Jump to content

Talk:Fingering (sexual act)/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Urban Dictionary

The title makes it sound like a reliable resource but it's just a collection of silly nonsense. There's a tendency on the sex pages to include slang terms from quite small groups, such as the editor's school, and we end up with a very long and bizarre word list with common usage being swamped. We just need the main terms with the bulk of the article being about the act rather than words. --Simon Speed (talk) 09:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Not only that , I read the whole thing and it sounds like its all original research based on a user experience and not internet references. 69.62.172.116 (talk) 06:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Simon Speed was talking about UD being an unreliable source, not this article being full of OR. Darrenhusted (talk) 08:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I do not see any use for using "slang" words. This identification of terms is not, in my opinion, educational. The correct terminology should be used, both biological and sexological. The description of "fingering" is much broader than stated. There are many other aspects to this sexual act. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (Coolasmacks (talk) 14:22, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Image

Not sure what would be better, but the image is God awful! Grunners (talk) 01:57, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I have updated the article with a new image. --SeedFeeder (talk) 21:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what would be better, but the image is god great! And that's the way it is, Sunday September 30, 2012. This is Walter Cronkite Reporting. I mean, I'd prefer an Asian... Blondesareeasy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:30, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

digital penetration

What the hell is digital penetration =P It's under the "Law" section Paskari (talk) 23:02, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Penetration via digits I would assume.

'digi' means finger...08:54, 9 March 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.2.62.198 (talk)

forced penetration

It is considered illegal in most jurasdictions - NO SHIT! - why is that in the page?

This article is in its infancy, either someone will add and edit the Law section, or it will eventually be removed =) Paskari (talk) 08:06, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Medical Term

There has to be a better term for this than fingering something like fingeral-vaginal sex =P. I wouldn't mind having fingering redirect to it, but this doesn't sound reliable. Like if we had an article for Hummmer instead of fellatio. Paskari (talk) 22:58, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

That's the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. 87.38.200.36 (talk) 08:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)
I think it could be called "digital penetration", but WP:COMMONNAME says we should use fingering. C6541 (Talk ↔ Contribs) 20:30, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

What on Earth?

You know, I have written three different pages on three different subjects. Not one of them survived. Why? BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T CITE ANY REFERENCES! This makes me wonder why this page is deemed ok when it is clearly a matter of titilatation. Had it been part of the Masturbation article or something similar then fine but it is on its own! Surviving! And if it is going to be here, why aint there some photographs? --Jefuab (talk) 05:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

A-spot stimulation technique as the most effective means of stimulating the A-spot

that's nonsense --132.69.232.145 (talk) 07:33, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Picture

I would like to move it further down page, so that it is less potentially offensive to quickly browse the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.183.234.97 (talk) 19:45, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

PS. I saw the disclaimer on the edit page. I did the edit anyways, but labeled it as a content decision, as I think the image is more appropriate in the "genital fingering" section, as the image illustrates this particular act.

I'd prefer the article's main illustration to be at the top of the page, but I don't feel strongly enough to move it. If people find knowledge offensive, tough. --Simon Speed (talk) 16:04, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

My objection is more a to that particular image's placement. I acknowledge that its an illustration (as apposed to an explicit photograph), but I'm not sure if this particular image conveys encyclopedic knowledge (it looks a bit cartoonish to me - my first though was that it was copied from an explicit graphic novel, though it is an original work). Placing it lower in the article assuages my concerns. Perhaps a depiction of "digital manipulation" on ancient pottery could be used for the introductory paragraph?. Just because Wikipedia isn't censored doesn't mean that it can accommodate some conscientious discretion :). --69.183.234.97 (talk) 20:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


Title Question

In a similar vain to my image placement concerns, I'm also unsure about the title - "fingering" doesn't exactly convey gravitas. Would "digital penetration of the vagina" be a more appropriate title (and "fingering" would redirect to it)? Does Wikipedia have a policy on this? --69.183.234.97 (talk) 20:01, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

This is no place for euphemisms or neologisms. --Simon Speed (talk) 22:48, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Just to clarify, are you in favor of renaming or not? Which are you referring as a euphemism: "fingering" or "digital penetration..."? I was quoting "digital penetration" from the article as the medical name for the act in question, so I wasn't making it up :). --69.183.234.97 (talk) 03:46, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

I'm opposed to renaming. If you've got a medical source then I suppose the term's not a neologism. But this encyclopedia is for a lay audience and we should use reasonably plain English: this is not an article about a medical procedure and we say "finger" not "digit". Sometimes (eg. Mammary intercourse) the plain alternatives are so taboo as to be unusable ("tit fuck"), sometimes (eg. Non-penetrative sex) the alternatives are too diverse ("outercourse", "Frottage" etc.) with different communities using different ones and sometimes (eg Penis) the medical term is the plain term for matter of fact conversation. In this case "fingering" is good plain English. --Simon Speed (talk) 10:45, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

It's also the common name for the act. Flyer22 (talk) 01:51, 24 April 2011 (UTC)

Regarding this removal of an image from this article, I do not know upon what information Jehochman (talk · contribs) was acting, but can I point people to the latter part of this discussion, which I think may be relevant. --Nigelj (talk) 22:59, 16 May 2013 (UTC)

The picture is sexually explicit, of a person, and there's no documentation that the subject is at least 18 years old. Do you have any such evidence? If so, please provide suitable records. If you do not have the evidence, please do not restore the picture under any circumstances. Thank you! On a more mundane note, there is already a drawing, which illustrates the article that could be moved to the top. The drawing does not trigger any age-record-keeping requirements under US law. Jehochman Talk 23:18, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Additionally, thank you for asking, here on the talk page. That was a very civil way to approach a potential disagreement. I'll do anything I can to help resolve this. Jehochman Talk 23:26, 16 May 2013 (UTC)
Well you could make a start by reading some of the arguments put forward in the link I responded with above and addressing them, citing whatever new information you have from the Wikimedia legal team, rather than just harping on with commands, instructions and your own, apparently ungrounded, legal opinions. --Nigelj (talk) 09:07, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
I have requested clarification. Their position is muddled. Meanwhile, please leave the image out. It is un-encyclopedic and potentially illegal. Jehochman Talk 10:56, 17 May 2013 (UTC)
I noticed this – User talk:Jimbo Wales/Archive 133#Child protection. --Nigelj (talk) 15:01, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

Fingering as a teen slang term

Among young people, especially teenagers, these days, I've observed the term fingering as referring solely to the act of inserting one's fingers into a females vagina for the purpose of sexual stimulation. They generally do not use the term to refer to external clitoral only stimulation via the fingers. That seems to a broader usage among sex researchers and other older adults. I don't have any sources off hand to verify this but I think if a reliable source can be found this narrower slang definition should be mentioned in the article. --50.152.139.176 (talk) 23:08, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

When people think of fingering, they usually initially or only think of vaginal fingering, as opposed to clitoral fingering (or as opposed to the musical act of fingering; notice the small debate at that talk page about WP:Common name); so the usage you cite is the most common one, not simply a "kids of today" matter. Flyer22 (talk) 23:18, 22 November 2014 (UTC)

Foreskin fingering

Rui Gabriel Correia keeps deleting the information pertaining to foreskin fingering. The act of providing sexual stimulation through inserting a finger in the foreskin is no less relevant to the topic at hand than inserting a finger in the vagina or anus. SickTwist (talk) 21:35, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Find some propers sources that confirm that this is a widespread practice. You know what? Just revert the damn thing for all I care. There are far more deserving articles to work on than wasting my time with sick twists like you. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 21:41, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Let's get a few things straight:
  • I removed the section and left a proper edit summary: "removed one-off edit by IP. As an encyclopaedia, we reflect practices that represent society as whole - anything else can go under paraphilia, unusual sex interests, etc. Source cited is about anti-circumcision."
  • You reverted my edit, no edit summary
  • I reverted you and invited you to take up the matter on the discusion page
  • You reverted and called me a vandal
  • You went to the discussion page, NOT to discuss, but to call my actions "censorship" and to attack me.
  • Right after saving your edit on the discussion page, you reverted.
  • Interesting to note that since July last year you have contributed nothing to the the project except reverting edits on this page.

Have a good life. Rui ''Gabriel'' Correia (talk) 21:51, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

  • Circumcision is a red herring. This page is not about circumcision so I don't know why you feel the need to bring that topic up.
  • The number of edits I have contributed is also a red herring. Commits should be judged on their quality. Not the activity level of the contributor.
  • You write "we reflect practices that represent society as whole - anything else can go under paraphilia, unusual sex interests, etc". Your implication is that fingering male genitalia is fringe but fingering female genitalia or the anus is not. Yet you don't back this up with any evidence. If your complaint is regarding a citation, why not simply suggest that a different citation be used rather than removing all the content?

SickTwist (talk) 04:42, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

The source used to support the added content on foreskin fingering was not reliable. Please review Wikipedia's policies on reliable sources and reliables sources for medical content. If usable sources cannot be found the content should not be restored. Please try to keep discussion civil, also. Grayfell (talk) 05:19, 22 February 2015 (UTC)

WP:Not censored and WP:Offensive material

With regard to the two IPs who added the gratuitous fingering image (I recognize the second IP range, and am willing to bet that it's one of my stalkers), as seen here, here and here, WP:Not censored is not a valid rationale at all in this case. Editors waving around that policy to add completely unnecessary sexually explicit images to Wikipedia articles simply because the articles are about the sexual topics that the images showcase need to understand policy better. It states, for example, "The Wikipedia:Offensive material guideline can help assess appropriate actions to take in the case of content that may be considered offensive." And what does Wikipedia:Offensive material state? It states, "Wikipedia is not censored. However, offensive words and offensive images should not be included unless they are treated in an encyclopedic manner. Material that would be considered vulgar or obscene by typical Wikipedia readers should be used if and only if its omission would cause the article to be less informative, relevant, or accurate, and no equally suitable alternative is available."

Well, there is an equally suitable alternative image in the article -- the lead image. There is no need whatsoever for the more explicit image, as if readers do not already get the point, especially when our readers generally view real-life sexual images as pornographic, which is why Wikipedia generally uses drawings or paintings to show sexual acts these days. (And, yes, I'm a big reason for that -- the use of drawings or paintings to show sexual acts.) Unless anyone can offer a valid rationale for keeping the more explicit image, I will be reverting the IP and/or starting a WP:RfC on this matter. If the IP continues to WP:Edit war on this matter, I will get this article WP:Semi-protected; the IP will then have no choice but to edit using his registered account if he wants to continue editing this article. Flyer22 (talk) 02:15, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Update: I've reverted the IP again as a Cali11298 WP:Sock. I will now be requesting that this article be WP:Semi-protected. Keep following and interacting with me, Cali11298, and I will reveal your latest registered account(s). Remember, I always know where you are. And my memory is excellent, which is exactly why I recognized your 208.54. IP range. Flyer22 (talk) 02:47, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Yunshui, since you recently dealt with running the WP:CheckUser tool on this user, do you think the tool should be ran on the 208.54.83.171 (talk · contribs) IP to see if any registered accounts are tied to it, or its IP range? With Cali11298, it's easy for me to recognize his registered accounts, but I have to pull together evidence in those cases unless it's a very obvious "Yeah, that's Cali11298" matter to others. But reporting IPs in a WP:Sockpuppet case is a different matter as far as the WP:CheckUser tool goes, as you know. Flyer22 (talk) 03:18, 14 September 2015 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Fingering which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 22:44, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Requested move 27 May 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: No consensus. There seems to be no consensus here. (closed by a page mover) (non-admin closure). Anarchyte (work | talk) 11:15, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

– 363,325 views in the last three months (that's 4,037 a day), plus even the dab page gets a lot more views than the other three topics combined. There is no question whatsoever that this is the intended target for almost all traffic.[1] Unreal7 (talk) 23:26, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Pinging BD2412, GrammarFascist, AjaxSmack, Francis Schonken, Bkonrad (older ≠ wiser), Andrewa, Cúchullain, SNUGGUMS and Djembayz. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 03:03, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
That's what I claimed when I made the last move request over at Talk:Fingering (music), but I was told that that said more about me than it did about other people. Unreal7 (talk) 10:25, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
It absolutely does have long term significance. Google the word fingering and...porn sites galore! Unreal7 (talk) 19:38, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Sorry but that's absolute BS (pardon my French). By that logic someone who lives in Boston, Lincolnshire or Paris, Texas should be surprised too. Unreal7 (talk) 19:35, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
"Even if it is the major use of the term, the secondary use is significant" - you've basically just supported this move. Unreal7 (talk) 21:49, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
Unreal7, no, and I do not appreciate you trying to warp my words to suit your desires. My point is that, if it were true that sexual fingering is the primary use of the word fingering, the secondary musical or otherwise usage is significant, and, in such circumstances, the main page should be the one which is less likely to be problematic if you meant the other one. -mattbuck (Talk) 21:57, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The second most common?

"Massage of the vulva, and in particular the clitoris, is the second most common way for a woman to achieve an orgasm." Is it just me, but straight away I want to know, which is the first most? And also, which women? All women? Since forever? American women? Christian women? Straight women? Age range? Clicking on the cited reference is no use to the average reader due to the paywall. Actually, I simply don't believe this statement. --Nigelj (talk) 09:49, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Nigelj, we both know the statement to be false. We've had discussions about the clitoris before. "Second" was added by the now blocked Dr. Linus KinKay (talk · contribs). Reverted here. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:46, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Assault

I just added an explanation that digital penetration (fingering) without consent is assault, with a source. Any objections to this?

I've encountered protests that linking to this article in sexual assault cases is somehow implying the assault was consented to, so I believe this kind of disclaimer is needed to diminish confusion by readers. Ranze (talk) 01:42, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Why does everyone keep re-adding the pornographic pictures?

So,i stumbled upon this article fingering,and i immediately noticed there was gratuitous nudity here,obviously unneeded graphic illustrations of sexual perversions,and when i tried to remove it,i got called a vandal and had 2 warnings on my talk page,apparently saying it is NOTCENSORED. Howewer,even without the pictures,the text in the article is more than enough to describe the act,so why keep re-adding a picture? I dont understand,if people want to see what it looks like,they should do it in real life. I need this cleared up. Debearing egu 2 (talk) 10:15, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello. As I said on your talk page, Wikipedia is not censored. Please read Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not censored. These images are here to provide visual information about the topic of the article. Not everyone approaches a topic the same way, so we provide different ways to explain the same thing. If the images bother you, you can configure Wikipedia to conceal them, as explained here: Help:Options to hide an image. Thanks. Grayfell (talk) 10:19, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Greetings,Grayfell. Another reason why i removed the pictures is because a person under the age of 18,such as a middle or high school student,may hear the term fingering regularly in the dormitories or in school generally,so if they are curious enough to try to read it on Wikipedia,they may only expect text and no graphic pictures,so they would be extremely shocked to see that wikipedia is harboring "porn". Also,i never seen a encyclopedia before host gratuitous nudity,heck,even the book "Human Body" does not display graphic nudity more than is neccesary,so that is my counterargument for now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Debearing egu 2 (talk • contribs) 10:22, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Sorry to wade in with my big boots .... but no one would be discussing that sort of thing in public .... unless it was a joke but even so I can't see people in school dorms etc talking about fingering themselves in public, Anyway Grayfell is correct we're not censored - We provide information for a whole range of people - Some may be offended by the text or images and some will have gotten some knowledge from them, We don't remove images just for one person as many people have different "offense" levels if that makes any sense, Thanks, –Davey2010Talk 10:37, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Just a heads up,apparently,i am not the only one who has problems with the article. Since about august 2016,there have been NUMEROUS IPs frequently removing the images and posting misleading edit summaries,and when i checked one of their talkpages,Davey did comment on it,possibly a profanity and personal attack: If you do not like the pictures,then i strongly suggest you gtfo this site. Also,there has been outing of an IP by Tarl Newman (Tarl N.),saying one of the IPs lives in Slovakia. Could we be dealing with a IP hopping vandal? Or do they have genuine concerns about the article? Links to the following talkpages here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:178.41.174.170 and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:178.41.225.113. Davey,what did you mean by GTFO? Was it a personal attack? (As it stands for get the fuck out) Or were you just pissed off? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Debearing egu 2 (talk • contribs) 10:53, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Well are you one of the IPs ? ... Seems a bit odd you're getting a tad defensive over a comment I made over a year ago, But yeah I meant it if you're that offended over a sexual image then yes you should go elsewhere, We cater for our readers not for one person. –Davey2010Talk 11:53, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
Yes, really, if people take the trouble to look up sexual topics in Wikipedia, they are going to find sexual information. If you don't want to see it, either don't look up rude words, or change your image preferences in your settings. --Nigelj (talk) 17:54, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

By now, some know that I point out WP:Offensive material when WP:Censored is mentioned. We already have a drawn image of fingering as a lead image. And it's an explicitly drawn image. So why do we need the real-life images that are currently lower in the article? The first shows a woman's hand over her mound. The second shows a woman covering the mound of her partner. It's not like they show the act clearly, as opposed to the drawn image. And since we already have the explicit drawn image, we don't need an explicit real-life image in its place. In fact, per WP:Offensive material, since drawn or painted images of sexual acts are less offensive to our readers than real-life images of sexual acts, that drawn image should not be replaced with a real-life explicit image. It should remain as the lead mage. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:36, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

And as for the captions for those later two images, they fail to convince me that we need images to demonstrate those matters. Since people get mental images, it can be argued that none of the images are needed...if already familiar with what a vulva and vagina are and what they look like (and, if not, they can click on the Vulva or Vagina article), but we do include one or more sexual images at our sexual act articles. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:55, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

For what it matters, it's pretty clear that OP is just a troll. I'm not at all opposed to removing one or both photographs, but there are a couple of concerns I have with this. For one thing, photographs humanize a subject in a way that illustrations do not. This is an activity that real people engage in, and when we remove photographs of sexual content, we unavoidably impart a value-judgement on how normal this is, regardless of our intentions. The other concern is that a single illustration shows only one usage of the term. The photos reinforce the text in explaining that this is not the only usage.
These are subtle points, and alienating readers through aggressive, pointed non-censorship is counter to the goal of the project, so I dunno. I would be fine with removing the photos. Grayfell (talk) 00:28, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
I don't feel strongly about whether the bottom two images should remain; per my commentary above, I just don't see that they are needed. As for the use of real-life images for sexual acts, I commented on the matter in an interview a few years back. As noted in that interview, my experience is that they generally don't help (if they even help at all), and Seedfeeder's images are realistic enough to get the job done. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:59, 22 November 2017 (UTC)

History

History section would be welcome. --Eleassar my talk 00:41, 17 February 2019 (UTC)

MOS:GNL does not apply

Regarding this and this, MOS:GNL does not apply. It does not apply for the same reason that we are not going to have the Human penis article state "people with penises" or the Vagina article state "people with vaginas." We are not going to start stating "people with vaginas" or similar across Wikipedia. We do revert this any time we see it in our medical, biology and anatomy articles. And that should apply to articles like this as well. WP:Reliable sources and WP:Due weight do not support "prostate in those who have it" and "the perineal sponge in people with vaginas." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 23:32, 21 July 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by "MOS:GNL does not apply." MOS:GNL says Use gender-neutral language...where this can be done with clarity and precision. To write with the assumption that every person with a prostate is male is not gender neutral (or accurate). And many reliable sources now use gender neutral language when discussing sexuality-related topics, though of course not all do. Planned Parenthood, the largest reproductive health provider in the United States, has made a commitment to gender-neutral language, for example: Inside Planned Parenthood’s Push For Gender-Neutral Language. “We use non-gendered language when we talk about bodies, sexuality, gender, etc.,” she says. “Some of the writers on the team implement non-gendered language by saying things like, ‘people with a uterus,’ which is one way to do it. We also like to put our writing in the second person — your uterus, your penis, your partner — or by using ‘they’ as a singular pronoun.” This more accurate, neutral, and inclusive language style is also used by, for example, sex educator Gigi Engle's writing for Teen Vogue, in articles aimed at a general audience. In Anal Sex: What You Need to Know, she writes about the anatomy of a prostate owner and those of you with prostates, etc. WanderingWanda (talk) 03:00, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Please do not use Wikipedia for campaigns however well intentioned. Wording in articles follows common English and should not attempt to right great wrongs by introducing complex workarounds to avoid implying that only males have prostates or similar. Note how prostate and vagina agree with standard wording. Johnuniq (talk) 04:10, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
I've backed up my position with guidelines and sources. The wording for the prostate and vagina articles should also be made gender neutral. WanderingWanda (talk) 04:26, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
Changing how these topics is handled will need consensus at a noticeboard such as WT:MED or perhaps WP:VPR. Johnuniq (talk) 04:54, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
I agree that "men" and "women" is consistent with current practice on Wikipedia, and that a change would need consensus at a general noticeboard. Although only an essay, the fifth dot point at Wikipedia:Gender-neutral_language#Precision_and_clarity supports "men" and "women". I suspect culture will gradually move towards the sort of language used by Planned Parenthood and Teen Vogue, but it doesn't seem to be widely adopted yet. The few language guidelines I checked (University of Adelaide, The Guardian, Diversity Council Australia) weren't detailed enough to cover these sorts of cases. Academia so far has negligible uptake of "people with vaginas":
  • PubMed searches titles and abstracts of peer-reviewed literature and found zero hits ([3])
  • Google Scholar includes literature that is not peer reviewed and found only 86 hits ([4]), of which 34 are from 2014–2018 ([5])
  • ScienceDirect searches the full text of articles and books published by Elsevier, and found only one hit ([6])
I really like the approach taken by this guide to permanent sterilisation by Australia's sexual health service, which manages to tell everyone exactly what they need to know without using a jot of gender-specific language. The problem is, most people know whether they have testes or a uterus, whereas we can't assume our readers will know whether they have a perineal sponge. Adrian J. Hunter(talk•contribs) 09:58, 22 July 2019 (UTC)
I will do more research and consider starting a more central discussion about this. Thanks for the thoughtful replies. WanderingWanda (talk) 14:22, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

WanderingWanda stated, "I'm not sure what you mean by 'MOS:GNL does not apply'." I mean exactly what I stated. MOS:GNL says, "Use gender-neutral language [...] where this can be done with clarity and precision." Clarity and precision in this case is adhering to what the vast majority of the anatomical, biological and medical literature states. And that means using "males," "men," and "boys" when it comes to penises and prostates, or anything else regarding the male reproductive system. It means using "females," "women" and "girls" when it comes to the female reproductive system. MOS:GNL also states, "This does not apply to [...] one-gender contexts, such as an all-female school." Anatomy, when it comes to whether the topic is about males or females, is primarily a one-gender context. We can see this with articles like Prostate, Prostate cancer, Skene's gland and Ovarian cancer. That exceptions like men without penises (including those who lost their penises or trans men) exist doesn't negate that. Same goes for people who identify as non-binary. The anatomical literature doesn't care about what gender identity a person might have. WP:Due is important in this case. Wikipedia does not rewrite its articles to privilege tiny minorities over the majority of society. Your sources do not trump what the overwhelming majority of the literature states. Nor can they be used to trump the fact that sources in the Human penis and Prostate articles, and the other articles I pointed to, are using sex-based/gendered language and we should stick to the sources. Your sources are also not WP:MEDRS-compliant, with perhaps the exception of Planned Parenthood, but Planned Parenthood is borderline acceptable. We certainly don't prefer it when it comes to WP:MEDRS-compliant sources.

Your "the wording for the prostate and vagina articles should also be made gender neutral" viewpoint is an extreme and detrimental position. It does not align with our WP:Neutral policy, which WP:Due is a part of. But it's not surprising that you would state such, given some of your previous suggestions/sentiments, including the suggestion to remove "female" from the lead sentence of the Woman article just to privilege the significant minority over the majority of society, which was roundly rejected. If we went by your line of thinking in the case of our anatomical, biological and medical articles, it would muddy the waters so much that the text would be useless in different respects. Where would we draw the line? How could we possibly say that there is no line, to the point that men and women (and girls and boys) are not mentioned at all? How could this not give validity to those who state that transgender politics erase people? Readers should know that prostates belong to male anatomy, whether or not the person identifies as male and/or as a man. People should know that the vagina belongs to female anatomy, whether or not the person identifies as female and/or as a woman. Even if you say that we can retain "male anatomy" or "female anatomy" and still use wording like "people with prostates," the people with prostates are usually identified as men in reliable sources and they usually identify as men, and we should state so. Not have vague, awkward wording (such as "people with prostates") that will confuse readers. There is nothing precise about "people with prostates." Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 15:57, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

I say use men/women or male/female. The essay WP:GENDER covers this well. "Generally speaking, prefer female and male to make statements that are exclusively about anatomy and biological sex." This clearly falls under anatomy. Meters (talk) 07:53, 26 July 2019 (UTC)
-
Flyer, while we haven't always agreed, overall, I still considered you an intelligent and knowledgable contributor. So I'm surprised to hear you echo the sort of hurtful rhetoric that I see in articles written by trans-exclusionary "gender critical" commentators. You said Wikipedia does not rewrite its articles to privilege tiny minorities over the majority of society, which makes me think of anti-trans editorials like this one, which says We must stop pandering to the tiny minority that is the transgender lobby. You said: How could this not give validity to those who state that transgender politics erases people? Which echoes the language I see on this anti-trans organization's site: We are witnessing how transactivism erases lesbians. WanderingWanda (talk) 07:37, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
With regard to "echoing rhetoric," I asked a simple question: "How could this not give validity to those who state that transgender politics erase people?" It's not just trans-exclusionary radical feminists/"gender critical" commentators who feel that they are being erased when "man" is replaced with "people" or "woman" is replaced with "people." It's everyday non-feminists and/or non-political people as well. It's the same ones who complained about "front hole" being used for "vagina," as was discussed at Talk:Front hole. When the "front hole" thing happened, a bunch of everyday women, from diverse backgrounds, complained. It wasn't just the conservatives complaining on Twitter and elsewhere. There are transgender people who object to such wording as well; those who have no desire to see words like "man" or "woman" replaced with "people with penises" or similar and who see their birth anatomy as something they are looking to transition away from as much as possible, or have transitioned away from as much as possible. And, surely, you are aware of transgender people who identify as transsexual and do not consider themselves the same as transgender people who have not undergone hormone therapy and/or bottom surgery, and especially those who state that they haven't experienced gender dysphoria. This is what I mean when I told you that not all transgender people think alike. You may surround yourself with transgender people who all share the same views, but I do not. Transgender people I am friends or acquaintances with are diverse in their views. And, really, what valid counterargument is there that rewording the Vagina article to remove any mention, or most mentions, of girls and women is not erasing girls and women to a degree? The topic of the vagina primarily concerns/affects girls and women. All of the sources are about girls and women, from anatomy/physiology, to medical aspects, to societal/cultural aspects. And yet you want us to state "people with vaginas"? Who are these "people with vaginas"? It is vague, since it can refer to cisgender girls and women, transgender boys and men, transgender women with neovaginas, non-binary people, and intersex people. But, except for some of the sources on intersex people (which the article covers with due weight), none of the sources are talking about all of those other people (unless one were to say that some of them are not out about their gender identity). The sources are not talking about neovaginas.
Like I stated at Talk:Woman (my "23:38, 10 July 2019 (UTC)" post), "I listen to trans women. It doesn't mean we are always going to agree. When cisgender women state their experiences as women, some trans women get the impression or believe that the cisgender women are trying to exert primacy or negate trans women's experiences. It's not about that, at least for some cisgender women; it's about cisgender and transgender women usually having very different experiences as women, especially in the case of trans women who did not discover their identity as women or come out as transgender until they were adults, with some not going on their new path until much later in life." It doesn't seem that you listen to cisgender women at all, including cisgender lesbians who feel that they are being erased and why. You just call them "TERF" and keep it moving. Some of them couldn't possibly be correct that they feel discriminated against when called transphobic or similar names for not being able to find male-bodied sexually attractive, or when they complain to trans man Buck Angel about it on Twitter and he actually listens. The 2016 book "The Disappearing L: Erasure of Lesbian Spaces and Culture," from SUNY Press, which has significant passages on trans women in relation to lesbians and lesbian erasure couldn't possibly be talking about any valid concerns lesbians have on the topic. It's just a bunch of hate and lies. Sighs. And how about when trans women like Miranda Yardley talk about it? And an article by Yardley that passes WP:RS? Well, we know what happened with that. I'm not saying I agree or disagree with some of these views, but I listen (to all sides) and I have certainly seen lesbians called transphobic or vagina fetishists for not finding trans women sexually attractive or not being open to dating trans women, as if dating and who one is sexually attracted to isn't exclusionary anyway. This is not the same thing as a preference for skin color based on societal conditioning. A cisgender lesbian woman not being able to find a trans woman who has not undergone sex reassignment therapy sexually attractive is not about transphobia. It's about sexual orientation, which scientists base on opposite or same-sex attraction (and, yes, that includes bisexuality). Although some social science sources and other sources use "gender" in place of "sex" with regard to sexual orientation, the biology of sexual orientation is about sex-based attraction. Secondary sex characteristics matter when it comes to this.
Anyway, as you know, Wikipedia is not a forum. And I must state that I am not interested in discussing any of these transgender topics with you. You have displayed above, with your "the wording for the prostate and vagina articles should also be made gender neutral" commentary and some other commentary, that your position is too extreme for us to find common ground. And since you find the "Wikipedia does not rewrite its articles to privilege tiny minorities over the majority of society" transphobic, you should take that up with the WP:Due weight policy. Or, indeed, take it to WP:Village pump (policy) and see how many people will agree with you. It's not about transgender people specifically; it's about any tiny minority. I am like this with any topic on Wikipedia; I have been for years. And it is why so many people trust me to edit various topics. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:05, 28 July 2019 (UTC) Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 19:45, 28 July 2019 (UTC)
WanderingWanda, I held back from commenting before since it seemed to be handled. But I will jump in now. I agree with the points made by Flyer22, Johnuniq, Adrian, and Meters.
Our article on human body states, "The human body has four limbs (two arms and two legs), a head and a neck which connect to the torso." This is ableist, othering, oppressive, and violent, because it erases amputee bodies, and perpetuates the peculiar Western social construct of a "normal" human body. Maybe this should say something like "The human body has a head and a neck which connect to the torso. Humans may have one or two arms and/or one or two legs." See how ridiculous this can get? The situations are the same. Exceptions exist, but overall, humans have two arms and two legs and men have male anatomy incl. a penis and women have female anatomy incl. a vagina. There is no basis for awkward, unclear wording on the basis that someone, somewhere might be offended. Not even if they claim to speak for some class of people, as some activists do. So, if we can say humans have two legs, why can't we say men have a penis?
As was pointed out, PubMed has ZERO hits for nonsense such as "people with vaginas." However, I disagree when it was suggested that culture may move in this direction. In my experience, people seem to nearly all react negatively to this type of language. We already have a word for "people with vaginas." Since it seems exceedingly unlikely that the fields of anatomy, medicine, biology and so on will switch from not using this bizarre phrase to favoring it in the peer reviewed literature, I think it is safe to say that Wikipedia will never switch to it either. A few activists, ultra-woke media outlets, or sex-ed sites are not enough to make the switch.
Please see WP:ADVOCACY, and really take it to heart. Also, your accusation against Flyer22 is unfounded. -Crossroads- (talk) 20:38, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Note: This topic was discussed here at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) and the community rejected such language for our medical and anatomy/biological articles. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 00:26, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Fingering_(sexual_act)/Archive_1&oldid=1088455996"