Talk:Gravidity and parity

Caesarean section

If a baby is delivered via Caesarean section, is the parity nomenclature exactly the same as for birth via vaginal delivery? The 2 different routes have implications for things like later stress urinary incontinence.

Parity illustration

I don't know if it helps anyone else, but my experience in higher education studies of biology and science were helped tremendously by tying together like or similar processes as they repeat themselves in circles of a cycle. I felt my understanding didn't jump the gap until these overlooked signs were pointed out to me. I would like to see connection mentioned between obstetric number record of Mothers and the orbital notation record of Atoms, as they are the same cycles, just not commonly recognized due to each cycle being the same but of seemingly different circles. It was important to my understanding of recognizing Truth of a larger picture. - Dirtclustit (talk) 08:09, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Non-binary terms

I edited this post to be inclusive of all sexes who may be birthing. I'm rather shocked that it was changed back when it is not in dispute that trans and intersex persons give birth and are not "female." This is a question of accuracy of terms, not of morality. As someone who works in birth, I would want the most accurate information available to people reading this page. CCalvano (talk) 04:12, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

@CCalvano:

Correction:

A female is an individual
who has female gonads, including:

• A uterus,
• Fallopian tubes,
• A vagina, and
• A cervix.

By that definition, pre-operative trans men (before sex reassignment surgery) and post-operative trans women (after sex reassignment surgery) are females if they have the above sex organs. Hence, they deserve to be included in all articles relating to females.

However, you are right about intersex people, though. Intersex people are not females. In fact, intersex people are not entirely male or entirely female; every intersex person's sex falls on a random point on the spectrum of sex.

— CrafterNova ^{[ TALK ] [ CONT ]} 10:51, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

References

"We encourage you to be bold in a fair and accurate manner." https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Help:Getting_started?markasread=96949365

I was BOLD, fair, and accurate in my changes.

"Commitment to openness and diversity Though US-based, the organization is international in its nature. Our board of trustees, staff members, and volunteers are involved without discrimination based on their religion, political beliefs, sexual preferences, nationalities, etc... Not only do we accept diversity, but we actually look forward to it."" https://m.wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Values

If Wikipedia is committed to openness and diversity; if it "not only accept[s] diversity, but...actually look forward to it" then you must allow for the edits that include all those who birth, may be pregnant, and may be part of their family. CCalvano (talk) 04:34, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

Saw this edit today: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Gravidity_and_parity&diff=prev&oldid=949548103&diffmode=source

Perhaps there should be a RfC on this? Might be due for an update. Myoglobin (talk) 23:34, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

There'd be no point. For one, this was already unanimously shot down at the Village Pump. [1] Also, when one actually looks at the medical sources, both in the article and at PubMed, [2][3] you can see that they basically all say "women" instead of "persons", including very recent sources. We of course follow the sources - WP:NOR. The IP needs to stop edit warring and read the previous links as well as WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS and WP:ADVOCACY. Crossroads ^-talk- 02:25, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

@CCalvano: I totally agree with you. The overall situation has improved over the last 7 years.

We need to stay strong and do teamwork to do the right things at the right time, to uphold genuine causes, and to make reasonable resolutions. — CrafterNova ^{[ TALK ] [ CONT ]} 08:56, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Reason behind terms

This article does a bad job of explaining why these terms exist and are used.

For example, casual googlin reveals that:

The term “grand multipara” was introduced in 1934 by Solomon, who called grand multiparas the “the dangerous multiparas” [1]. In general, the older literature defines “grand multiparity” (GM) as parity >7 [2,3]. More recent reports select a definition of GM to start from a parity of 5 because the threshold of risks of any obstetric complication, neonatal morbidity, and perinatal death increase markedly at parity ≥5 [4,5].

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3878019/

It feels very relevant to not just explain, for example, that "primagravida" means "a woman who is pregnant for the first time or has been pregnant one time" but why this distinction even exist. Why invent a specific term and not just go para 0, para 1, para 2, para 3 and so on. (Presumably because there are certain risks and conditions that are more common among women that has never given birth before).

CapnZapp (talk) 13:53, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: UCSF SOM Inquiry In Action-- Wikipedia Editing 2022

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 8 August 2022 and 20 September 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): SleepyJanus (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Rafaelverduzco, Ddsov.

— Assignment last updated by Rafaelverduzco (talk) 18:16, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

We chose to bold important terms and add the heading of parity in biology as separate from parity in human medicine.

We also added more clinically pertinent information as to why this information is collected in pregnant patients and the clinical implications of gravidity and parity.

We included a statement as to the controversy of gender inclusive language in the field of obstetrics and gynecology, as well as a factually correct statement of the types of persons who are capable of carrying a pregnancy.

We included more clinically pertinent information on nulliparity.

We fixed up the “bare URLs” and added more meta-analysis and systematic review citations in the references. SleepyJanus (talk) 18:32, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

Peer feedback:

Nice addition of the section at the end that introduces the controversy around the term "women" in medical (and particularly obstetrics). The title for this section might more appropriately be "controversy and gendered language."

Good job highlighting the significance of these terms to medicine, and distinguishing the use of parity and gravidity in medicine and biology. This added clarity. Annalpark (talk) 18:35, 12 September 2022 (UTC)

The layout of the wiki page has been greatly improved thanks to the bolded words and subheadings making it easy to identify key terms. Nice discussion and inclusion of a meta-analysis on nulliparity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rafaelverduzco (talk • contribs) 18:45, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

"Female" is a more accurate term than "woman" because sex and gender are very different

Since sex and gender are very different things, the terms "female" and "woman" are also very different.

Reliable sources prove that pre-operative trans men, non-binary people and intersex people can also get pregnant and give birth, if they have female gonads including at least the following gonads and genitalia:

• a uterus
• fallopian tubes
• a vagina
• a cervix.

However, intersex people are not females, since they cannot be assigned a definitive sex at birth, meaning that their sex is ambiguous. Intersex people are not enitrely male or entirely female; every intersex person's sex falls on a random point on the spectrum of sex. — CrafterNova ^{[ TALK ] [ CONT ]} 16:17, 28 September 2023 (UTC)

References