) who apparently had no prior views on the issue. I wonder if that kind of approach could somehow be adopted on Wikipedia for these social issues. I have no idea, though, how that would work. It would need the community to agree that on these topics the crowd is deeply unwise and just very noisy, which is unlikely perhaps. -- Colin°^Talk 07:49, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

On "policing": I think that the left complains that the right is "wrong", and the right complains that the left is "policing" their language. It's not the same actions.

• Left-wing: You should call her a woman, because she really, truly, actually is a woman.
• Right-wing: Who made you the language police? I'll use whatever words I want!

Of course the real disagreement is:

• Left: Gender identity matters more than any other classification system. Identity, in all its myriad ways of manifesting, is such a fundamental matter that it cannot be subordinated to any other factor. Nothing else matters if you can't be yourself.
• Right: The most important thing for all civilizations is to ensure its continued existence, which requires matching up eggs and sperm to make babies and then grabbing all the resources you can to ensure that those babies can survive. Having people go around acting like they have eggs when they actually make sperm is not helping society cope with the existential threat of low birth rates.
• Both: You're just about the most hateful person I've ever spoken to.

WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:09, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

I like how you raised the IQ of both sides, when we know it is even more juvenile:

• Trump: "No teacher should ever be allowed to teach transgender to our children without parental consent. Can you imagine?" (cheers from crowd)
• Left: "Transgender was my favourite class at school. I got an A." (more mocking...)

or (at Prime Minister's Questions, where the Prime minister and the Opposition leader do a battle of words each Wednesday)

• Starmer: "A windfall tax would raise billions of pounds to help people with energy bills. Is the PM for it, against it, or is he sitting on the fence like his chancellor."
• Johnson: "Starmer could not even define what a woman is. Heaven help us. Labour loves putting up taxes."

(btw, a week later, the government announced a windfall tax even larger than Labour had proposed)

In public forums with mass readership (i.e., not IP edits that get reverted, or twitter comments from someone with low follower numbers) where are the unprovoked complaints from the left insisting the right are wrong about trans inclusive language? Where are the magazine articles telling us that we are getting plain English wrong, and should all start talking about people assigned female from birth? Where, even, are the pro trans articles written by cis journalists on the lefty-liberal side (say) explaining that trans women are women and it would be nice if everyone called them that please? They aren't appearing in my newspaper, or in any paper or magazine I've discovered in the UK. This is what I'm trying to say, it isn't symmetrical.

The closest we got was the Brighton hospital guideline. For those in the US, Brighton and Sussex University Hospitals NHS Trust, covered Brighton, which is a seaside resort sometimes called the gay capital of the UK. It isn't a major city or an important hospital. Their guideline was very much something they decided for themselves and for their service users, who are more likely to be trans than anywhere else in the country. Naturally they hoped they might lead the way, but the guideline was not demanding others follow or even saying others are wrong. It was about what they had decided for themselves about themselves. Which surely those on the political right would feel is an important thing. Of course the right misinterpreted the guideline, thought it wasn't "additive" but was "erasing women" and thought this was the left demanding that we all start talking about "birthing people" and "chest feeding". I think it is important to not fall into that trap. If you have examples of the left "policing" the right's use of language, then let's see them. I think what is more common is this:

• Government health body: "Pregnant people are especially vulnerable to covid and should get vaccinated"
• Right: "Why can't we say "women" any more? Why do the left keep policing what we say? Women are being erased!"

and

• Right: "Schools should treat children according to their birth sex, refuse to use new names or change pronouns or clothes, and support the human right of teachers to insist there is no such thing as a non-binary child."
• Teachers: "This is an attempt to whip up an anti-woke culture war, and in schools we are not really interested in this kind of silliness. No good can come of any young person being forced to adopt a gender they feel miserable with."

The activism, in the UK at least, seems to be coming most publicly and loudest from the right and gender critical. If there is activism and lobbying from the pro-trans side, it must be both happening under the radar and be utterly ineffective at changing language use (see above stats about NHS website for example). But you'd think, from the way the right/gender-critical activists write, that it was the opposite. If I'm wrong about this, then let's see the evidence. But at the moment I think it is a rather clever ruse, to keep complaining that the right are being lectured, policed, in how to talk and write, when it is in fact the opposite. -- Colin°^Talk 09:26, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

You mean something like this advice?

"Avoid "identifies as" language. Language within the trans community is evolving rapidly. Even a few years ago, trans people might have said "Marisol identifies as a woman." However, the trans community is moving away from this language and some now even consider it offensive. You wouldn't say that a man who used to date women and now dates men "identifies as" gay. You'd simply say that he is gay. Like sexual orientation, gender identity is an innate trait that cannot be changed. When a trans person reveals their true, authentic gender identity, it's not a question of "identifying as" a woman or a man or as nonbinary — they simply are a woman or a man or a nonbinary person."

That's "the left demanding and policing", but they're demanding it over everyone, not just right-wing politicians. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:26, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

It is a reference guide, so, no, I don't think that's "policing". Policing would be an article in The Guardian criticising the language in The Times for, to use your quote, saying Marisol "identifies as a woman" rather than saying they are a woman. It would be a writer in a mainstream publication calling out another journalist or writer or publication for their use of language. That's policing and that's what we see the right/gender-critical doing.

Secondly it comes from the website of an LGBTQ pressure group: "Leading the conversation. Shaping the media narrative. Changing the culture. That’s how GLAAD accelerates acceptance for LGBTQ people". I think it would be more accurate to say this comes from within the affected community, asking others to accept them with their language choices. It isn't an example, say, of a cis journalist writing in mainstream media. You have to go to that site in order to read their advice, you don't get it with your breakfast news. Sure, they are demanding, but you have to go there to be demanded at.

Thirdly, is there anything on that page that would deviate substantially from current MOS guidance on trans bio articles. Maybe it is a bit more detailed. Our article Juno Dawson uses "she" and categorises her as 21st-century British women writers. It uses "she" to describe her life before coming out as trans. It does not mention her former name. It does not say she was born a man.

Earlier you said "The power of a special-interest group is measured by how well it gets its core message into the media". So quoting the special-interest group's own website isn't really a measure of whether "language policing" of trans language or language concerning women, has found a presence in the media. I think, in the UK anyway, the only pressure groups that are getting their core message into the media and are policing the language used by government, charities and other media is... the anti-trans gender-critical side. -- Colin°^Talk 10:05, 2 June 2022 (UTC)

I think GLAAD's success lies in the number of media outlets that follow their advice.

But: Why does language policing require a cisgendered journalist and a publication? Why can't people in the affected group do the policing? Why can't it happen in less formal settings (e.g., Twitter)? For that matter, if Twitter bans people who misgender trans folks, why doesn't that count as a form of language policing? WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:56, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I like how you raised the IQ of both sides – Thank you for this. I had put some effort into coming up with descriptions that I thought both sides would recognize as being a reasonably fair description of their own view. I'm glad to hear that it was not a failure. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:02, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Do people refer to the de facto ban on the "N word" as "language policing? I am not under the impression that many do - those using the term "language policing" for something other people are doing are importing assumptions about whether the language concerns under discussion carry importance and whether those they criticize are expressing a legitimate or illegitimate reaction. Because few people think the use of the "N word" is an unimportant matter, and few believe people criticizing its use are doing so without legitimate reason, we don't often hear this called "language policing" even when a particular scenario is under debate. Newimpartial (talk) 16:30, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

The ACLU uses the term "language policing" about another racial slur in this blog post. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:34, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I have been trying to organize this in my mind for a while, and the stereotypical exchanges aren't symmetrical. Consider:

• Right: He's a traitor.
• Left: This person identifies as a woman now, so you should say "She's a traitor".
• Right: Stop telling me what words to use.

but:

• Left: She plead guilty.
• Right: "He," you mean.
• Left: No, this person identifies as a woman, so "she" is the appropriate pronoun.

In both conversations, the second voice is engaging in language policing. The difference is in their response to being language-policed: 'Right' objects to being told what to do by 'Left', and 'Left' assumes that 'Right' is merely requires some education.

It reminds me a bit of COVID-19 mask mandates: Some people appeared to refuse to wear masks because they were told to, and not out of any actual objection to mask-wearing. Presumably developmental psychologists have a name for this "you're not the boss of me, and I'll act against my own self-interest just to prove that you can't tell me what to do!" response. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:47, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Well let's agree that these are "stereotypical exchanges" because they don't seem to happen quite like that in real life, either between two individuals or in public on mainstream media. It is far more the kind of thing with the NHS below, where grown-ups came up with text in an attempt to include trans people in a health message that does affect them, and a torrent of right-wing media abuse follows. Daily Mail: "Why is NHS hell-bent on erasing all mention of women? I am now convinced the world has gone completely mad under the spell of the trans lobby. The activists have convinced themselves, and it would appear the NHS, that ...". It seems more like:

• Left: She plead guilty.
• Right: Stop telling me what words to use.

It's as though having to even read someone else's political correct wokery is offensive and equated with being forced to use that language oneself.

Wrt misgendering, that doesn't seem (AFAICS) to be quite so blatant with the pronouns in mainstream media. Where it persists is within the lobby groups and anti-trans activists.

I don't think that assuming the other side needs education is a solely feature of the left, though it may be a common fallacy (e.g., with global warming) that surely if we expose them to enough facts then they will realise their mistake. It was certainly a mistake during Brexit and famously produced the "I think the people in this country have had enough of experts" comment from a leading pro-Brexit politician. The gender critical groups commonly argue their approach is simply biological scientific fact, that you can't actually change your sex, which you are born with. They argue that "gender ideology" is some strange cult at odds with "biological reality". The arguments about trans people in sports seem to involve "facts" being argued over, rather than language.

I agree that it is a feature of current right-wing politics to be libertarian, and socially conservative, and therefore to resist language changes and object to being told to change. In your second example, isn't this a case where your "Left" character has made a change in their language use that the "Right" character objects to. It isn't like everyone was historically referring to trans people with a pronoun corresponding to their gender identity and suddenly the right decided to start using "biological sex" for pronouns. That isn't symmetry.

The other asymmetry is who is being attacked. In the first case, the Right is (we assume) deliberately misgendering the trans woman in a way that attacks the trans woman's wishes to be considered a woman. Your Left character is (I assume) not trans and therefore an ally in this case. In the second case, the Left is respecting the trans woman's wishes to be considered a woman, and the right finds this offensive (for some reason), and responds by deliberately misgendering the trans woman. In both cases, the minority group is being attacked by the right, and the right are criticising the Left for standing up for them or for accepting the minority group's beliefs. We've seen this before with gay rights and racial politics. The right aligns itself with the majority group who are in power, and they want to keep it that way, for themselves. Are there examples of the opposite happening? -- Colin°^Talk 10:33, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

I think the exchange you create probably is closer to this, underneath:

• Left: She plead guilty.
• Right: Stop insisting that I'm wrong.

Can you imagine a world in which "Right" isn't wrong? Not that the view is correct or complete, but just one in which it is not completely wrong?

(Given that the two exchanges I created above tell the story of the same person, who famously announced her present gender identity after being arrested for spying, I think that "Left" has made a change to their language use. Everyone assumed that the convict was a cis male up until that point.)

I'm not sure what you mean by an "example of the opposite happening". I gave you an example of Left complaining about Right's choice of pronouns, and Right complaining about Left's choice of pronouns. Is that not an example of the opposite happening? WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:17, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't picked up you were referring to a real person. Is "wrong" the correct word? I think you were closer with "hateful" earlier.

I think the misgendering is different to the issue we've been discussing about inclusive language. The first is accepting someone is who they say they are, even if you don't understand it. The people who don't accept them seem very confident they know how other people are built and function, which seems a bit arrogant to me. The second is then going out of your way to ensure they are included, even if it bruises a few egos.

The "opposite happening" would be if the Right picked up a disadvantaged minority or repressed group and allied with them despite hostility from the Left.

I still don't think you've found an example of the Left mainstream media complaining about centre/right mainstream media or government language that isn't trans-inclusive enough. Where's the mainstream media lefty-journalist article ranting about having to read about maternity services that uses the word "Women" and neglects to mention trans men? I get the bit where some on the left are saying "pregnant people" but I'm missing the memo that the Right keep complaining about that says "women" can't ever be mentioned again. -- Colin°^Talk 21:03, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

To the extent that society pretty much defines "disadvantaged minority or repressed group" as "groups supported by Left", you might be asking for an impossibility. Can you name any groups that you believe to be genuinely and unfairly disadvantaged or repressed, but that Left wouldn't support?

In re accepting someone is who they say they are, even if you don't understand it. The people who don't accept them seem very confident they know how other people are built and function:

Do you always accept people for who they say they are? Even the people who say they're calling from the Windows Technical Department? I hope there are some limits.

Maybe these people aren't saying that they're confident about how other individuals are built and function. Maybe they're instead convinced that they know how people are built and function. For example, most of us know that people are not built to survive without food, no matter what the proponents of Inedia claim about themselves. Perhaps these people are just as convinced that genes or anatomy is most important factor in determining whether an adult "really is" a man or woman.

Consider the logic in this sentence:

• If you "just know" all that people need food to survive,
  • then you might believe the people claiming to live without it are wrong,
    • rather than expressing a view about what's true for them as individuals.

Similarly:

• If you "just know" that agreed-upon aspects of biology are what makes people be men or women,
  • then you might believe the people claiming that their gender identity overrides their biology are wrong,
    • rather than expressing a view about what's true for them as individuals.

You suggest here that Left would ask Right how Right could possibly know that the subject's individual self-identification is inaccurate; I think that Right would ask Left why Left believes that it's all about each individual's self-identification in the first place.

Looking back at our convicted spy, we have a human assigned male at birth and now identifying as a woman. Left looks at this and says that the gender identity is more important than the sex assignment. Conclusion: Woman. Right looks at this and says that the sex assignment is more important than the gender identity. Conclusion: Man. Neither of them is saying that they know the person's gender identity better than the person; they are only disagreeing on how much it matters relative to other factors. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:36, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

This is a tangent, I know, but I have real difficulty recognizing these "Left-Right" conversations at all. I know this is just my weird Canadian context, but there isn't a "right" here that is making culture war hay out of transphobia (and the recent Australian attempt seems to have been a failure, as well) whereas those few figures who are visibly clueless or hostile to gender identity accommodations are as likely to belong to the curmudgeonly "centre" or small sects of feminism as they are to the "right". It's not that we have no culture war here: we do, but gender identity recognition just isn't a notable axis of it. It is not an accident, for example, that the federal ban on conversion therapy - including conversion therapy directed at trans people - passed the House of Commons *unanimously*: most of the opposition Conservatives voted in favor, and the ones who didn't want to do that absented themselves.

So I can read these "Left-Right" dialogues and see in them some characterization of actual debates happening in certain countries, but it all seems kind of irreal to me. I wonder if readers from the Netherlands or Sweden tend to feel the same way... Newimpartial (talk) 21:10, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

This is an important point. While Canada seems to have had its moments (this is the country where encouraging boys who did not have gender dysphoria to play with stereotypical boys' toys has been called conversion therapy, right?), the aspect that Colin and I have been pounding on probably represents 5% of the world – perhaps a particularly noisy 5%, but still just a small fraction of the world. It would be good to know what other parts of the world think: China, India, Brazil, etc. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:25, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Newimpartial, Canada does have Jordan Peterson, though, so you must be having some "trans culture-war" battles.

WAID, the Left/Right split doesn't exactly work for me in the UK either wrt trans issues, as I've mentioned before. You ask "Can you name any groups that you believe to be genuinely and unfairly disadvantaged or repressed, but that Left wouldn't support?" The Left have been strong in defending the rights of white male workers, but there's little consistency about supporting minorities or disadvantaged groups. Even our own "Liberal" party (centre-left) has not been very liberal at times. The Green party (left) is perhaps the strongest wrt actively supporting minority/disadvantaged, though has had its own conflicts with the trans issue (Shahrar Ali). Looking through the last century, there's quite a lot of variation in attitudes to social issues like women's equal pay or rights, LGBT issues, immigrants. Sometimes a bill on these are proposed by someone in the left or the right and there may be a "free vote" on the issue, in that the party doesn't "whip" MPs to follow any party line. I think it would be accurate to say the left have tended to be more likely to support changes that help minorities or disadvantaged groups, and oppose changes that make things worse for them, but it isn't a hard split. Since Brexit, the Tories have become more intolerant and populist and a lot of moderate Tories got booted out of politics.

Accepting someone's statement about their identity isn't an admission of gullibility nor does it require you to agree they are "right". Do I have to agree with my Muslim colleague who doesn't drink or Hindu colleague who is vegetarian to accept them, respect their religions and accommodate their food and drink requirements? Calling a trans women "he" seems a bit like deliberately offering a Muslim a ham sandwich, just to emphasise how "wrong" they are and assert one's Christian or atheist identity as the only valid one. The midwife quoted much further up about accepting a trans man's request to talk about "chestfeeding" their baby, said "what skin off my nose, really, is it?" I think that's what I'm getting at. That some seem to feel the need to assert their belief that someone else is wrong about themselves, when really it does them no harm and costs nothing to accept it, even if they disagree or don't understand it. -- Colin°^Talk 10:26, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, Jordan Peterson is from, and often lives in Canada. Meghan Murphy is also Canadian. But neither of these figures has much of a following in Canada - there is no "conservative movement" or populist groundswell following their opinions on gender identity, and insofar as Peterson has inspired Canadian incels it is the straightforward misogyny, not anti-trans statements, that has found an audience within Canada. As I say, we do have elements of a culture war here, but gender identity just doesn't have much of anything to do with it. Newimpartial (talk) 11:16, 19 June 2022 (UTC)

Colin, let's stipulate that misgendering individuals to their faces is rather like knowingly inviting a vegetarian to dinner and putting bacon in every single dish served. But I don't think that we could say the same about a more general discussion. "Men can't get pregnant – don't you know where babies come from?" is not exactly in the same category as "See that individual over there, with the beard and the men's clothes and the masculine name and the identity card that says 'male'? I've decided that person is really a woman". WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:45, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

I've been holding off from commenting mostly, but I have to draw attention to how unintentionally fitting the comparison to religious identities, especially Islam, is. You see, there must be limits to how much we "accommodate" people's sincerely held identities out of "respect". Hypothetically, Wikipedia could start to endorse the usage of Islamic honorifics to advance inclusivity of Muslims, a massive chunk of the world population and one underrepresented on Wikipedia. Per MOS:ISLAMHON, we do not allow this, however. And rightly so - Wikipedia is neutral and does not advance anyone's social cause, no matter how morally vital they feel it to be.

If some experienced editors went around saying we should allow people to insert "peace be upon him" after every mention of Muhammad, etc., they would be thought of as converted zealots at best; no one would doubt that this is improper advocacy. If Muslim activist groups went around advocating to journalists and academics that one should always use these honorifics, that it's just such a small thing and is so respectful and inclusive, that would be recognized as preaching of their values and worldview and an improper imposition. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:38, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

When I wrote "seems a bit like", I didn't write "is exactly like in all ways". Finding exceptions to "a bit like" doesn't advance the discussion. -- Colin°^Talk 07:34, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

It might be "a bit like" for individuals, but I think it's "not at all like" for general statements. I think we need to be talking on this page primarily about how to describe large groups of people (e.g., those humans who could get pregnant), not individuals. Whether it's rude to tell a specific individual human that you think they don't know their own gender is kind of a tangent.

If someone says "Women can get pregnant, and men can't", then we need to talk about that broad statement. Imagine that someone's working definition of "woman" is "adult human with the set of anatomical, hormonal, and genetic qualities generally associated with 46,XY chromosomes and a functional uterus, regardless of gender identity, gender expression, or gender role". Is that person actually wrong to use/believe that definition, or to say that "Women can get pregnant, and men can't"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 07:49, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

What about "Cars drive on the road and pedestrians use the pavement (sidewalk)". We know there are off-road vehicles and we know that there are roads with no pavements where people have to walk on the road with care. There are places where parking on the pavement is legal and others where it would be illegal. Just because there are exceptions doesn't mean we have to couch every statement of fact with "nearly always..." or "most of the time..." So this is perhaps a separate concern from whether one believes that a trans man is a man. -- Colin°^Talk 07:59, 20 June 2022 (UTC)

The "Cars drive on the road" model leads to using "women" in Pregnancy, except in a ==Trans people== section. I believe that most of us have agreed that readers will not be confused by it (some of them won't like it, but everyone will understand it).

But I'd like to reach an agreement that even though "Cars drive on the road" is okay, that the occasional more-inclusive statement is not revert-worthy. Is it equally okay to say "Travelers use the road"? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:02, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Part of me wants to say, "I don't want to be that person" but in actuality I just am that person. Cars are only a subset of what drives on the road, and there are roads where some cars are not allowed to drive although other cars are. Nor is it true that all cars only drive on roads. And the idea that pedestrians use the pavement (sidewalk) is a highly ethnocentric generalization that applies only to a small minority of the world's pedestrians. So I would dispute both premises, and insist that except in situations that have really good sourcing for this language for some reason, we should follow other sources that are more precise.

I suppose the more constructive use I could make of this analogy would be to point out that sometimes by "cars" people mean all automotive vehicles, sometimes only small ones with certain characteristics, sometimes implying internal combustion and sometimes not, and so on. As editors, our job should be to pay attention to how the sources are actually using terms, to the definitions used in the highest quality sources, and to the issues that may arise as we draw those sources together in article text - so we do not leave our readers with mistaken ideas about cars that the sources do not actually support, but which sloppy reading and/or writing can produce. Newimpartial (talk) 02:24, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree that it's hugely important to know what the sources actually mean. But that reminds me of the other dispute: all the sources, or just the single source cited at the end of the specific sentence? All the sources indicate that pregnancy does not happen in the absence of a uterus. There are multiple ways (with greater and lesser accuracy and precision, which may be more or less relevant to the sentence) to describe that fact. Are we going to trust editors to know what lots of sources say, or are we going to insist that they hew narrowly to the single source that happens to be cited at the end of that sentence? WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:04, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

All analogies are imperfect. I'm trying to point out that saying something that's usually the case in a way that could suggest it is always the case (if one is being pedantic) is often a useful writing device. This is regardless of whether "being wrong" is a political minefield of great dispute or universally accepted (like with cars, nobody disputes that sentence is technically misleading). How important and how consistently one has to be precisely right in accommodating all variations may vary depending on the topic or even within an article.

If I said to you "I pressed the button at the pedestrian crossing, the lights turned red, and the cars stopped to let me cross". And you said, "But Colin, there was a motorcycle and a lorry that also stopped", I'd look at you strangely. Being accurate and inclusive about the type of vehicle wasn't important to my story. At other times, if I was telling you the rules about licence plates, road tax or what a driving licence permits you to drive, it would be very important. I wonder if we can identify situations where saying "women" would be ok. Would it help to have a sentence explicitly including trans people early on, but then just "women" afterwards. Think for example, the patients in "midwife". The word "wom[ae]n" appears about 60 times in that article. I don't think it is realistic to expect all of those instances to be trans inclusive. Is it? -- Colin°^Talk 07:28, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I think the pattern that might produce the least edit warring is the first sentence says "women", another sentence early on is explicitly trans-inclusive, and after that, it's mostly just "women", except for:

• being specific again whenever that is directly relevant, and
• not cramming in any word as much as possible, just because we can. I have learned the lesson from your exercise in re-writing the start of Pregnancy to over-use the word women.

I think if the first sentence is explicitly trans-inclusive, we'll get more edit warring than if it's the second one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:10, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Thinking about WAID's "travelers use the road", the word "travelers" doesn't equate with roads users in my mind, but more about nomadic people in the UK. Anyway, if in my example above, I said " and the road vehicles stopped to let me cross" I think you might look at me strangely. But in formal writing that would be ok. So maybe my example shows that informal conversation expects imprecision and would be extremely weird if we had to be correct all the time, but the more formal you get, the more accurate you are expected and you are permitted to use more complicated ways of saying something.

We saw in some of the medical websites that they were trans inclusive particularly around the topic of "who can get X cancer". It was really important to be precise. But on other pages, perhaps giving specific advice on treating infection during breastfeeding, say, the message that trans men can (sometimes) breastfeed too was not crucial to the article. -- Colin°^Talk 07:43, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree that formality is a factor, and that encyclopedias should be on the formal side.

I think that once you've established the meaning, though, that you could use the more informal or imprecise language. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:16, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

WAID, you gave an example of misgendering but I don't think that's actually what this sandbox or any of the people arguing about "language police" are talking about. As Newimpartial suggests, language change that is actually accepted and transgressions of which are considered by all reasonable people to be hateful are not counted. So misgendering a trans woman is no longer "language police" but as you say is serious enough to get yourself a Twitter ban if it seems you make a habit of it. I'm not aware Twitter has banned anyone from using the word "women" wrt pregnancy. We don't even see trans people banning the word "women" wrt pregnancy. But it seems that when some people use other terms instead, certain groups think or claim the word is now banned by the language police. I think really the term "language police" has dropped into those words used by the right or aligned pressure groups, along with "social justice warrior", "politically correct", "woke", "cancel culture", etc, etc, that are more about labelling the opposition with a recognised slur (in their eyes) even if inaccurate or using terms nobody understands. We need to be careful about repeating these terms, outside of quotes, because they are so loaded and so carelessly applied. -- Colin°^Talk 17:07, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

• ‘Cancel culture a reflection of rightwing papers’ intolerance,’ says David Olusoga. I think this is relevant. -- Colin°^Talk 10:04, 4 June 2022 (UTC)

• You can say woman and we can say person Has the same argument I'm making, that there's dishonesty in the arguments made by many gender-critical writers, when they talk about language use. -- Colin°^Talk 11:01, 12 June 2022 (UTC)

  "Wanting to recognize the existence of trans men and non-binary people does not mean that we can’t say the word “woman” anymore." But it appears that it does mean that some important areas of human existence that were formerly considered the exclusive territory of a group of humans called "women" now must be publicly shared with two other groups of humans, called "trans men and [some] non-binary people". A loss of exclusivity is still considered a loss, and humans tend to mourn their losses. That author seems to present this normal (if sometimes regrettable) aspect of human behavior as both surprising and contemptible. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:14, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

  You could frame it that way. Or you could describe it as intolerance of being asked to accept someone from outside your tribe. Like white British being expected to accept brown or black people, with non-Christian religions. Is that mourning the loss of "British identity" (whatever that is), or is it simply racism and religious intolerance? There's a natural inertia to social change, with some groups leading the change, some groups content to be dragged along, and other groups actively swimming against the flow.

  Football (soccer) is a sport I know nothing about or care about. Recent news reported on a UK professional player who came out as gay[37], the first such since 1990. Yes that's three decades ago. (See also Homosexuality in association football and Homosexuality in American football). If a player wrote an article complaining that "the gay lobby are demanding that they include poofs and pansies in their teams", would you argue here that the poor man was mourning the loss of exclusivity, of a game previously the territory of Real Men^TM?

  Wrt sharing. Isn't that something we expect toddlers to learn? -- Colin°^Talk Colin°^Talk 09:32, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

  I have indeed seen essays exploring the transition from racial and cultural homogeneity into a multi-racial and multicultural society as a form of loss for the dominant group – a loss driven by moral imperative, but still a loss. It's also a loss (for the original residents) when a sleepy small town turns into a large bedroom community for a city, or when an empty field at the end of your street grows a row of terrace houses, or a water treatment plant. It can be "fair" and "good" and "right" and still "a loss" for the people who were living in and benefiting from the old way. The general advice seems to be that we should directly acknowledge that loss, so that the loss can be understood at its real scale and its real costs, and not let these feelings grow unchecked, like monsters under the bed.

  Your comment about young children I think illustrates my point: Adults expect that we will need to teach three year olds (and 13 year olds, and 30 year olds, and pretty much every age after children figure out that "share with you" means "I no longer have it all myself") to share things that are important to them because perfect unselfishness and generosity towards other people is not a natural, expected human behavior. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:34, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

  Have you read the article that provoked the response I linked. It's an angry and rather careless-with-the-truth rant. I don't think it is fair to frame it as a loss to one side without balance for consideration of the other side. Only then can one judge if this is the kind of loss one can justly mourn (assuming there even has been a loss). You seem to be arguing that the writer being critical of this rant is showing ignorance or lack of understanding of a "normal" aspect aspect of human nature, and if they were aware of how sociologists view such social changes, they would not find it so "surprising and contemptible". I'm sure sociologists have all sorts of neutral sounding language for why a violent man might rape a woman, for example. But framing such behaviour in neutral language sounds too much like agreeing they are being entirely reasonable.

  The gender critical writers do want to push the idea that women are the losers, and are being erased, and are being forced to share bathrooms and prisons with dangerous sexual predators. They argue that increased trans rights are only possible at the expense of women. Does removing the word "women" on a page on the NHS website actually materially cause a loss or erasure? The "Sex matters" group argue that teachers are within their rights to misgender trans children as (a) they don't legally exist and (b) non-binary gender doesn't exist (they claim legal rights require one to have undergone transgender reassignment, which is only something adults can do). Being told "you, your identity as a person, doesn't exist, and therefore I will treat you in a way that causes you distress" seems to me a greater erasure or loss than a word on a web page. -- Colin°^Talk 16:42, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

  I haven't read it, and it sounds like the kind of thing that I don't really need in my brain. But "an angry and rather careless-with-the-truth rant" is what you get when humans are feeling hurt, and hurting humans are not necessarily in an emotional state to provide any "consideration of the other side".

  I'm not expecting the respondent to behave like a sociologist. I'm expecting them to have approximately the same understanding of human psychology as anyone who's ever said regrettable things during an argument and apologized for it afterwards, namely to realize that I, and therefore other humans, too, might sometimes express my pain instead of only giving carefully reasoned and purely factual views that perfectly balance the needs and wants of all stakeholders into account.

  I might also be unreasonably expecting the world (not just this writer) to employ Tend and befriend techniques: "It sounds like you're really hurting right now. I've been hurting too..." Instead, this (and many other) responses show more aggression and competition: your little pain doesn't exist or doesn't matter because my pain is bigger than yours. Even if I am the more oppressed person, that doesn't seem like a communication strategy that's likely to win hearts and minds.

  So instead of "It hurts to feel marginalized; I get that. There's a lot to sort out here, and the uncertainty is uncomfortable for everyone. I just believe that it's more important to include these marginalized people than to maintain hegemony in this case...", the response sounds like "How dare you claim to feel marginalized when I take a mere 5% of the spotlight away from you, add uncertainty to your life and self-conception, loudly claim that my psychological view of identity is more important than your anatomical view of identity, and force you to deal with complexities you'd hoped to avoid. You have no idea what marginalization actually is!" WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:42, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

  Related to this is some new research published by More in Common.

  • Britons and Gender Identity. The full report is linked at the bottom, along with data tables. Other than pronouns, hey didn't ask about language usage, unfortunately.

  It is a rather mixed result. They seem very keen to emphasise that the angry rants being published aren't helping the debate. But I'm not entirely sure that polling 5000 random people provides a lot of wisdom either, other than a sample of people's knee-jerk response to a question on a topic they probably don't give any thought to. It is useful in knowing what messages are or are not getting through, but I suspect most of the participants could have their views shifted either way by exposing them to arguments of one side. I'd have much less problem if those arguments were grounded in truthfulness and contained reasonable claims, regardless of what values that person was drawing from. But when the arguments are patently unreasonable and mostly untruthful, what little nugget of "Ok, I get you are hurting" evaporates. -- Colin°^Talk 16:40, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

  Sure, if you're hurting, then you wouldn't necessarily be in a state to recognize that the first ranter is hurting, too. It'd be much easier for the second person to decide that the first ranter is patently unreasonable and mostly untruthful.

  I'm not done reading this report, but I think it has interesting information so far. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:29, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

NHS Update

When I looked at the NHS in December, I found that Womb cancer causes, Prostate problems, Cervical cancer causes were all trans inclusive. But Ovarian cancer was not. Notably the page was formatted with sub-sections on the same page rather than in separate pages as the trans-inclusive pages were, so perhaps it was due an update. It was updated on February 15th to Ovarian cancer Overview and Ovarian cancer Causes, etc. These are now trans inclusive.

Today, there's a news report that includes a TV interview of the UK's health secretary (who has previously expressed strong trans exclusionary opinions) being asked by an anchor on Sky News to explain the change. He is not in favour.

Having listened to this interview with Sara Wilcox, NHS content designer I know that the language used on those pages is carefully considered and trialled to ensure that it works for everyone. It must be very frustrating for Wilcox's team to go through all that process and have a health secretary who admits in the interview that they haven't seen the page (and know nothing about the change they are asked about) but disapprove of it anyway. I don't know about your countries, but being appointed health secretary isn't an indication one knows anything about health. He could be defence secretary next month if Johnson reshuffles his cabinet. There's some response from NHS Digital reported in The Guardian.

There's also a new page Having a baby if you're LGBT+ that links to three new guides. These pages were added on 31st May but the sub-pages have rather odd dates for their "page last reviewed" and "next review due", which might be a mistake but also could be related to allegations that the pages had been "blocked" for a year. What is interesting is that they exclusively use the term "chestfeeding" rather than "breastfeeding" or a combination. -- Colin°^Talk 16:10, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

Pew Research

This report released last week:

Parker, Kim; Menasce Horowitz, Juliana; Brown, Anna (2022-06-28). "Americans' Complex Views on Gender Identity and Transgender Issues". Pew Research Center’s Social & Demographic Trends Project. Retrieved 2022-07-03.

seems similar to the More In Common report about the UK. (I haven't finished reading the UK report, and I haven't started this one.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:51, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

YouGov research

• Where does the British public stand on transgender rights in 2022?

Quite a detailed questionnaire about trans attitudes. A few parts of the analysis/interpretation are imo a bit dubious when they describe when the group as a whole are "generally against" or are "generally ok with" something, when the two numbers are quite similar and there's a huge "don't know" group that could easily shift the viewpoint one way or the other if those "don't knows" were able to know. Trying to argue that 41 vs 39 is meaningful with a 25 "don't know" is foolish I think. It gets better, I think, when they start looking at sub-groups such as men vs women, grouping by age or politics, or by whether you know someone who is trans.

The interesting and I guess for me expected result is that if you know someone who is trans you are much more likely to be supportive (though not completely supportive of all things). I find this interesting as there's no guarantee the person you know is likeable (while you can choose your friends, you can't choose your family or colleagues). It suggests perhaps that being able to empathise with people the question concerns may shift opinions towards being more supportive of additional or existing rights, and being ignorant makes it easier to dismiss them. It also correlates with the increase in support among young people, who are also much more likely to know someone.

The unexpected result for me was that women were more supportive of all trans rights than men. Perhaps I've read too many gender critical feminists! For example, overall there is negativity towards allowing trans women to use women's changing rooms (34 + / 43 - / 23 ?), though views on toilets were closer (38 + / 41 -, 25 ?). But when you ask women it is closer on changing rooms (40 + / 37 - / 23 ?) and strongly for toilets (45 + / 34 - / 21 ?). Similar result for using women's refuges. I would say that the opinion of women on using women's bathrooms and refuges is a tad more relevant than what men think about it.

There are also some results that seem to demonstrate that opinions are not based on the arguments normally put forward. For example, about 60% are against or don't know if trans men should be allowed to use men's toilets or changing rooms. I suppose some might be concerned for the safety of the trans man themselves, but do the rest think trans men are a danger to cis men, or just feel this is perverted/unnatural? Similarly about half of people think trans men should not be able to allowed to compete in men's sporting events, and the usual quarter don't know. Perhaps they think they need to be symmetrical with the trans women opinion in order to be neutral/fair/unbiased, but this isn't what the debate is about or what sporting bodies have decreed. This to me shows there's a huge dollop of ignorance in this whole debate and the answers here don't necessarily reflect what people might say if they thought about it some more.

Looking at the raw results, knowing someone who is trans generally halved the size of the "don't know". And early on the survey showed the vast majority did not pay any or much attention to the trans debate. This is the problem that we will also share for social debates at MOS, where most people have not researched the issue but feel compelled to give their opinion, which is more likely to reflect prejudice or politics or some recent news story they saw on social media, or even, whether they are well disposed towards the person raising the RFC. Could this be shifted perhaps by changing the questions to not just abstractly ask about "trans women" using bathrooms:

• [Photo of a man with a beard, male clothing, slim straight figure]. Bob is a trans man who is at the cinema with his mates and wants to pop to the loo before the film starts.
  • Which bathroom do you think Bob would be more comfortable using?
  • If Bob went into the men's bathroom, do you think there would be a problem from other users?
  • If Bob went into the women's bathroom, do you think there would be a problem from other users?

• [Photo of a woman with long hair, makeup, women's clothing and curves]. Alice is a trans women who is at a restaurant with her girlfriends. She and another friend both get up to go to the bathroom together.
  • Which bathroom do you think Alice would be more comfortable using?
  • If Alice went into the men's bathroom, do you think there would be a problem from other users?
  • If Alice went into the women's bathroom, do you think there would be a problem from other users?

Could such personalised examples be used to examine how different readers might react to how our articles put things? -- Colin°^Talk 14:27, 21 July 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to adapt these examples to the context of an article. Maybe something like this?

Editors are trying to decide the best way to describe the people by pregnancy loss. They are considering this sentence: "_____ who miscarry early in their pregnancy usually do not require any subsequent medical treatment but they can benefit from support and counseling."

• If editors write "Women who miscarry early", do you think this would be problematic for...
  • English language learners?
  • teenagers or other younger readers?
  • native English speakers who struggle to read (e.g., due to dyslexia or limited educational opportunities)?
  • non-binary and trans people?
  • cis-gendered women?
  • healthcare professionals?
• If editors write "Women, non-binary people, and trans men who miscarry early", do you think this would be problematic for...
  • English language learners?
  • teenagers or other younger readers?
  • native English speakers who struggle to read (e.g., due to dyslexia or limited educational opportunities)?
  • non-binary and trans people?
  • cis-gendered women?
  • healthcare professionals?
• If editors write "Biological females who miscarry early", do you think this would be problematic for...
  • English language learners?
  • teenagers or other younger readers?
  • native English speakers who struggle to read (e.g., due to dyslexia or limited educational opportunities)?
  • non-binary and trans people?
  • cis-gendered women?
  • healthcare professionals?
• If editors write "People who miscarry early", do you think this would be problematic for...
  • English language learners?
  • teenagers or other younger readers?
  • native English speakers who struggle to read (e.g., due to dyslexia or limited educational opportunities)?
  • non-binary and trans people?
  • cis-gendered women?
  • healthcare professionals?

(Substitute whichever audience groups you want; these were just the first few that occurred to me.)

I'm not sure this would help. We'd be back to saying that some groups are helped by certain wording, and others are harmed. We might be better off saying, "Look, what's the threshold at which we take a gender-dominated subject and write it in a gender-neutral fashion? The sex skew for Kaposi sarcoma in the US is about 10 males for each 1 female. If >90% of patients are male, is that a 'he/him' article, or a 'they/them' article? If KS is 'he/him', then pregnancy is a 'she/her' subject. If KS is a 'they/them' subject, then maybe pregnancy is, too." WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:56, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

The cutoff in RS, in practice, is clearly things that are sex-specific. While this does incidentally result in a >99% cutoff in terms of "gender", the point is that the terms are being used to refer to sex regarding 100.00% sex-specific conditions, as is clear from context and in both common and academic usage. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:57, 19 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't think your approach is what I was suggesting. It still comes down to editors being asked about "abstract people groups", most of whom they will be unfamiliar with, and expected to offer an opinion on each group. I think the point is that where you ask people about taking away rights from a marginalised people group, which is what the bathroom/changing-room/refuge debates/laws are doing, then it is much easier to agree or permit it if you don't have to think about those affected as actual people doing normal things. Similarly it is easier to say "we can just ignore trans people entirely" if you just convince yourself that it's only 1% of readers and convince yourself that nearly all the other readers of your reproductive article are cis women. I don't think percentages of which sex is affected is a helpful approach.

Two other problems with the question. There is no context. Readers are being asked for all sorts of ways in which "the group affected" might be described in a sentence, without knowing if this might, at that point in the article, be quite obvious already. For example, you may get people arguing that such a sentence, on its own, might make some readers think (cis) men can get pregnant, or that the writer could be talking about the couple together. In fact, as we have seen in the lead of Pregnancy, such a sentence might easily be written "Those who miscarry early" or "When miscarriage occurs early" or "teenagers who miscarry early" etc. And nobody would care or rant about women being erased. Which brings us to the second problem is that those being asked will assume you are asking permission to do that everywhere, and their reaction to that would be "no" and then they would just invent all sorts of reasons why your proposal was bad.

I don't think, in the current political climate, we are going to get gender neutral articles about "women's health" topics. I do think there is room to make some of the sentences explicitly gender neutral and trans inclusive, and I think many articles could say more about trans people being affected. And I think it should be possible to take many of the objections we've seen in this discussion and debunk them for what they are: invented rules to justify a prejudice or conservative worldview, rules that look plain silly if you applied them elsewhere. -- Colin°^Talk 07:37, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Roxane Gay and Judith Butler on Why 'Pregnant People' and Other Gender-Inclusive Language Matters

• Interview with Roxane Gay and Judith Butler

-- Colin°^Talk 15:08, 22 August 2022 (UTC)

I wasn't very impressed by the logic in one part of this interview. Gay says "the idea that women could be obscured from reproductive activism and from the real problems that we are facing right now when it comes to reproductive justice is simply absurd. How could we possibly be erased when it's about us?"

So:

• We change "women" to "pregnant people", but that can't erase women, because it's all about women.
• But if we don't change "women" to "pregnant people", then that does erase trans people, because, ah, um, I guess she thinks it's just not about them?

I suspect that this is just under-explained instead of actually wrong (e.g., we need to elevate the less common case, because anyone who has a normal high school education already knows that female anatomy is key to pregnancy), but it sounds illogical. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:49, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

It seems to me that this simplifies down to, "most women won't forget that they have female reproductive systems to which various political claims are relevant" (thus, "it's about us"). But some women might forget that not everyone with a female reproductive system identifies as a woman, so reminders are helpful. Which doesn't strike me as "illogical"... Newimpartial (talk) 17:20, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Also, just because it's "about us" doesn't mean that "we" can't be erased. See, e.g., the problems with some US anti-racism organizations that center white people, debates about school policies that center parents instead of students, discussions about psychiatric patients that center healthcare providers, etc. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:00, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Oh, I'm not saying I think the argument is right, just that it seems cogent. Newimpartial (talk) 19:19, 20 September 2022 (UTC)

Your two bullet points aren't symmetrical. Changing from "women" to "pregnant people" is more inclusive (provided that by "women" we are talking about the pregnant women rather than just all women, who may have been pregnant, are pregnant, might or will be pregnant and who never are pregnant). So if by "erase" you mean "leave out" then it seems to me it only leaves out those who may not actually be relevant to the topic. And the opposite, perhaps you got confused when you wrote "trans people" because we are likely talking about "trans men" or "non-binary AFAB" and so, yes, the word "women" excludes them.

We saw in the analysis of the lead of pregnancy that not every sentence can be explicitly gendered, or else it sounds repetitive and forced and weird, and we know normal English allows us to substitute more explicit words like "women" or a group's name with "those" and "their" or use other descriptive like "teenage" or "elderly". So if by "erase" one is simply commenting on someone taking the delete key to a word and substituting another, then we do that very much all the time. It is a clever argument because you can't disagree that the word "women" could have been or was originally in that sentence but now isn't. But it is deceptive because we know replacing "women" with "teenage" or "those who" is acceptable. The only problem then with "pregnant people" is that it has become a cultural signifier that "the writer is thinking of and trying to include trans men and non-binary people who are pregnant", which is "woke" and about half the internet it seems is fighting woke.

So, at the individual, word choice for a random sentence, level, I think "erase women" is bunk and should be called out as such. I think it is only justifiable as an argument if you really did remove the word "women" from all of the pregnancy article. This can also happen in the short messages put out on twitter or on a poster or headline about some healthcare issue, where the topic is traditionally one of "women's health" yet the word "women" appears nowhere.

The follow on from "erase women" is: does it matter? As a soundbite, it sounds terrible, violent and abusive even, which is clever. When writers went about fixing all the text written assuming a subject was male (powerful jobs, politicians, etc) or female (caring jobs, teachers, housewives), did anyone moan about women being erased from nursing or men being erased from business? Perhaps anyone who thought that kept their thoughts to themselves as they knew already, they were onto a loser. Our cervical cancer article only mentions women once in the lead, in the last paragraph, in a sentence about statistics rather than one teaching readers about who has a cervix. Whereas in pregnancy we are informed in the lead sentence that the "womb" is in a woman, just in case you didn't know. We've mentioned the apparent need to teach the ignorant about their own body parts, and yet here we have the opposite. The relatively obscure cervix is not gendered but the obvious-to-anyone pregnant womb is gendered. I think from that we can assume the idea that all our sentences must be carefully examined in case non-English-as-a-first-language readers are also ignorant of their own body parts is not only insulting but lacking somewhat in practical evidence. So "erasing women" from horrible cancers is just fine, but "erasing women" from the lead of a subject that most strongly identifies womenhood is not. Again my conclusion is that the need for "women" to appear early and prominently in "pregnancy" is an emotive one (and no less valid for being so) and not an intellectual (is that the right word) one about our educative mission. Therefore, the truthful argument for why pregnancy must lead with "women" is the emotional link with womenhood, not any fear that women might be erased from pregnancy.

You mention some other activism where there is concern people groups are "erased", possibly by use of language. What are those examples. -- Colin°^Talk 09:24, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

When writing about pregnancy, a phrase like "women, trans men, and non-binary people":

• includes all the humans who could be pregnant
• names every gender-identity group

When writing about pregnancy, a phrase like "people":

• includes all the humans who could be pregnant
• does not name any gender-identity group

It erases (quite literally, I suppose, if you wrote out the first with a pencil) the genders of the people involved.

Because pregnancy is a heavily gendered experience, and because many cis-gendered women experience it in heavily gendered, anti-cis-woman ways (e.g., pervasive assumptions about how they should behave while pregnant, who will do most of the child care, whether they are allowed to make decisions for themselves), is it actually appropriate to erase their gender?

This question is completely separate from the question about whether the word woman has a still-valid definition that means "biologically female human past a certain point of development" or a still-valid definition of "human who, due to their perceived anatomy, humans with slightly different perceived anatomy expected to be subservient and bear children". Even if you deeply and automatically believe that the sole valid definition of the word woman is 100% about gender identity, should we be erasing gender in heavily gendered subjects?

If you'd like another one, consider breast cancer, because one reason cis-gendered women avoid mastectomies, even when it would prolong their lives, is because being flat doesn't align with their gender and/or sexual identity. Consider also Gynecomastia, which threatens the identity of cisgendered biological males. Should we de-gender those articles, even though the diseases cause psychological distress directly related to gender identity? WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:19, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I think you've got sex/gender mixed up if you want to play devils advocate for the gender critical argument. The gender critical advocates would say we were erasing their "sex" not their "gender" and that basically gender is just harmful stereotypes that aren't and shouldn't be important any more than skin, eye or hair colour or age. And the pro-trans groups would be upset at you using the neologism "biological female", which apparently has only been invented in order to describe who may use a female bathroom or changing room in US states.

But it still comes down to how far do you have to go to "erase" it? I'd argue that questions focusing on single out-of-context sentences aren't helpful because one could think "it is just one sentence" (for which gender neutral is actually the norm, even in pregnancy) or that "if I give you an inch, you'll take a mile" (because if MOS permits gender neutrality for apparently gendered (or sex-specific) topics then "activists" will go all-out. Do you seriously think that "when writing about pregnancy" Wikipedia would currently/soon/ever be entirely gender and sex neutral and avoid words like "women" or "mother"? No, I don't think so. So, in the end it becomes questions where participants contribute their own assumptions about how their response will be used, and those might not be realistic. Groups like Sex Matters couldn't care less if you eliminated or erased gender. They care that you "erase" each and every possible use of women/mother/girl that their radar detects because they see those words as sex-specific and entirely appropriate and essential to the concepts of pregnancy and reproduction and breast feeding and menstruation and having a cervix and very very much not having a penis.

What I'm saying is that I can understand reasons why "woman" must appear in pregnancy and nobody much cares if it appears in cervical cancer, but they are not the reasons that anyone on the gender critical side will own up to. The "erased" concept is an advocacy soundbite and we need to be careful not to give it credence. There's a world of a difference between editing words to pick one word over another in a given sentence, and "erasing" a whole class of people, and it is entirely advocacy to have Wikipedia conflate the two. -- Colin°^Talk 20:50, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

Here's a link to the article on gynecomastia two days ago. Please count the number of times that you find each of these in the article text (refs don't count):

• man
• men
• assigned male at birth

That's a whole article, not an isolated sentence. Does that feel like a good way to approach that article? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:26, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

1 man, 2 men, 9 assigned male at birth (and 1 assigned female at birth). I note at this version, before student editors made changes that included removing gendered language, it had 4 man, 17 men and 0 assigned at birth. The gender removal has been reverted so that it now has 2 man, 16 men and 0 assigned at birth. The de-gendered article lasted a few days, and was reverted with the "language used by this article's sources" argument. The editor who did that revert has not previously edited the article or talk page, so I'm not sure how they noticed it and I very very much doubt they are familiar with the sources, vs just assumed the sources didn't use that language.

I do think that "individuals assigned male at birth (AMAB)" significantly decreases the readability vs "men" and care is needed as "men" implies "adult" whereas "individuals" or "people" does not. The AMAB term (both worded and initialled) is tediously long to read and distracting in that it focuses on an event (assigning sex at birth) that is irrelevant to the material. It is the sort of term only a statistician could love, for being precise, and as such is likely to be most accepted in sections dealing with statistics. I don't see it gaining acceptance as a general replacement for men and women in our articles, medical and otherwise. I could be wrong and 10 years from now we'll all be AFABs and AMABs but I doubt it. I think if we had a less clunky term (just a word) that was acceptable to trans groups then that would help.

I had a quick look at some of the other public-facing websites we'd earlier noted had made some efforts to be trans-inclusive in their language, and couldn't find any evidence that their articles on gynecomastia made efforts in this direction. -- Colin°^Talk 09:35, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't think there is an easy way to approach this, but I'm currently leaning towards a routine statement in each article that says something like "This medical condition only happens in anatomical males, regardless of gender identity". WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:50, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

This would be undue weight on "gender identity", bordering on ritual recitation, in articles that have nothing to do with it. The fact it is sex-specific is obvious from context. Crossroads ^-talk- 17:42, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

Crossroads by "in articles that have nothing to do with it" are you suggesting that gender identity can only be mentioned in articles concerning gender identity? I think you keep attacking this with a "I don't like that, so I'll invent a rule that prevents it" approach. Can we look at it with less hostility and a bit more flexibility. You may think a topic is obviously sex-specific, but you also think "woman" is sex specific (you repeatedly claim it only means adult female human) so our readers have different ideas than you. We're here to educate the general reader, and our typical sources are there to educate someone with a medical degree. That places a requirement on us to make extra effort to educate readers who may be confused or unaware. I suspect most of our readers would be surprised to know that a trans woman, who has undergone surgical procedures, is still almost certain to have a prostate and may die with prostate cancer in old age like many cis men. On the other hand, I'd sincerely hope most doctors know that already and don't need reminded. Literature aimed at a general audience does increasingly mention trans issues like this, but we don't tend to cite those. I don't think an "undue weight" claim is likely to hold, and someone going around removing clarifications about sex/gender on that basis is likely to be viewed as a gender critical activist and face sanctions.

Having said that, I'm not keen on "routine statement" as an approach. It is very likely that sensitive topics like pregnancy and breast-feeding need handling differently to ones like cancers and rare disorders. Sites like NHS appear to have targeted vital topics first and there's also likely to be more trans-specific source material from which to say something more than a clarification statement. I do agree that many sex-specific pages could benefit from a clarification statement, and this may be sufficient (for now) vs trying to make it more gender neutral. For example Cancer Research say "It is the most common cancer in men in the UK. Some trans women and non-binary people (who are born male) can also get prostate cancer." and Prostate Cancer UK have a whole page on this aspect. Yet prostate cancer says nothing (AFAICS). While "male" is perhaps more likely to be interpreted as meaning male-sex than "men", it isn't the solution as it can refer to gender: a trans woman identifies as female yet was assigned male at birth. A person who has undergone surgery and taken hormones may well consider themselves (and be viewed as) having "anatomy" that doesn't correspond to their assignment at birth. If there was a boilerplate sentence that solved this problem, we'd see it used generally elsewhere, and I don't think we have. -- Colin°^Talk 11:46, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps the fundamental problem is that some people want to write the word woman when they mean "biologically female human of any gender identity, role, or expression" and other people, when they read the word woman in an article, understand it as saying "human of any sex with a gender identity of woman", which, depending on the context, may strike them as inaccurate. We are thus divided by a common language. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:51, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Agree. I wish there was terminology that was unambiguous and acceptable to both sides. I think we are likely to upset somebody. -- Colin°^Talk 09:01, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

WAID, it is undoubtedly true that some of our editors want to write in the way you describe, and some of our readers will read in the way that you describe, and this causes recurring friction.

However, I don't think this is the only relevant factor, and I would point back to the sources for a moment. In health communications practice, I believe that it is common to address populations using language with which they will identify. So if you want to address people who might become pregnant, you will address certain populations using "women" (although many women cannot become pregnant and some non-women can), while using "pregnant people" to address other populations. That doesn't mean that those doing so actually use "woman" to mean "biologically female human of any gender identity, role, or expression" - rather, they use the word "woman" to address that large and relevant population who identify as women. Newimpartial (talk) 11:18, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

@Newimpartial, I'd love to have you develop this thought a little further. Imagine that you are writing a basic patient information pamphlet for general use at a large health clinic. It will be automatically handed to every 18 year old whom the healthcare providers believe is capable of becoming pregnant (or their guardians, in the case of disabled patients).

Who is your audience?

What does the word woman mean to them? How do they define it?

If you use their language, are you implicitly adopting their definition?

When you have your first meeting with the clinic, what language would you recommend to them? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:19, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

AP Style Diversity Communications Recommendations

I came across an article about the Associated Press Stylebook making recommendations about trans coverage: New From AP: Use ‘Accurate, Sensitive, Unbiased Language’ To Cover Trans People. The article is by a pro-trans author and includes links at the bottom to some other resources too. The full AP guide can be found: AP Style Diversity Communications Recommendations / AP Stylebook: Transgender Coverage. One recommendation is:

Avoid terms like biological male, which opponents of transgender rights sometimes use to oversimplify sex and gender, is often misleading shorthand for assigned male at birth, and is redundant because sex is inherently biological

Their guidance aligns with the view (which they ascribe to "experts") that, for example, a trans woman is a woman (not merely a person who identifies as a woman), should be referred to as "she" (unless they wish otherwise) and that this is who they are, not what they have become. The guidance makes no mention of "gender ideology", a term used by anti-trans writers as though they are fighting some cult. Instead, the various terms and word choices are regarded as being neutral, and deviance from that would indicate a biased or careless writer.

Among the links given in the newspaper article, the Trans Journalists Style Guide and TJA Best Practices for Trans-Inclusive Language in Abortion Coverage.

Earlier in our discussion, the AP guide was referred to as "generalist" in that this organisation doesn't exist to promote e.g., midwifery or LGBTQ rights, etc. So I think it is significant that it regards the neutral position as being supportive of trans terminology, and rejecting the kind of language used by the gender critical or right-wing journalists. -- Colin°^Talk 09:32, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

The TJA advice is to write about "people with body parts" and "people who menstruate", which has been rejected by other sources as reductionistic. It reduces people to their anatomy and bodily functions, instead of seeing people as whole humans operating in a complex social system. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:15, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes it is odd they suggest that. It can be viewed as reductionistic but remember we are comfortable being reduced to body parts or functions and activities in many situations. There is shampoo for "people with dry hair" and creams for "people with dry skin" and shoes for "people with wide feet". We have clothes for "people who cycle" and beds for "people who sleep on their backs". Is it always necessary to consider the "whole person" for a tampon if you don't for a hair brush? When talking about a bra, surely size and fit and appearance are the relevant attributes and not the gender or sex of the person wearing it. Do women mind being reduced to a number and letter when choosing one? Does anyone complain their "whole person operating in a complex social system" isn't being considered when a bra is labelled on the box? I think the problem with the body part and function language is those body parts and functions are considered disgusting and taboo in our society so mentioning them causes alarm. So I wonder if claiming it is "reductionist" (as though such language was always inherently faulty) is a red herring, and the real problem with such language is that it causes disgust and breaks taboos. Just like people complained "woman are being erased" if you wrote "pregnant people" rather than "pregnant women" but don't seem to have any problem with "pregnant teens" or "adolescent pregnancies". So my suggestion is that whenever someone makes a complaint as their rationale for disliking a new formulation, we should consider if they have the same issue in other areas. -- Colin°^Talk 12:13, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

"Surely size and fit and appearance are the relevant attributes and not the gender or sex of the person wearing it" – says the person who obviously hasn't been following the marketing changes at Victoria's Secret. For at least part of the market, lingerie seems to be primarily a matter of sexual and gender expression. The only people who might feel themselves reduced to their size are people who need unusually large sizes.

Reducing a group to "people with body parts" is the same category of mistake as clinical research that reduces a disease process to a biomarker. Anemia during pregnancy is not only caused by being "a person with a uterus". In much of the world, anemia happens (or is made worse) because the pregnant human doesn't get enough nutritious food to eat, and that human doesn't get enough to eat because the person has a lower-status gender – not directly because of the presence or absence of any specific bit of anatomy, but because of their non-biological/social position. "Young adults with a uterus are 20 times more likely to experience anemia than young adults without a uterus" makes it sound like pregnancy-related anemia is caused by the uterus, rather than being caused by social structures that say "Oh, just go ahead and eat as much as you want. The girls can eat whatever's leftover after we men have had our fill."

Biological reductionism seems to be the opposite of Intersectionality. I wonder why they reject intersectionality in this case. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:11, 18 September 2022 (UTC)

Well you caught me out on a subject I know nothing about. I don't know anything about anaemia either, but I agree that's a topic where there are biological factors (menstruating, say) could intersect with social factors (malnutrition, eating disorders). I think there are dangers possible in either direction. You talk of "reducing a group to 'people with body parts'" being a problem if the focus on parts excludes social factors. But expanding it to "women" includes (to some of our readers) people who don't have those body parts. Is saying "teenage pregnancy" 'reductionist' by reducing people down to an age group? If we talk about "obese people" that lumps together people who are large for all sorts of reasons, medical and social. I've previously noted that those arguing strongly that "woman" means "adult female" and "adult" means "18+" then end up in trouble because a very large number of first pregnancies occur in the world in "girls" who are 13. So there are word choices we already make that aren't adequate if scrutinised but don't appear to have become embedded in a culture war. Nobody is campaigning for the lead of pregnancy to mention girl's wombs too.

Btw, in the recent LGB Alliance news it was notable that whether lesbians can have a penis was the focus of question and statements. So, it is OK for gender critical groups to reduce trans women to "people with body parts" but not ok to do that for cis women? Again, I think this is because we get a disgust reaction when genitals are mentioned, particularly genitals that might assault someone, and fits with a literally transphobic language where trans women are considered potential threats.

It also occurs to me that the most common "reduced to body parts" example is where we use skin colour as a shorthand way of describing ethnic groups in our population. Are there people arguing we should replace "black" with "people of African ethnicity" in the same way as we get "people assigned male at birth"? I note that black is very much used, brown not uncommon (for Asians in the UK, say), but yellow is taboo and inaccurate. So skin colour isn't a universal way to identify ethnic groups. -- Colin°^Talk 10:59, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't think that "teenage" is reductionist because it would be "reducing" people to membership in a complex social group (which isn't really "reducing").

Similarly with the (American) conception of race: Category:People of African descent does not really reduce people to a single isolated bit of a complex system, because being a person with a rich culture and history is not a single isolated bit.

Whether it's okay to engage in reductionism likely depends on the context. How much of the whole system is explained by the bit that you're talking about? If it's not much, then it wouldn't produce a neutral encyclopedia article. Editors would not wish, for example, to talk about skin color when the problem is complex systems of poverty, under-education, social issues, and the ways the trauma your parents and grandparents survived had on your own life. They would, however, likely be perfectly happy to reduce people down to their skin color in articles like Sun tanning and Melanoma. We have sources that warn against reducing students to their skin color or pregnant people to their anatomy. We do not have sources that warn against talking about skin color protecting against some forms of skin cancer (though there are sources warning against assuming that protection from the most common form of melanoma means protection against all potentially deadly forms of melanoma). WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:38, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

The point is that reductionism (e.g., to a skin colour) works sometimes and doesn't work other times. Reducing people to their genitals is likely to provoke a negative reaction (which is why TERFs stick "No PENISES" stickers in women's bathrooms). Reducing people to their ownership (or lack of) of an internal organ may well be acceptable if the topic is closely related to that organ (e.g., cervical or prostate cancer) and body processes like menstruation may be acceptable if you are talking about periods and products for that. But doing that simply as a replacement for man/woman is not considered generally acceptable. The reaction might be suitable to make a political point (e.g., complaining that abortion law or contraception availability is being controlled by people who don't have a uterus / have a penis) but that's not encyclopaedic unless quoting perhaps. Reductionism isn't inherently bad and can be very common. I think an argument that "X is reductionist" isn't itself sufficient explanation. -- Colin°^Talk 11:06, 24 September 2022 (UTC)

When we have sources warning us not to engage in reductionism around a health issue, then it IMO it is a sufficient objection. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:59, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

Are you referring to reductionism as a healthcare approach (treating someone's blood pressure, say, without examining and enquiring about the rest of the person) or an aspect of language? As far as I can see, reductionist language is often problematic but not always. Look back up at comments about the book "Period. End of Sentence. A New Chapter in the Fight for Menstrual Justice" where "The Pad Project" is described as '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."'. The authors are using "menstruators" much like we might use the word "teachers" or "writers". The Lancet writer reviewing an exhibition on periods at the Vagina Museum writes "objects are also displayed that help create a rich experience and reveal how people who menstruate have dealt with their periods at different times". Again, the word here is used like one might say "people who cook" or "people who fish". You wrote that "people who menstruate" was bad because it was reductionistic. I read those sentences and think those are powerful women who are not ashamed of their bodies and its functions and find the word "menstruate" no more problematic than "walk" or "eat". Earlier you wrote '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. That would seem to agree with my position. Reductionistic language can be problematic, perhaps often so, but I think there is a place for it and it is likely more common that you think. "People with heart disease"; "Circumcised men"; "Obese people"; "People with lung cancer"; etc. We are grouping all these people and classifying them by their ownership of a health issue or body part of lack of. Of course, it can also be problematic: "Epileptics" or "The prolapse in bed three" are both unacceptable. -- Colin°^Talk 08:55, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

'"people who menstruate"... I read those sentences and think those are...women': Do you think the authors mean for you to read their de-gendered wording and think "women"? I suspect that they want you to think "most of the cis women and trans men, and some of the non-binary people within a suitable age-range" instead of "women".

The Lancet piece is the one that's describe as having "crudely reduced women to lumps of meat with a sex organ" and similar anti-praise, right? A widely criticized story about a museum exhibition might not be the best guide for good practice. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:49, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

The "women" I was thinking of were the authors of the piece, not the "menstruators" they were campaigning for. And I don't think they want me to think of lots of complicated groups of people, any more than if you write "people who play football" that I have to think "cis men and women, and trans men and women, and non-binary people who play football". We've already seen that much of writing about pregnancy does not need gendered sentences. And some of the sentences in pregnancy focus on the uterus or cervix or embryo and not the person, and while a "person focused" approach has been advocated, it seems ok if a few of your sentences are thing-based, just not if you write that way all or much of the time. So I don't think there are absolutes in this, and for that reason, I don't think it is wise to be asking at any RFC "Should this sentence be written like X or like Y or like Z" because we already have permission to write like X or Y or Z some of the time, and even gender critical people write gender neutral or organ-based sentences some of the time. It could backfire and we'd get people inserting "women" into even more sentences.

Wrt the lancet thing, I'm having a conversation with you, not the ignorant opinionated fools who hang out elsewhere :-). I'd hope you'd be able to consider my point without the baggage of what Mumsnet and The Spectator wrote about it. That if you really think menstruation is normal, healthy and not at all icky then why should some sentences involving it, that are grammatically identical to talking about other life activities, cause you concern? I don't disagree that they cause concern and can be problematic for that reason, but it is because "people with earlobes" is just fine and "people who menstruate" upsets some people, and both sentences mention body parts. You yourself wrote that "Anyone with a prostate can" would be ok for certain purpose. So I think you know the "body parts" approach isn't 100% bad. It can't be used as a synonym for "men". It needs targeted in some way like "I'm talking about prostate cancer here". So again, there are real dangers that if you had an RFC that had an option to ban "using body parts to identify a people group" then you'd end up more restricted than we currently are, and it would have consequences for medical writing outside of culture war topics.

I think at this point a better approach would be to draft some guidance about the various approaches people can use when writing about sex and gender and people groups, and mention the pros and cons, and mention that in fact all of them are used currently, and that gender neutral is actually the majority of sentences, etc, etc. This would be more nuanced than a "How should I write this sentence?" question which is only going to end badly. -- Colin°^Talk 09:36, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

"People with earlobes" isn't comparable, because people aren't forced away from their homes when they have earlobes. People aren't divorced or killed for having earlobes, because having earlobe doesn't signal that you aren't pregnant.

On the bigger point, I agree with you that individual sentences can and should be written in different styles. Variety is a hallmark of good writing in English. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:45, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't think you are focusing on the point. I gave lots of examples of where we use body parts to group people and where it can sometimes be just fine. We group people by skin colour, and I don't think you need me to tell you what terrible things have happened to people with the wrong colour of skin. I don't quite know why it is so hard for you to agree that sometimes the "with a body part approach" is ok, when you yourself wrote that sometimes the "with a body part approach" is ok. But my biggest point really is please don't write an RFC that focuses on whether a given sentence is written in a way that is acceptable/forbidden or ask people to choose just one way of writing a sentence. I think we need a far more nuanced approach than "Wikipedia consensus was option K with amendment II; all other ways of identifying sex/gender are forbidden". -- Colin°^Talk 16:54, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

"People with earlobes" also isn't comparable because everyone has earlobes. On the other hand, the English language already has a word for "people who menstruate". Avoiding that word reads tendentiously, is perceived as "erasure", and is simply out of step with how RS write. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:43, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't think English actually has a word for "people who menstruate". We have a word for "people we assume have menstruated at some point in their lives", but, e.g., a person with complete Vaginal agenesis can't menstruate and will still be called a woman. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:58, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Rare birth defects or other such conditions are exceptions and beside the point. We would say "humans have two legs", not "non-amputees have two legs". Crossroads ^-talk- 03:51, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps the key issue here is actually whether being trans or nonbinary is to be counted among Rare birth defects or other such conditions (emphasis added). Clearly you believe it is, and clearly (some) others disagree. For those who disagree, your argument that trans and nonbinary people should be written about they way we might write about amputees - well, it may seem somewhat offensive. Newimpartial (talk) 03:59, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Also, that everyone naturally writes some sentences without naming "group of people with relevant anatomy" really has no relevance on what to do for sentences that do require naming said group. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:05, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I think it would be easy to assert that a particular article requires using the word woman (for example), and I think we could even say that we could assert that some sections require it. But I think it would be tolerably difficult to say that a specific individual sentence actually requires the use of any given term. That would require us to agree both that the specific sentence must be in the article (=there is no possible other way to present that information) and that the specific sentence cannot possibly be re-phrased or re-framed. Consider, e.g., "About a quarter of women who know they are pregnant will miscarry". It could be re-written to say "About a quarter of pregnancies end in miscarriage" or to move the word women to another sentence: "Many women experience miscarriage. About a quarter of them will experience pregnancy loss."

Or, in short, Colin is right about the dangers of trying to make rules around individual sentences. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:08, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

That one can write some sentences without the W-word and still sound normal is true but also completely trivial and beside the point. Mentioning it serves no purpose except to be a Trojan horse to enable writing very large chunks of text up to entire articles without "woman", which is a strange way of writing, is rare in RS, and necessitates such things as "people who menstruate" and "people with uteruses". Crossroads ^-talk- 04:01, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

In reality, it necessitates no such thing. The issue of people with language is entirely orthogonal to whether to use terms like "women" in reference to reproductive biology. Nor has any evidence of a Trojan horse yet been produced... Newimpartial (talk) 04:12, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

It isn't accurate to say "one can write some sentences without the W-word and still sound normal". Most of the sentences in a sex-related medical article like pregnancy do not contain that word. The gender of the person is irrelevant to most of the article and the reader does not need continual reminders of their sex. Doing so is mostly a quirk of English, where we might use a sex/gender specific word even if not required. Some quirks like this change over time. For example, we dropped the habit of writing "he" to refer to a singular person, when previously that was considered entirely normal practice. In the article 2020 United States presidential election we don't keep reminding readers that the voters and the candidates are American. It is vitally important that both of them are American but can be established early on and assumed afterwards. I wonder why, if you think pregnancy or menstruation are so obviously sex-linked, we need to keep reminding readers at all? -- Colin°^Talk 07:34, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Ok, I made a mistake with the earlobes and should have written "free earlobes" or "attached earlobes", in order to refer to a sub-group by their anatomy. Crossroads, I'm sure you are aware that 'the English language already has a word for "people who menstruate"' copies JK Rowling's infamous tweet. Think for a minute. That tweet didn't convince the world. Nobody woke up and said "You know what, you are right, this 'gender ideology' is cultish nonsense". In fact, it did the opposite, as it demonstrated that one side was not interested in approaching the other side to reach some degree of mutual understanding, but though mocking them was the best way to "win". Mocking the other side may be a great deal of fun, but I don't think it has ever solved any world problem. Cartoons of Trump and Johnson did nothing to shift public perception of them: they only amused those who were already minded to dislike them. It is because many other people don't share your interpretation of words like "woman" that we have a problem with word choice in our articles. One side (either side) will not win the battle by continued posts that all the other guys are not just wrong but also stupid, and if they only saw that then problem solved. In fact, continued attempts to resolve an editing disagreement by trying to persuade the other side their world view is wrong is... advocacy... and could earn you a topic ban, especially if you team it up with mocking the views of other editors and repeated misleading posts about Wikipedia consensus and policies. Instead, we have to work with understanding the various viewpoints, accepting they exist even if we don't understand and agree with them, and trying to find some compromise that ensures Wikipedia articles are the best they can be while also preventing editors from retiring or scaring off newbies. -- Colin°^Talk 07:25, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Any resemblance to Rowling's tweet is coincidental. I don't appreciate the threatening tone of this post.

It is noteworthy that the AP information this section is ostensibly about specifically rejects what it calls clinical language like "people with uteruses", which is clearly equivalent to "people who menstruate".

[Rowling's] tweet didn't convince the world - let's zoom out a bit, and frame the onus where it belongs. Have those arguing everyone should now use terms like "people who menstruate" convinced the world? Why do sources on menstruation still almost always speak about women, then? To focus only on Rowling and the backlash to it (which for the most part was about her other, later comments anyway) would be to take the very culture-war approach you elsewhere deride. We must look outside of a culture war and the fact that people who are loud about it are often not representative of the general population, and look at what ordinary sources are quietly doing. Crossroads ^-talk- 07:47, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I think all the advice needs a nuanced approach. Simply writing "Don't do X because Y" or "Avoid X" as though there are absolute rules and clear consequences of word choices in all situations is too simplistic. All of us here agree that a bodyparts approach is often going to fail and simply replacing "women" with "people with uteruses" is likely to be a naive and swiftly reverted action. But at the same time, I hope it is clear that bodyparts not only are frequently used to group people (not just when those body parts are relevant, like prostates and prostate cancer, but black skin and prison populations) but can occasionally be absolutely appropriate for a sex-based medical article. We have examples of public facing cites using this, especially with a "who can get X" topic. If you have a Y you can get X.

Assuming a gendered word like "woman" is an acceptable descriptive in all circumstances of "people who menstruate" is not acceptable in 2022, Crossroads, and really it is only gender critical advocates who think otherwise. It certainly isn't the position of science and medicine, which have accepted that trans men are men and trans women are women and that there are non-binary people and that the very idea of an absolute fixed binary in sex and gender is questioned. This is what our sources tell us, and our sources aren't Mumsnet and The Spectator. What our science and medical authorities haven't agreed on is the best language to resolve that problem, but it is a rather fringe position to consider, as you seem to, that there isn't a problem, only stupid people who will become convinced if you repeat what you say often enough.

As I've said before, I hope WAID's talk page is a safe space, but if you were foolish enough to repeat Rowling's tweet (and make the astounding claim it was a coincidence) on a page like talk pregnancy, then I think that you'd be in deep trouble advocacy-wise and very much be hoisted by your own petard. You keep claiming that only the people who think differently to you are activists and advocates, and I suspect that will be your downfall. If you don't appreciate you are clearly the strongest gender-critical activist on that talk page. Look at the two mild short posts by Beatswithbea, who asked about making a change but did not do so, and compare them with your voluminous domineering posts. Who is using talk pregnancy as a soap box? The post "If rando newbies or WP:Student editors make a fuss, we revert if necessary and inform them of how we do things around here" is a terrible mindset (especially considering who is the one making all the fuss) and reminds me of a few other editors who are no longer with us. That's not a threat, Crossroads, its a prediction and a warning. -- Colin°^Talk 09:09, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

The fact is that the reason people who menstruate is the go-to example is that many of the same people who find that term horribly offensive also simultaneously want to use the term people with penises, to lump trans women (even, ironically, post-op trans women) with men. Their objection to "objectifying language" is selective, not universal.

As far as your ordinary sources approach is concerned, I would simply point out that - as when you and I discussed the use of "AFAB" and "AMAB" a couple of years ago now - the "ordinary sources" I read do not typically use language in the ways you claim ordinary sources do. In particular, they do not use "women" insistently as a universal term for female reproductive biology".

And as an aside, I doubt very much that I could find "ordinary sources" in my mediasphere that group trans and identities with "birth defects or other such conditions", but perhaps your environment is different. Newimpartial (talk) 11:59, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

That the same people both object to and use a people-with-body-parts approach is just hypocritical but not inconsistent. They regard both as offensive and in the latter case want to be offensive. It can also be funny: if the writer has already set a light-hearted mood, one could get away with saying that having a penis makes you more likely to ... (pick your male sex or gendered social example). The reader understands that's an imprecise and somewhat inappropriate cause-effect and along with mentioning your rude bits makes it funny. And it can be political: in a previous time a feminist might well have ranted about "menstruators" being disadvantaged without anyone associating it with "gender ideology". But on Wikipedia we don't want to be gratuitously offensive or funny or political.

Saying "women" or "men" when discussing something like cervical cancer or prostate cancer or circumcision is really grabbing hold of a convenient nearby group-name that the writer thinks aligns closely enough with people with a cervix or prostate or penis. We don't have the opportunity to use a proxy term when talking about piles, say, or the risks of being overweight or having diabetes. And we just accept then that we've got to use the body-language approach. I mean, there's nothing about cervical or prostate cancer than makes anyone feel it is such an emotively womans or mans issue that we have to mention the word women and men all the time. It just happens to be sex-specific, unlike piles. Where did the rule come along that says "If your disease affects an organ that is found only in one sex, you cannot and must not mention the organ when describing who it affects, but must instead use a term for people of that sex". Language is weird sometimes. Colin°^Talk 13:10, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

In any case, that's just how language is and Wikipedia editors have to live with it. However, there is not as much inconsistency as you may think. For example, nobody writes about podiatry issues as affecting "people with feet", even though some people don't have feet, either being born without them or later having them amputated. When they need to refer to "the category of person with feet", they just refer to people. Someone trying to add in "people with feet" because "ableism" would likely be reverted. It's the same with sex-specific issues. When one needs to talk about "the category of people with uteruses" - despite the fact that people have been widely aware for decades that birth defects and hysterectomies exist, and none of these people fought to change the terminology - it looks just as weird to avoid "woman". Crossroads ^-talk- 16:03, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Crossroads, as I think has already been stated, your continued analogies with people with birth defects or amputations vs trans people is distasteful. You've done that elsewhere several times too. I strongly suggest you find a different analogy for a people-group you feel happy to ignore. -- Colin°^Talk 17:39, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Tonight's Guardian has It is great that little girls now have role models so they, too, can grow up to be crazed world leaders. Worth a read as it is quite funny while making a serious point. Anyway, it is also a good example of using body parts for humour and political point making: "I would love to see more women in powerful positions but representation has its limits: simply having a vagina and a fancy job title doesn’t make you a feminist role model." -- Colin°^Talk 19:17, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I can't speak for gender-critical activists, but I object just as much to "people with penises" as to the rest. In fact, the Village Pump discussion several times mentioned "people with prostates". The very fact that some gender-critical activists use "people with penises" should be evidence against "people who menstruate" and the rest.

As for ordinary sources "I read" and "my mediasphere", in every case I mention such things, I do mean all of them, in general, on average. The subset that you or I read more often than the others is not relevant. My comment about birth defects was in response to someone above in this discussion using vaginal agenesis to argue that the English language does not have a word for people of the female sex and did not mention "identities" at all. Crossroads ^-talk- 16:03, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

If you don't see that you yourself were comparing trans and nonbinary people (who are defined in relation to their gender identities) with people with birth defects "or other such conditions", I don't know that I can help you in reading your own comment.

You previously argued that AMAB and AFAB were not terms used in mainstream sources, and indeed, you have continued to object to those terms even after I provided a long list of mainstream media uses of both abbreviations. I can only conclude that, without evidence, you still hold particular beliefs about all of these media in general, on average, presumably based on some epistemology that does not actually require you to read the sources to which you refer. Newimpartial (talk) 17:27, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Degendering Menstruation

Our article menstruation pointed me at Degendering Menstruation: Making Trans Menstruators Matter. There's some heavy-going academic language in that, which is a bit off-putting for me. However, three things I noticed. The first is that assuming "women" is a sufficient and accurate description of those people who menstruate is cis-normative. The second is that if we are to describe the issues faced by trans people who menstruate, then a term like "trans menstruators" is rather unavoidable. How else would you discuss the issues facing trans men changing their tampons in a men's bathroom or products designed for women's underwear or with feminine design. And then there's the whole "feminine hygiene" weirdness. I wonder, wrt menstruation, whether sometimes the focus on "not mentioning that word" but instead writing "women" or "feminine hygiene products" and then perhaps compounding it by saying "women and some trans men and non binary people" is just perpetuating taboos and stigmas and patriarchal thinking about unclean women's bodies. -- Colin°^Talk 10:10, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Right off the bat that source begins with a non-sequitur: Rydström works within a post-constructionist framework to critically explore the nature of menstruation, which many perceive to be a strictly female bodily function despite many scholars’ recognition that menstruators are of various gender identities. This sentence conflates sex (female) and gender identity. It is a strictly female bodily function. Only the female reproductive system menstruates. Unfortunately, some would prefer we engage in obscurantism over this fact. Crossroads ^-talk- 22:47, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

That isn't at all what the passage you are quoting actually says - your WP:POV is inserting itself in your interpretation rather prominently, I'm afraid. Newimpartial (talk) 23:15, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Over at talk pregnancy, WAID linked to this response to the infamous Lancet article. I note the authors wrote "We have also moved towards inclusive language, such as individuals that menstruate, so that women, girls, transmen, and non-binary individuals are included, and we have shifted from reducing these individuals to bodily functions or body parts by avoiding the term menstruators." Their point they make is that "individuals that menstruate" does not reduce these individuals to bodily functions or body parts, whereas they think "menstruators" does. The comparison with "people with epilepsy" vs "epileptics" is appropriate I think. This is the people-first language approach in action. It is only when you truly reduce someone to a body part or disease or body-function that it is dehumanising and reductionist.

And yet at that discussion Clayoquot wrote that "person with a uterus" was "dehumanising". And WAID said 'the "bodies with body parts" model is frequently considered an offensively reductionist approach because it reduces the whole of a human experience to something like a mindless machine made of parts'.

Consider:

• Cyclists, menstruators, epileptics, bankers, smokers. In these we have reduced a group of people to one defining feature. Some of these features are neutral such as cycling, banking and smoking. Some have some stigma around them, such as epilepsy and menstruation.
• People who cycle; people who menstruate; people with epilepsy; people who work in finance; people who smoke. In all these we lead with the person and a claim they are "dehumanised" or "reduced to a mindless machine" doesn't make much sense imo. The language is wordy which is probably why people seek a shorthand alternative. And I suggest the problem with "people who menstruate" is that it is considered an icky function, much like we say "I need to pop to the loo" rather than "I need to defecate".

What a term like "people with a uterus" does is place attention on two things. The gender-neutral word "people" and an organ in the body given its technical term. I know that you are more than just a person with a uterus and I am more than just a person with a prostate. But in epilepsy, the person is also more than just someone with epilepsy. They want to be considered "as whole humans operating in a complex social system" as WAID put it earlier. They don't get that opportunity. The only way we can talk about people prone to epileptic seizures is to call them people with epilepsy. You know I don't think we can replace "women" with "people with a uterus" all over the pregnancy article. But I'm not sure it is for the reasons you claim.

(Clayoquot, I pinged you as a courtesy because I quoted you, but you can ignore this if you like). -- Colin°^Talk 15:05, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I'm not convinced that "body with bodily function" language is non-reductionistic, but I wanted to share this line from a trans-inclusive non-profit: "‘people who menstruate’ is inclusive, accurate and what we should all be trying to use. Saying ‘women’ as a replacement for people who menstruate is transphobic and misogynistic. It excludes trans and non-binary people, it reduces women to nothing more than having a functioning uterus."

This has reminded me of the classic feminist argument that policies and social structures can reduce women to their reproductive function, no matter what language is used, by only caring about reproductive function and not about their liberty, autonomy, civil rights, etc. Before the 1970s, the usual term for pregnant humans was mothers, not women. I would not be surprised to find that there were claims that this language, in addition to the various social and legal structures associated with it, reduced them to their reproductive situation. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:11, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

See below, I agree with you on "body with" but I think "people with" can't possibly be dehumanising or reductionist. And I think if we are to rise above those who just chuck anything at what seems to support their agenda/belief, then it is important that our rationales are reasonable. Is "People with degrees earn more" educationally reductionist? Does "People with good jobs can afford nice things" reduce people to their employment status? Whereas "The unemployed" does reduce a group of people to their employment status. I think the mistake perhaps is to assume that because we agree with the opinion (that "people with a uterus" is a truly awful general replacement term for "women") their rationale must be ok too.

Wrt your quote, I don't think the author was at all suggesting that "we should all be trying to use" "people who menstruate" rather than "women", which your quote might appear to suggest. I think they were saying that if you are talking about menstrual health (which the original tweet that JK Rowling responded to was doing) then "people who menstruate" might be appropriate, accurate and trans inclusive, whereas insisting that "women" better describes the set of people who a menstrual health campaign should include is, in their opinion, transphobic. -- Colin°^Talk 19:34, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

"Women between the ages of 15 and 45 shouldn't drink alcohol or eat lunch meats, because they might be pregnant and not know it yet" sounds pretty reductionistic to me. In another author's words, "No one has suggested that men are just walking testicles, but again and again women have been looked on as though they were walking ovaries". Word choice isn't the only way to reduce a complex concept down to a single part of the system.

(That non-profit specializes in issues related to Period poverty. They probably don't want to ban the word woman in general, but they seem to disagree with using that word as the primary way to describe people who use period management products. Their "About us" page says "The fact is that it’s not only women who have periods....We provide period products to people. Let’s make it a chant.") WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:53, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

You keep using that word, reductionistic, as though it is an always-bad word, like sexist or racist. The author here is making a huge demand, a "big ask", that for 30 years of your life, you should forgo some pleasures in life. And not only that, but other people, men for goodness sake, can continue to enjoy them. At the same table even. Right in front of you. Mmm. This wine is delicious, what a shame you can't partake. And this is to prevent the small risk of a very bad thing happening. We think this demand is unreasonable and go looking for an explanation as to why an otherwise intelligent person might make such a demand. Oh, it's because they have reduced, in their mind but not on paper, their concept of "women" down to "walking uteruses that might get pregnant with a precious delicate new life at any moment". I can use the word "reductionist" to explain their horrendous mindset. And probably the word "sexist" too.

But what if the demand was more reasonable. For example, drug trials. They are entirely optional, altruistic, not one of life's pleasures. There used to be a complete ban on women of childbearing age. I understand now that ban has gone, though trials may still exclude and those that don't will impose other hurdles like asking if you could be pregnant or asking you to take a test.

And drinking during pregnancy. Of course, some women do still claim that during pregnancy, they are often reduced to a walking womb, but I'd say they probably mainly make that complaint when someone is being unreasonable.

Or what if we remove the sexist aspect. "We should avoid processed meats like bacon and sausages because they increase the risk of bowel cancer". Is that reductionistic? Have I been reduced to a walking intestine? A lot of people think this demand is unreasonable. Some may complain about a nanny state telling us what to eat.

Let's make the demand entirely reasonable. "Do not smoke. Smoking increases your risk of developing more than 50 serious health conditions, many fatal." Am I reduced to a walking pair of tar filled lungs poisoning the rest of my body? Perhaps. Perhaps it is reductionistic. But we don't seem to think that's a problem. -- Colin°^Talk 09:47, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Focusing on a subset can be reasonable, just like using a biomarker in a clinical trial can be reasonable. I think we normally use the word reductionist to describe inappropriate focus on a subset – on drug developers thinking "But they can't be dying; their biomarker results are fantastic!" or family members saying "Stop smoking, because it's bad for your long-term health!" to a person who in hospice care.

The non-profit organization I quoted believes that using the word women to indicate the fraction of the population that menstruates is an inappropriate reduction. Being a woman does not require menstruation (under both "biological" and "gender" definitions, though there are biological-oriented definitions that require a past history of menstruation for womanhood); menstruating does not require being a woman (under "gender" definitions).

I wonder whether using woman to denote menstruation is an example of a Metonymy, or perhaps Synecdoche#Specific class name referring to general set of associated things. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:17, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Is "reduction" the right word for the quoted complaint. Perhaps "misalignment". There are women who are AMAB and there are women who are post-menopause who don't menstruate. And there are people who menstruate who aren't women. There seems to be more upset if the term used excludes people than if it includes too many, perhaps especially if being excluded is a feature of other social stigma. On the other hand, your alcohol example is perhaps insulting also for the implication that all women are equally to blame and irresponsible and careless when it comes to unplanned pregnancy. I agree that normal English uses terms to denote groups that are imprecise and even perhaps sometimes linguistically playful, and I think doing that isn't intrinsically problematic. It is problematic if you feel the inclusion/exclusion is symptomatic of a bigger problem (e.g., cisnormative, sexist, homophobic) and perhaps sometimes people are guilty of seeing a problem that isn't there. I think it is more complex than just saying "it has this linguistic form so therefore is bad". -- Colin°^Talk 19:27, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I searched the previous conversations for "dehumanising" and found it was generally someone responding to or citing The Lancet, which put "bodies with vaginas" on its cover. Of course, here we have "women" being replaced by "bodies" and that is indeed reductive and dehumanising. But I suspect then people have conflated that one awful example with the "people with body parts" or "people who bodily function" and assumed the same criticism applies there too. I wonder what it says to consider "woman" more "human" than "person", and how that affects trans women, who get excluded from "womenhood" by some activists. -- Colin°^Talk 17:47, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

I had a feeling of deja vu about this discussion, and that it was in fact WAID who made a point about a term that included "people". It was in the discussion of the paper about "the importance of sexed language". Here it is:

'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.)'

And in the Journal of Midwifery & Women's Health discussion, the reductionism that seemed to be of concern, was replacing sentences that mentioned "women" or "mothers" and instead focused entirely on body parts and processes without mentioning a person at all (e.g., pregnancy has the amazing sentence: "The fusion of female and male gametes usually occurs following the act of sexual intercourse.") -- Colin°^Talk 13:31, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

I still don't think it's dehumanizing to refer to someone as a person. It could be de-sexing and de-gendering and obscuring relevant context, but it's not dehumanizing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:25, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Why gender is at the heart of the matter for cardiac illness

• Why gender is at the heart of the matter for cardiac illness by Sian Harding (emeritus professor of cardiac pharmacology at Imperial College London). There's also a follow-up letter here.

I had a quick look at Cardiovascular disease and Cardiovascular disease in women and my skim of those didn't find this issue mentioned, and they focused on sex (biology) as the difference and not gender. I thought it was interesting that the gender of the doctor intersected with the gender of the patient in terms of whether women got the diagnosis and treatment they needed. And also, the idea that having qualities perceived as feminine worsened your chances. Here is an example where the "gender binary" is too simplistic, and a spectrum of behaviour and perception and attitudes is present. I recall another author commenting on patient behaviour affecting treatment, and the male doctor lamenting (IIRC) in robustly gendered language that "behaving like a giant prick" was the approach most likely to give you the most attention and best treatment. Those who meekly wait for the doctor or nurse and don't like to make a fuss, get neglected.

I think we can see from the Guardian article and letter that language choice in this topic isn't easy. I think it would be hard to write about this in a way that was trans-inclusive. It would be tricky to know what factors were entirely sex-based, and which were gender-based. Searching for "cardiovascular disease transgender" shows quite a lot of articles, mainly about the effect of hormone treatment. Earlier I think we uncovered some articles about transgender people generally receiving worse healthcare (and being less willing to go to health professionals). -- Colin°^Talk 09:27, 25 September 2022 (UTC)