Talk:Menopause/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

ARCHIVE PAGE 4: 2013

The images

I chose these to reflect the three ages of women, and to provide some sort of image to an otherwise image-less article. I am an older female editor who is post-menopausal myself, and I deliberately spent quite some time searching to find images of girls and women that did not reflect the Western prejudice about female beauty, which is strongly biased in favor of teenage or adolescent youthfulness. Hollywood women who are in post-menopause are fixed up artificially with hair dye, plastic surgery and make-up in order to try to look as if they are still 17. If anyone thinks they can put together a better set of images, or a better single image, please go ahead. And if you object to the current gallery of images, please leave a note here on the talk page explaining why, rather than just summarily deleting them. I don't believe these images are inherently sexist -- instead I believe that American society is deeply ageist. Thank you. Invertzoo (talk) 15:40, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

To repeat what I said in 2011:

"An article without any kind of image can be very dry and boring. And no, these images are not strictly "necessary", but they do illustrate the three biological stages of the life cycle in a human female: the stage before reproductive potential becomes active, the stage during which reproductive potential is active, and the stage after reproductive potential becomes inactive. (These stages have been called "maiden, matron and crone", for more info on that concept see Triple Goddess.)"

Invertzoo (talk) 15:43, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

Disuse or Disease?

"Historically, konenki was associated with wealthy middle-class housewives in Japan, a “luxury disease” that women from traditional, inter-generational rural households had no time for." This sentence is confusing, if not confused. "Konenki" was just defined as menopause itself, so the suggestion appears to be that rural women "had no time for," i.e., did not experience menopause, which is absurd. Are we talking about menopause itself here or its associated subjective disorders? Orthotox (talk) 14:22, 16 June 2013 (UTC)

I don't think that something that naturally occurs, (such as hot-flashes), and other symptoms of menopause, would be considered a "disorder". A symptom or milestone, or change of life, maybe but not a disorder at all.24.0.133.234 (talk) 01:40, 8 October 2013 (UTC)

About the opening introduction

The subject of menopause is quite complex.

Please try to refrain from adding to the opening section random facts, excessive jargon, dire and or nanny health warnings, miscellaneous disease information or other overly detailed information. There are many sections already in the article, or a new one can be created, for any level of reasonable discourse. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikiman728 (talk • contribs) 06:39, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Redundant

This is one of the worst articles I've ever seen on here only because it endlessly repeats the same information over and over again. The info is good, its just the repetition that makes it a bad article, not up to Wikipedia standards. "Selene Scott (talk) 17:52, 24 September 2013 (UTC)"

Hi Selene Scott, I agree that this article has a lot of redundant information. I'd be happy to have you take a stab at shortening it by removing things that have been said multiple times. Also, do you think that the glossary at the end is desirable? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:36, 27 November 2013 (UTC)

I would always encourage any established editor to try to fix what needs fixing in an article rather than simply leaving a note complaining about it. Invertzoo (talk) 15:44, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I have done some trimming today. I feel that the glossary at the end is a fairly recent addition that is partly responsible for the article appearing to repeat itself so many times. I will look again but I may remove that section. Invertzoo (talk) 16:25, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

UPDATE. I removed the glossary section. It created a lot of duplication of what was covered earlier, and plus on Wikipedia the blue links usually serve to obviate the necessity of a glossary. Invertzoo (talk) 16:33, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

I went on to significantly re-order the presentation of material in the article. I removed or simplified a lot of the headings and tried to trim down the prose wherever I could. The article still needs more work but hopefully it is now a lot better than it was. Invertzoo (talk) 17:30, 9 February 2014 (UTC)

The HRT section

I am wondering whether we should eliminate much of the HRT section as it mostly duplicates what is in the main article Hormone replacement therapy (menopause)? Does anyone have an opinion on this? Invertzoo (talk)

I have asked this same question on the talk page of that article. Invertzoo (talk) 15:28, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

UPDATE: I decided to BE BOLD and I made those changes myself. Invertzoo (talk) 00:31, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Making significant changes?

Some people who edit the article probably do not look at this talk page, but for those who do, please, if you make sweeping changes to the article (or even just to the intro) it would be helpful to the rest of us if you leave a note on this talk page explaining what you did and why you did it. Or at least please indicate what you did and why in your edit summaries! Thanks. Invertzoo (talk) 00:52, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

More on the mother/grandmother hypothosis

The article says the grandmother/mother hypotheses wouldn't make sense from an evolutionary standpoint as the majority of existing hunter gatherer societies are patriarchal.

Matrilineality - the tracing of a line through the mother - versus patriarchy - power weighted towards men - are not one and the same. Indeed there are lots of indications - including in the wiki article about matrilineality - that patrilineality came along with the transition to agriculture and the accumulation of property, which was to be passed down to offspring. In substistance cultures pre-agriculture, there was not monogamy- which recent dna testing confirms - and matrilineality was common sense - the mother was known, the father wasn't - regardless of patricarchy and who held the most power. There was also little or no property to be passed from one generation to the next, just group survival - so the insistance on female virginity/monogamy/purity/sexual control is not something you'd see.

It was also common in pre-modern cultures for little travel from the place of birth to ever take place - so from that perspective a patriarchal power system does not preclude a maternal grandmother having contact with and supporting a grandchild.

The criticism of the mother hypothesis claims that if it were an advantage for a woman to not have children after the age of 50, the same would also have to be true of men(and discounts it because men can father children as old as 94, while the oldest woman was 59). Men do not go through gestation and labor - the process of which requires extra nutrients and causes even young women to lose a tooth during pregancy or suffer other symptoms due to the body prioritizing the health of the baby during pregnanacy. Fathering a child is a different process physically than a woman's pregnancy - it doesn't seem to have any bearing on whether is is adaptive to a woman's survival to not get pregnant over 50. If anything, the fact that a man remains fertile even when he has lost most of his physical strength and is near death indicates that from an evolutionary standpoint, the identity of the father was largely immaterial - the tribal group would raise the child, and the act of fathering a child is not a usually a physical danger for a father. Also, it would not present any evolutionary advantage to focus energy on supporting his existing children in middle and older age for a father, if he didn't know which children he had fathered...in that sense the lack of parallel between men and women makes sense - the mother does know for certain which are hers.

Mothering a child later in life statistically results in a much greater prevalence of preganancies dangerous to the mother - the number of Ceaesarians and other birth complications is higher in older mothers. Not to mention that by the maternal age of 45, one in eight children has a chromosonal defect.

The article mentions that having more children doesn't result in a lower age of menopause - as a means of discounting the stress hypothosis on female reproductive longevity. But it fails to mention that there was definitely a correlation with NOT having children in pre-modern culture and overall longevity. From records of Elizabethan England - a woman who did not have children could live into her sixties or seventies - similiar in age to a man - while those who had children died much younger and often from suffering complications in childbirth. It seems there is a distinct physical advantage to a woman not getting pregnant in middle age - just as there was also a physical advantage in men not going to war in middle age - both activities require extreme physical performance. Many early cultures also did not send men into battle after 40 years of age.

I did not edit the article because I have not been on wikipedia much and am not prepared to present in a professional way at this time. I would ask someone who has the time to please look into this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.254.2 (talk) 18:15, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Hello and thanks for your suggestions. However, Wikipedia has to rely on published sources for its information. If you can find a reliable published source that makes some or all of the same points you just made in your post, then you can put those criticisms into the article. Without a reliable source those objections would be editorializing, which we are not allowed to do. Invertzoo (talk) 15:15, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

The lede section

It looks to me as if the lede has too many inline citations now. Are all those points controversial enough to need a citation right there in the lead rather than later in the text? Invertzoo (talk) 19:53, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes everything in medicine is controversial. If there is not a reference someone will add a citation needed tag. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:22, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Also I feel it is essential that the lede does not restrict the definition of menopause to the stopping of the periods. The lede also states that "All women experience menopause" and yet what about those women who have no uterus, either because they were born without one, or had their uterus removed at some point when they were younger? Quite a lot of younger women have a hysterectomy and they do of course also have menopause. Invertzoo (talk) 19:58, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

Yes there are two definitions. One is the stopping of periods. And the other is the stopping of hormones. I have added the second to the lead. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:32, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Great comments, perhaps this can be elaborated further in the article. Also, I can hide the citations in the lede, it makes it look better.

  Bfpage |leave a message  19:37, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

• Per "her menstrual cycles (including her menstrual periods) stop". These are closely related enough that IMO we can just state when her menstrual periods stop. This keeps thing simple. More complicated discussions can go in the body
• This "any episodes of menstrual flow" means period. We can use the common term. It keeps things simpler.
• We already state the same in paragraph 3 "and is a result of a decrease in the hormones produced by the ovaries" No need to repeat it in paragraph 1
• Not sure why "also known as climacteric," was removed
• I have added "in most women's life" to address the concern raised.

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:39, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

It is of course true that any episode of menstrual flow does technically equal a period, but I have talked to plenty of women who did not think that spotting for days on end was the same thing as a period, because it was nothing like the typical periods they had when they were younger. Invertzoo (talk) 18:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Okay changed the second "period" to "no vaginal bleeding" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:18, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Invertzoo, the definition used really isn't based on my experience or anyone else's experience it is from a medical textbook. If we edit from our own experience or the the experience of another, we are not editing from a neutral point of view and we using original research! "Climacteric" seemed to be a term that was undefined and I sure did not know what it meant. The textbook I used for the definitions does not define spotting as menstrual flow. I would hesitate to add definitions based upon our own experiences in medical articles. Best Regards,

  Bfpage |leave a message  19:14, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Menopause. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150610203833/http://www.thirdage.com/menopause/do-cats-ever-have-any-sort-of-menopause-or-can-they-breed-until-death- to http://www.thirdage.com/menopause/do-cats-ever-have-any-sort-of-menopause-or-can-they-breed-until-death-

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 08:11, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

A year without periods

In the intro it says that "Medical professionals often define menopause as having occurred when a woman has not had any vaginal bleeding for a year." Although this is true, younger women can go a year without any periods if they have a pregnancy followed by breast-feeding which in some women causes the periods to be suppressed. Should we clarify the statement? Invertzoo (talk) 23:04, 9 September 2015 (UTC)

I guess we could change it to a "non pregnancy women". But it is really not needed. During delivery there is lots of bleeding PV. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:20, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Endocrine Society guideline

doi:10.1210/jc.2015-2236 managing the symptoms - benefits vs risks. JFW | T@lk 11:27, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Restructure

I find it somewhat odd that "perimenopause" and other stages are explained under "diagnosis".. they have been mentioned many times before. I think there should be a "Definition and stages" section before "Signs and symptoms"? Richiez (talk) 13:00, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

These are definition used for formal diagnosis. We could add a brief bit to the section on signs and symptoms maybe? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:10, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Seems to me that of those definitions are also valid generally outside of the context of diagnosis and the text has plenty of information which would belong into symptoms or other sections. I think having those definitions somewhere far on top would help tremendously to avoid scattering and duplicating information all around the place. Richiez (talk) 14:29, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

New Theories

I would like to include my own theories on menopause. I was a MLT, called CLT in other parts of the world. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.129.255.217 (talk) 02:32, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Nope, see WP:OR. Jytdog (talk) 03:03, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

If I publish a website with the information then is it considered non-original research? All research is original at some point in time anyways.

No, see WP:SPS. Also, any content about health needs to be sourced according to WP:MEDRS which boils down to review articles published in the biomedical literature or statements/guidelines by major health authorities. Please also read What Wikipedia is not - which makes it clear that Wikipedia articles summarize accepted knowledge. Wikipedia is not "cutting edge" on anything. Jytdog (talk) 03:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

I made an account, couldn't remember the old user name I had used. If you use only medically accepted information do you accept scientific arguments against such information, as not all the information given at times is studied, merely passed down from other centuries(such as oocyte or primordial follicle count). I have repeatedly proven this information in correct using the informations given by Wikipedia, but no one see,s to care that it is mathematically impossible. (Crlinformative (talk) 03:33, 26 March 2016 (UTC))

See WP:OR. Everything in Wikipedia must be based on a reliable source. A reliable source for anything about health needs to comply with WP:MEDRS. You may be the World's Greatest Super Genius - we don't care. We follow we do not lead. Get your ideas accepted by the scientific community and then they can be in Wikipedia. Not before. Please note that if you continue to try to force your original research into Wikipedia you will be blocked for a short time, and if you keep trying, you will face longer blocks, and if you keep trying, you will be indefinitely blocked. Wikipedia is not the place for you to publish these ideas. I will not respond further. Jytdog (talk) 03:36, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Adding Menopause and the workplace section

For a class assignment, our group of students from UCSF is proposing to create a new sub-section under the Society and Culture section titled "Menopause and the Workplace."

--Mscannon777 (talk) 23:36, 30 September 2017 (UTC)Mscannon777

@Mscannon777: I've moved it under that heading and cleaned up an obvious factual error in the article. —C.Fred (talk) 23:45, 30 September 2017 (UTC)

Workplace - new content

A bunch of this is biomedical content that needs to be sourced per WP:MEDRS and isn't. We need to find a better way to weave this into the structure of this article, per WP:MEDMOS. I don't think a single block of text is the way to go.

In the workplace

In the United States an estimated 6,000 women begin menopause every day which is just a small part of a projected 27,000,000 women (ages 45-64) who constitute about twenty percent of the United States labor force.

Research suggests that the workplace environment may impact workplace performance by acting as a stressor for common menopausal symptoms such as: anxiety, mood swings, depression, hot flashes, dizziness, frequent urination, and fatigue. Environmental factors such as the proximity to restrooms, temperature control, and access to open work spaces may impact menopausal symptoms. United Kingdom based researchers found less than half of women surveyed had control over the temperature of their workplace, while nearly all women surveyed reported doing something to cool down like going outside was a successful coping strategy for menopause.

Psychological workplace factors can also aggravate negative symptoms of menopause. High levels of workplace stress may cause a reported decrease in activity levels, and may negatively affect overall well-being. In a report from the UK women reported the inability to fully focus and a fear of adverse performance because of a preoccupation with their symptoms. Sleep deprivation is also a consideration in how menopause can affect workplace productivity and well-being. Women reported that more severe symptoms, such as headaches, fatigue, and memory loss were exacerbated by nocturnal hot flashes which resulted in poor sleep. The social and workplace stigma of menopause is another hurdle many women face. Some women may fear asking for support from their employer. Women with younger, or male supervisors and managers may have an added resistance to discussing their condition. Over half of women in the United Kingdom surveyed by the Institute of Work, Health & Organizations reported they had not informed management about their condition and a similar amount reported being unable to take enough time off from work.

Workplace absences and time-off are other important ways that menopause can affect the workplace. Women may conceal menopause-related absences as unrelated. Based on those findings the Prince’s Responsible Business Network recommends that employers change how menopause-related absences are recorded and treated.

Employers may be able to support employees going through menopause by accommodating the individual needs of the employee. This may include: evaluating an employee’s psychological or physical state; offering an accommodating work environment; offering informal support (flexible work hours, support groups, etc.); or offering formal support depending on the needs of the employee.

References

-- 07:31, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Yes we definitely need sourcing per WP:MEDRS. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:32, 4 October 2017 (UTC)

Terminological precision

Officially, the menopause is the whole period after the climacteric or perimenopause (e.g. https://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=4352). The article follows common parlance, which is fine in itself, but that makes it harder ever to add an article on the real menopause. Keeping the distinction allows for more precise expression.123.118.92.160 (talk) 07:37, 7 February 2018 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Induced menopause

This could be included in the "causes" section of Menopause rather than it's own article. Jmertel23 (talk) 18:55, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Yup and done. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:08, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Expansion on menopause in society

Few examples are presented and may paint a narrow experience. Would expanding this section to include more societies be beneficial?

See https://bmcwomenshealth.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1472-6874-12-43

Ayahidris (talk) 19:47, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Expansion on management techniques

Plan to add mindfulness under management. New research shows mindfulness could be an effective symptom management technique. See https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3123409/

Ayahidris (talk) 19:47, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

Ayahidris, stick to WP:MEDRS-compliant sources. Please read WP:MEDRS for what I mean. WP:Primary sources should typically be avoided. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:05, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

UCSF Foundations 2 2019, Group 7b

1. Update the “management” section to include more information on pharmacological treatments in terms of their role in managing symptoms of menopause and safety concerns.

2. Search for new research findings and more recent reviews on the efficacy of non-pharmacological interventions and herbal supplements in managing symptoms.

3. Investigate roles of diet and exercise.

4. Provide hyperlinks to important subjects/topics.

5. Improve organization of sections if applicable.

Alicewu95 (talk) 20:59, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Alicewu95, stick to WP:MEDRS-compliant sources. Please read WP:MEDRS for what I mean. WP:Primary sources should typically be avoided. Read WP:Due weight as well. And see MOS:MED. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 22:08, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Ashley's Peer Review, Foundations 2 2019

1. Do the group’s edits substantially improve the article as described in the Wikipedia peer review “Guiding framework”? -- Yes, this group has added an entire section about exercise and has supported their statements by citing sources.

2. Has the group achieved its overall goals for improvement? -- Yes, this group has expanded on alternative medicine as well as investigated the relationship between exercise and menopause.

3. Does the draft submission reflect a neutral point of view? -- Yes, the edits made continue to keep a neutral point of view.

Ashleyher (talk) 20:53, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Sara's Peer Review 2019

1. I do believe the group's edits improved their article especially since they added an "exercise" section which gives some insight on how it affects menopause which I found interesting and it also fulfills one of the goals that was presented on their talk page.

2. The group fulfilled their goals of investigating roles of diet and exercise, along with finding articles regarding non-pharmacological interventions.

3. Statements are supported with citations

Sara.F.Shaikh (talk) 20:57, 5 August 2019 (UTC)Sara S.

Manuel's Peer Review, 2019

Group 7B did an amazing job in substantially improving the article by including a whole new subsection, titled "Exercise" to the wikipedia page, demonstrating the importance of exercise and its association with reducing post-menopausal symptoms. Additionally, the team added some more useful information to the "alternative medication" subsection that wikipedia viewers can learn from.

This group did a great job in maintaining a neutral position throughout the article.

ManuelSeraydarian (talk) 20:57, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Group 7B's response to Peer Review

1. Thank you for your comments regarding our contributions.Wrd530 (talk) 16:52, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Michael's Review- Foundations 2019

Goals

1. Sufficient edits were made to numerous sections under management.

2. Some great edits were added to the alternative medicine section that provide more information on the efficacy of non-pharmacologic options.

3. A new section was added on "Exercise"

4. Hyperlinks were provided.

5. The articles organization looks superb.

Group 7b's edits significantly improve the article, by aiding in overall structure and organization. This group added more information on topics that needed to be explored. The addition of the "exercise" section is very effective in providing more information and increasing the breath of the article. Michaelfashola (talk) 17:19, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Age

We have this 2015 review that says "Worldwide, most women enter menopause between the ages of 49 and 52 years."[1] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 22:08, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

That source actually just makes that claim in a single sentence and links to an older article "International Variability in Ages at Menarche, First Livebirth, and Menopause" by Morabia and Costanza. It's basically a secondary source. The original source, from 1998, doesn't actually support the claim that "most women enter menopause between the ages of 49 and 52". The original source claims that the median age ranges from 49 to 52 between the countries included in the study. For example, the median age in the People's Republic of China is 49, and the median age in Chulalongkorn, Thailand is 52. This is actually a meaningfully different claim.

In the Morabia and Costanza article, they actually report the worldwide ranges that women enter menopause. They report "Median and (P10, P25, P75, P90) years of age at menopause for study women in 13 international centers, 1979-1986" as "50 (44, 47, 55, 58)". That is to say, they report that 50 is the median age of the women in the places they studied. But the 50% confidence interval ranges from 47 to 55 and the 80% confidence interval ranges from 44 to 58. I'm planning to update the article accordingly.

The original study: https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/148/12/1195/222281

FalseAxiom (talk) 01:47, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

User:FalseAxiom This is a high quality secondary source https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25841598

Which says "Worldwide, most women enter menopause between the ages of 49 and 52 years"

No need to replace it with this primary source

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=10.1093%2Foxfordjournals.aje.a009609

Which also says "Among the centers, the median age at natural menopause ranged between 49 and 52 years."

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:32, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

In the body of the text it says "The median age at natural menopause was estimated to be 50 years overall, and the median ages at menopause ranged moderately between 49 and 52 years among the centers (table 3)." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:40, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Okay added "Half of women have their last period between the ages of 47 and 55, while 80% have their last period between 44 and 58." based on the table. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:40, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Ukara cloth.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:38, 2 August 2020 (UTC)

worldwide topic/new theories

o The article needs to be updated. Most of the article talks about Menopause in America instead of including all countries in the world. It also needs new theories. The information could be updated because many things have happened and new things have been invented] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paolaqosja (talk • contribs) 23:05, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

needs changes in terminology regarding sex (i.e,' women'

This article needs to be updated with regards of terminology for people who go through menopause. Currently, the article uses the term 'women', however, this excludes intersex and transgender people. 'Woman' is a gender identity, whereas 'female' is considered in biology to mean the sex (not gender) of an organism. Suggestions for terminology changes include:

• female, female-bodied
• those with ovaries; those who menstrate
• humans; females; persons

• • • I'm not quite sure the best term to use regarding grammatical correctness and proper consistency in the article, please feel free to leave suggestions, references, etc. DNocterum (talk) 09:21, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

My suggestion is to stick with MEDRS-compliant sources and use the word ‘’women’’. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:22, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): R huertar, Janine Schiess, Mscannon777, Smmanieri, BLRubin, Nrmehta93. Peer reviewers: Nrmehta93.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 03:53, 17 January 2022 (UTC)