Talk:Menstrual cycle/Archive 5

Impressions from a new editor

Hello. I, along with students (no, I'm not a student), have been watching this and other biology discussion pages to get a sense of how editors collaborate here, and I must say that we are very concerned by how one editor has treated others. The interactions with EMsmile, PlanetCare, LearnerB, and ApproximateLand have been very off-putting, to say the least. We noticed that LearnerB hasn't even returned. ApproximateLand came to this discussion page and offered sound advice. After what anyone would have gathered to be a warm welcome at first, daring to question a senior editor was evidently enough of an offense for him to be routinely talked down to and belittled by another senior editor, with the one he questioned ignoring him completely. It's almost as if something was said about him through email communication and he was then blacklisted by that editor. There's no evidence that ApproximateLand has been pushing to overemphasize PMS and non-PMS premenstrual symptoms beyond what the sources appear to support. Indeed, others and I saw his suggestions to be true to the sources and in line with WhatamIdoing's words. "Little evidence", "has not been confirmed", and "no evidence" would all be the wrong words to use for the mood information. This talk page (like much of women's biology) has become politicized, with concerns about making women's biology medical. Others are correct to say the menstrual cycle is a medical topic. It is also a biology topic, but one does not negate or overshadow the other. The source being used for the mood swings isn't a biology source and is being given primacy for reasons that are not air-tight. When it talks about both biology and psychology and says mood swings may be due to either, it makes little sense to give more weight to psychological causes. This is all that I dare to say on this talk page, for fear of being attacked. Thank you. New Sheriff in Town (talk) 22:48, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, New Sheriff in Town. That's exactly it. ApproximateLand (talk) 01:17, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Welcome to Wikipedia, NSiT. Here are some A B C's of Wikipedia that you may find helpful. Article talk pages are for discussing improvements to articles based on reliable sources (in this case, high-quality reliable medical sources for a Featured article). If you want to explore your opinions of other editors, that speculation should be confined to editor talk pages. I know it can be a steep learning curve here, but we are fortunate that Graham (as one of the very few Wikipedians qualified to write this article) has been patiently trudging through this, regardless of the length above. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:49, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

A, B, C, and "If you want to explore your opinions of other editors, that speculation should be confined to editor talk pages." should be directed toward one editor in particular, and it's not New Sheriff in Town. Beyond this, you have persistently elevated that editor's opinions and feelings above others. His user page indicates that his expertise is with virus pages, not pages like this one. He's made more than one misstep. When others point it, we are punished for it. Good job on welcoming new users. ApproximateLand (talk) 01:56, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi User:New Sheriff in Town, I have to agree with you a little bit, I also found the "tone" of some people here a bit aggressive at times. On the other hand, I can see that Sandy and Graham are working very hard on getting every little detail just perfect in this article, so I decided to let it be and step back a little bit and see where it all ends up. They definitely mean well and probably just sometimes feel impatient with people like me and User:PlanetCare (for example) who are non-experts and novice Wikipedians compared to them. A few times, SandyGeorgia has also apologies for being a bit "harsh", so that's good enough for me. - But thanks for making your point, I think it's good for all of us to be reminded to be as friendly and civilised with each other as possible! EMsmile (talk) 03:13, 23 March 2021

To honor Sandy's point that this talk page should relate only to content of the article, I'll keep my appreciation for NSiT short. Thank You for speaking up. We want encourage, not discourage, students or newcomers. I will also offer short appreciation for the example EMSmile is setting with her comment above. She promotes collaboration, respect and "sticks to business" even when some get frustrated enough to stray off-topic with personal attacks. She's no novice.PlanetCare (talk) 13:17, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

FYI: Wikipedia:Teahouse#Making_talk_pages_healthier,_especially_for_newcomers, referring to this discussion. --bonadea contributions talk 08:07, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

Arbcom blocks: ApproximateLand and LearnerB. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:05, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

TFA blurb

Gog the Mild has tentatively planned it for the 28th May. Here are the blurb instructions:

We use one paragraph only, with no reference tags or alternative names; the only thing bolded is the first link to the article title. The length when previewed is between 925 and 1025 characters including spaces and the " (Full article...)", or more when no free-use image can be found. Fair use images are not allowed.

@Graham Beards and Colin: would you like to give it a whirl? It will look like Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 3, 2021 (but will eventually be at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 28, 2021 -- see note from Gog below, do not put it there for now, but rather let's work here, and move it to User:Gog the Mild/Blurbs#In progress when finished). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:16, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Apologies, I have little enthusiasm for the Main Page; I have looked at it fewer times than the fourteen years I have been here. It just holds up articles to vandalism, and I don't have the time to revert them. I'd rather spend my Wikipedia time working on micrographs to support existing articles. --Graham Beards (talk)

I understand ... I will plug something up and maybe Colin will help fine tune it. Bst, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:59, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

@Graham Beards, Colin, and SandyGeorgia: It would avoid possible confusion if you could not use the TFA May 28 page, which is for finished and checked TFAs. I have opened a slot for it at User:Gog the Mild/Blurbs#In progress; perhaps you could work on it there? Or anywhere else that suits you and move it there once finished. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:32, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

The FAR has closed (there is a delay in bot processing of the close), and FAR work is archived at Talk:Menstrual cycle/Archive 3 and Talk:Menstrual cycle/Archive 4 (over 350,000 bytes of discussion). Fine work from all, and a half-million award for Graham's yeoman's work (barely missing a three-quarter million award). [1] So, we are on TFA for May 28; so to work we go on the blurb below. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:53, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

First pass

At 1009 characters: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:29, 23 April 2021 (UTC)

Human primary ovarian follicle viewed by microscopy

The menstrual cycle is a series of natural changes in hormone production and the structures of the uterus and ovaries of the female reproductive system that make pregnancy possible. Naturally occurring hormones drive concurrent and coordinated cycles that last about 28 days. The ovarian cycle controls the production and release of eggs and the cyclic release of the hormones estrogen and progesterone. The uterine cycle governs the preparation and maintenance of the lining of the uterus to receive a fertilized egg. The cyclical rise and fall of the follicle stimulating hormone prompts the production and growth of oocytes (immature egg cells). Estrogen stimulates the uterus lining to thicken to accommodate an embryo should fertilization occur. If implantation does not occur, the thickened lining (endometrium) breaks down and blood is released during menstruation. Menarche (the onset menstruation) usually occurs at about twelve years, and cycles continue on average for 30–45 years.(Full article...)

I see the flow is off, as period is used before defined, but too tired to work on it tonight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:53, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

I'll look at this over the weekend. -- Colin°^Talk 08:40, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Fixed the flow problem above, but there is too much use of the word cycle. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:28, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

Colin we never closed this loop with Gog the Mild, who has a version now at Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 28, 2021. I don't care for the graph as the image, as it is too much info for a thumbnail. And it has the problem of using the word "period", which requires definition. And it focuses on issues that affect very few. Could you look at the version above and Gog's version so we can come to a consensus? Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:30, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I am entirely happy to use whatever version you come up with. BUT you didn't come back to me nor indicate that you were working on the draft blurb here and there needed to be something in the slot by 1 May or it was going to get bumped. A series of checks and activities take place on draft blurbs for TFAs, but if you can get this finished in a timely manner I will swap it in for mine, which was only ever intended as a placeholder, and take any flak coming for the late change. Thanks. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:36, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Yep, I knew this was on us ... I got busy and forgot to follow through! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:24, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Second pass

Really sorry. I forgot all about this. I agree the chart is not really going to be readable on the main page. I'm not that keen on the microscope slide either, as it doesn't seem much related to the cycle. What about the "An ovary about to release an egg" picture? I think there are bits of both versions that are good. Gog's has the "day one" stuff, and I think the sentence "The cyclical rise and fall of the follicle stimulating hormone prompts the production and growth of oocytes (immature egg cells)." is a bit too difficult for the main page, and not sure why that aspect should be mentioned vs numerous others, such as the egg being released. I don't really understand Sandy's problem with "period" and why it "requires definition". But then, an a man, and Scottish, so maybe to others this isn't such a very obvious word. It is hard to imagine writing about the menstrual cycle without including the word "period" which intrinsically is word about cycle length. We have a little conflict between the biology description which would see menstruation as the end of various steps, and the fact that the start of a period is a very handy date to call day one. Here's another attempted. I dropped a couple of "cycles". -- Colin°^Talk 19:46, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

An ovary about to release an egg

The menstrual cycle is a series of natural changes in hormone production and the structures of the uterus and ovaries of the female reproductive system that make pregnancy possible. Naturally occurring hormones drive two concurrent and coordinated cycles that last about 28 days. The ovarian cycle controls the production and release of eggs and the release of the hormones estrogen and progesterone. The uterine cycle governs the preparation and maintenance of the lining of the uterus to receive a fertilized egg. Menstruation, a period, is day one of the menstrual cycle, and lasts for about five days. Around day fourteen, an egg is released from the ovary. Estrogen stimulates the uterus lining to thicken and accommodate an embryo should fertilization occur. If implantation does not occur, the thickened lining (endometrium) breaks down, blood is released during menstruation, and the cycle repeats. Menarche (the first period) usually occurs around age twelve, and menstrual cycles continue on average for 30–45 years.(Full article...)

Thanks, Colin that comes in a bit long at 1043 (1025 max); I am out now but can work on trimming it in a few hours when home, unless you want to try ... I think my version may have avoided mentioning the lining twice, and we can remove “and the cyle repeats” or somethihng to get it within the size limit. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:21, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

Image option 3: During the menstrual cycle, the uterine lining thickens and then is shed.

Thanks Sandy. I'm wondering if part of the diagram, shown in Option 3, might be more informative than a photo? (This is a quick and dirty crop and would need to be properly redone in SVG.) Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 22:32, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

The phrase "Menstruation... is day one of the menstrual cycle" seems strange to me, and possibly implies that menstruation lasts only one day. I think it's more common to phrase this as "Menstruation... begins on one day of the cycle". Also consider replacing "Around day fourteen, an egg is released" with "Around day fourteen, an egg is usually released" or "Around day fourteen, an egg is normally released" as anovulation is quite common in overtly normal cycles. There is a common myth that the functioning of the cycle relies on ovulation happening. @Graham Beards:, your thoughts? Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 22:41, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I can work on this later when on computer but do we want to start adding images at this stage ?? Then we would need to ask Nikki for policy compliance. I don’t do images. I also don’t want to leave the impression that the menstrual cycle is only about menstruation, which that image kind of does. Graham has said he did not want to work on TFA. Because we are character limited it is often better to just leave out things that require too much explanation. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:53, 2 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm OK with whatever image we choose. In case I wasn't clear above, this is a crop of an image that is already in the article. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 00:01, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

I see ... it is a crop of File:Illu_cervix.jpg, which would still have to be checked for licensing (which to me is a big deal since I don't understand images and they scare the heck outta me :) At any rate, we are three days late here, our fault, Gog being patient with us, but the many people who work on getting the main page set in advance will not be happy if we delay further, so I'd like to get the wording nailed down and within limit. Going to work on that now ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:13, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Actually it's a crop of https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:MenstrualCycle2_en.svg, which is the main image in the article. I can't imagine we'd have any questions on licensing whatsoever - this image has been used in a zillion articles for a decade. But if you prefer another image I'm fine with that. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 01:54, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Third pass

An ovary about to release an egg

The menstrual cycle is a series of natural changes in hormone production and the structures of the uterus and ovaries of the female reproductive system that make pregnancy possible. Naturally occurring hormones drive two concurrent and coordinated cycles that last about 28 days. The ovarian cycle controls the production and release of eggs and the release of the hormones estrogen and progesterone. The uterine cycle governs the preparation and maintenance of the lining of the uterus (endometrium) to receive a fertilized egg. Menstruation, a "period" in common parlance, begins on day one of the cycle, and lasts for about five days. Around day fourteen, an egg is usually released from the ovary. Estrogen stimulates the uterus lining to thicken to accommodate an embryo should fertilization occur. If implantation does not occur, the lining is released during menstruation. Menarche (the first period) usually occurs around age twelve, and menstrual cycles continue on average for 30–45 years.(Full article...)

Recently featured:

• 2007 Coca-Cola 600
• Yazid I
• Operation Rösselsprung (1944)

Character count: 1016. Gog the Mild, I'm sorry we dropped the ball here. I have (I believe) incorporated Clayoquot's, Colin's and my concerns. It seems that we aren't happy with any of the image options, so if you want to change that, we should discuss. The chart is the best image, but too complex for thumbnail. So, nothing is great; I stuck with the one Colin used as he is, after all, a photographer. I am concerned that Clayoquot's crop will cause confusion between the menstrual cycle and menstruation, but concerned that the ovary picture is too blurry. Bst regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:43, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Looks great. One more edit, which is important - "eggs" should link to Egg cell not Egg. I'll make sure that the appropriate link target is used in the article. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 01:57, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks, got it, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:44, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Good stuff, and thanks Gog the Mild for your patience and your contribution to the final text. -- Colin°^Talk 09:23, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks all. Looks good. Now copied to Wikipedia:Today's featured article/May 28, 2021. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:36, 3 May 2021 (UTC)

Menstrual Hygiene Day

The date chosen to observe Menstrual Hygiene Day, that is 28th May, is in itself a special date. 28 signifies the ‘cycle of 28 days’ that is considered the standard menstrual cycle for any girl or woman. Further, May, the 5th month of the year signifies the 5 days of the periods.

🛑 What is Menstrual Hygiene Management?

Menstrual Hygiene Management means that every adolescent girl and woman should have access to clean menstrual hygiene management materials like sanitary pads, tampons, menstrual cups, reusable napkins and the dignified privacy to change them as frequently as needed. She must have the access to facilities for safely dumping the used menstrual hygiene management materials. Availability of soap and water to wash her body is also considered a very important part of the menstrual hygiene management.

It is estimated that over 500 million girls and women around the world lack basic menstrual hygiene management facilities. Making adolescent girls aware of menstruation, its importance and proper management of their menstrual hygiene is also part of the drive. Recent studies have revealed that only 1 in 2 girls have some knowledge about menstruation before getting her first period. Moreover, the primary source of the information is mother and the instructions are laden with negative social norms around the period.

The culture of silence around menstruation needs to be broken in order to make girls comfortable and confident while talking about a natural phenomenon like menstruation. Vinod k Maheshwari (talk) 13:12, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Yea, all that is included in the article on Menstrual Hygiene Day. EMsmile (talk) 13:23, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for rumnning this on the front page

Such a positive decision. Bashereyre (talk) 15:22, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely. Having articles like this featured prominently very much helps show that we're committed to improving coverage of topics relating primarily to women beyond just creating WiR biography pages. Major kudos to Graham Beards, SandyGeorgia, and everyone else who saved it at the recent FAR. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 17:17, 28 May 2021 (UTC)

+1 :) Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:17, 30 May 2021 (UTC)

Sock activity

This edit should be saved and viewed in the context of past sock activity, and edits from unlogged in accounts, associated with this page and this topic, along with a reminder of WP:MEAT and WP:SOCK. If this continues, I will submit an SPI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:03, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

"Bloody rag" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Bloody rag. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 24#Bloody rag until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. _signed, Rosguill ^talk 17:30, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

Comments needed please on the section about risks of sex during menstruation

I know more medical Wikipedians watch this page than the menstruation page so I am hoping someone can help out: Some recent edits at menstruation added some medical content about the risks of sexual intercourse during menstruation. I've just removed one study from 1990 which I think wasn't WP:MEDRS. Also I was doubtful about that editor's intentions when they added it (see profile statement here). This is how the text now stands (after my edits), is it factual or is anything missing? Is more known about risks? Or do some people play those risks up? Sexual intercourse during menstruation bears some risks. Vaginal pH is higher and thus less acidic than normal, the cervix is lower in its position, the cervical opening is more dilated, and the uterine endometrial lining is absent, thus allowing organisms direct access to the bloodstream through the numerous blood vessels that nourish the uterus. All these conditions increase the chance of infection during menstruation. There is an association of endometriosis for those who engage in sexual activities leading to orgasm during menstruation. I can imagine that some people would push an agenda on that topic. For reasons of transparency I am pinging the editor who recently edited that section: Atyourpais. EMsmile (talk) 13:21, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

This really belongs here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. It is most unusual to announce or discuss disputes at an article on the Take Page of another article. Graham Beards (talk) 13:49, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

OK, sorry, I'll post it there now. EMsmile (talk) 14:03, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

References

Histology images

Do these add value to the article? H&E stained sections of tissue require expertise to be understood. The figure legends do not help much and read like a report from a laboratory and I suspect they will not mean much to most readers. What do others think? Graham Beards (talk) 20:44, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

They add nothing for me except clutter and an image jam-up; perhaps Spicy would give a different perspective. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:50, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

And what are the arrows pointing at? Graham Beards (talk) 20:57, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I don't think these are useful without a clear description for lay readers. Spicy (talk) 21:56, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

I suggest removing them. The original legend was just pasted from the source publication (with the citations removed) and the images are not discussed in the article. Graham Beards (talk) 06:32, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I agree; I would have removed them when I edited them, but I wondered if they had some meaning for the brainiacs among us (not me :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:55, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

I have removed it. Thank you both for your advice. Graham Beards (talk) 08:33, 3 April 2022 (UTC)

Fiddling

This Featured article is undergoing a lot of fiddling of things like abbreviations; Iztwoz could you please discuss your edits to this Featured article ? Things are being changed that have to be changed back (eg abbreviations), and some issues that were discussed during the FAR are also moving (eg how far to get into menstruation vs menstrual cycle). When you have been reverted once, you should discuss before reinstating, and you should not mark an edit as a minor ce when you are reinstating an already reverted change. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:56, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I too am concerned that the focus of the article is once again being changed to menstruation, which has it's own article and contraception. This is in essence a human biology article about the hormones regulating the menstrual cycle.Graham Beards (talk) 14:04, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

I have been making edits to this article since June. All of them seem fair to me but you choose to call it "fiddling". Re the use of COCP - I had left a comment on an edit summary that COCP was used on the entry page and this was ignored. I then did a search on pages for its use and it is always used and is listed as a medical abbreviation. So I 'boldly' reinstated it. It sounds like you intend changing it back. As for changing the focus to menstruation - hardly. I shall make no further edits to this page.--Iztwoz (talk) 17:36, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

What it says on the Wikipedia "entry page" is irrelevant; we go by our cited sources, which in this case all use "COC" as the abbreviation. I think it's bad practice to change content without checking that the citations still support the changes. I also think the edits made since June have added little except stylistic, and often trivial, changes. No editor owns articles. We all know this. But when editors hone an article to FA standards they often feel obliged to maintain it. This is why we expect changes to featured articles to be discussed first. It's not a lot to ask. Graham Beards (talk) 21:17, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

But if you want to use COCs (as well as a link) as many sources do it's more usual to use the link but change the piping to 'combined oral contraceptives' - then there's no 'problem' with the COC abbreviation. --Iztwoz (talk) 06:55, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Gender-neutral language

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I know this is a sensitive topic, so I want to make it clear that while I personally believe using gender-neutral language about menstruation is right, I'm asking genuinely out of curiousity / still being new to wiki-editing: why don't we use it here? Fireant314 (talk) 16:27, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Are far as I know we have no policy on this. I'm all for using gender-neutral language where appropriate, but in a human biology article, it causes problems. I would object to the use of "persons who have ovaries/uteruses/vaginas" instead of "women" and "girls". Wikipedia is not a trail-blazing or campaigning organisation: we just edit reliable sources and have to go by the nomenclature used therein. I am open to discussion of course and if other editors disagree with me. Graham Beards (talk) 17:17, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Agree with Graham, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:23, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

There was a long discussion about this in 2019, see here ("Gender-neutral language in human sex-specific articles"): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_161#Gender-neutral_language_in_human_sex-specific_articles - The conclusion was not to use gender-neutral language in human sex-specific articles. There were further discussions on the talk page of menstruation, see in the talk page archive here and here. Note the term "menstruator" redirects to here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Menstruation#Terminology . I think overall it's OK like it is now (perhaps revisit again in a few years time). EMsmile (talk) 17:55, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have to disagree a bit with my good friends Graham and Sandy. There's a myth going about that Wikipedia has to use the language of our sources. Whether by accident or choice, it gets repeated, despite being untrue. I got so fed up about it that I wrote Wikipedia:Use our own words. I also disagree with EMsmile. That wasn't a "long discussion" (if you want a long discussion, see User talk:WhatamIdoing/Sandbox 4). That was actually a very short discussion involving a handful of editors and in response to a request that all our sex-related biomedical articles should be entirely gender neutral. It received a snowball response but didn't answer the question about whether editors can use gender neutral language if they wish, when writing their own material.

I'm sure you are abundantly aware that transgender issues are very much a political battle right now, especially in the UK and US. Today, the UK government blocked some transgender legislation that was agreed by the Scottish government, an action that some speculate will only hasten the day the Scotland splits from the UK. So if an issue like that can tear a nation apart, think what battles on the topic would do to Wikipedia.

Wikipedia actually legislates on very little when it comes to language choices. But it takes a dim view on editors who just go around changing text to suit their style preferences, particularly on contentious issues where it is very likely someone will go around the next day changing them back. So for existing text we have a bit of a stalemate, and I don't think Wikipedia is likely to find consensus on the matter any more than the UK or US populations have. And while it remains a political battleground topic, any discussion on the matter tends to become a proxy for editors own political views and prejudice.

What we did discover in that long discussion was that more and more public-facing health websites, and academics in journal articles, are choosing to write with trans people in mind. They don't always take the gender-neutral approach. Some incorporate trans people explicitly when they might otherwise feel excluded by a choice of words, and some articles are quite mixed, using "woman" sometimes and "people" other times. However, there is no easy solution and certainly no solution that is acceptable to those with conservative politics.

Right now, there are some articles on Wikipedia that are somewhat gender neutral. Especially ones created by students. But more often than not, those articles get spotted by conservative activist editors, who go around inserting "woman" wherever they can, and the students, being newbies wanting a grade for their work, don't resist. I think that some of the conservative activists have made their activism a little too obvious and are heading for the wrong end of a topic ban, so maybe in the coming year or so Wikipedia will be a little more accepting of editors contributing new material and updating material in this style. So, you could try a gender neutral or trans-inclusive approach if you write new content. You might get lucky and your style choices get respected. Or you might not. Whatever happens, don't fight about it.

You may find it interesting that the lead sentence of pregnancy refers to a "woman's uterus" but the lead sentence of circumcision refers to a "human penis". And nobody minds at all that "pregnant teenager" is gender-neutral. Language choices and our opinions on language choices are quite irrational. -- Colin°^Talk 22:48, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I can see a few places where we can avoid the whole dilemma by varying the wording (similar to the she/it/vessel/liner/ship/destroyer/battleship issue that occurs with ship articles that could be written without the archaic she), but I'm not going to embark on that without agreement, nor am I interested in seeing a biology article being cleansed of mentions of gender when Wikipedia has no clear policy. But there are some examples where the word woman for example could be considered redundant, and the sentence does not lose meaning without it ... eg ...

• For an individual woman, the follicular phase often varies in length from cycle to cycle; by contrast, the length of her the luteal phase will be fairly consistent from cycle to cycle at 10 to 16 days (average 14 days).
• In early pregnancy progesterone also increases blood flow and reduces the contractility of the smooth muscle in the uterus and raises the woman's basal body temperature.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:21, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes the word "woman" can be inserted or removed from nearly any sentence and this may happen as a result of perfectly natural copyediting. I demonstrated this a while ago, showing that every single sentence of the lead paragraph of pregnancy could have "women" shoehorned into it, and it would be tiresomely repetitive but grammatically fine. So at the individual sentence level, changes are possible and unremarkable. Removing the human from the text (whether a woman or a man or a person, a he or a she) can be criticised for producing text that is over-medicalised or reduces people to just bodies and processes. That, sometimes, might be absolutely fine if you really are discussing bits of a body and bodily processes. Replacing "woman" with "person" is possible sometimes with care, but not always. It is weird that one can use gender neutral language like "an individual" or "teenager", or use singular "they", and nobody complains that this might refer to men or boys and be misleading, but if you use "person" or "people" then it upsets some. We didn't, in all that long discussion, find an easy solution. -- Colin°^Talk 23:35, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

I hadn't seen this discussion before: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:WhatamIdoing/Sandbox_4 (thanks for pointing it out, User:Colin). Indeed a long discussion. Wondering why it is in that particular location and named "Sandbox 4". It might warrant a more central spot somewhere? Maybe WikiProject Medicine talk page (it does go beyond "medicine issues" of course). Personally, I think the current menstrual cycle article is fine how it is. Sure, we could omit the term "woman" a few times, like User:SandyGeorgia suggested. This will probably not be "enough" in the eyes of those who are more keen to see the language changed. Anyway, I'll sit back and observe what those people who have done most of the editing on this article decide to do. After you have formed a consensus, you might like to apply the same at menstruation. EMsmile (talk) 10:02, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

By the way last year I came across a new publication that was perhaps going "against the trend": It cautions against pushing for terms such as "menstruators", "people with a vagina" and alike in the context of menstrual hygiene management in the Global South. It is certainly thought provoking: "Effective Communication About Pregnancy, Birth, Lactation, Breastfeeding and Newborn Care: The Importance of Sexed Language" (link) It says: "Cultural Imperialism in Global Public Health - As previously explained, 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. In the context of global public health, an increasing encouragement, or requirement, to desex language by international organizations or funders based in the USA/the West may be experienced not only as confusing but also as cultural and linguistic imperialism". Our Wikipedia articles are meant to be readable and understandable by everyone and not have a Global North bias in any way. EMsmile (talk) 10:02, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

User:EMsmile, the discussion on User:WhatamIdoing's sandbox page was advertised at WPMED at the start. There is a limit to how long a discussion can go on for when discussed centrally, where other matters need discussed too. Actually, I see now that WAID archived much of it. The page used to be this long! The full page is obviously now too long for anyone to read but the article you mention was discussed there at this section. I think the article was fairly thoroughly torn apart. You are welcome to post on WAID's page if you want to discuss further.

I think one of the problems with this topic is that people have strong opinions about it (or weak opinions but are willing to take on board and defend the strong opinions of someone they align with). Those opinions are ultimately based on your values as a person. But that's a really hard thing to argue about. So instead, excuse my language, people just make shit up. In the publications we examined, all sorts of ridiculous arguments were put forward, not just on the anti-trans side, but mostly on the anti-trans side, because that's what most media have given a publishing platform to. There were a few nuggets of wisdom, however. On Wikipedia, we see the same arguments but also see editors totally inventing policies and guidelines and consensus that simply doesn't exist. Like the idea we have to use the word choices of our sources. This is what makes me depressed that the community (or indeed our nations) will find agreement and consensus on this any time soon.

Btw, I agree with you that "those people who have done most of the editing on this article" should have a louder voice in any argument about style choices here. And that applies to new material, here and elsewhere. -- Colin°^Talk 10:36, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Oh, interesting, I missed all that discussion (even though I have WikiProject Medicine on my watchlist). How/where will this sandbox discussion be easily findable in the future? - it should be available from somewhere from the front of the WikiProject Medicine page, perhaps under resources (currently it's just somewhere linked from an archived talk page, right?). I am just saying because it would be a pity if the discussion got buried and lost and new people, like Fireant314, have no easy way of finding those earlier discussions, and start again from scratch! Perhaps even a tag at the top of the talk page (which doesn't get archived) and which says "discussions about gender neutral language for this and other articles are ongoing - please see here"). EMsmile (talk) 11:12, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

By the way I can see that you ripped that article in Frontiers apart but not everyone agreed. I think it was providing an important balance/perspective/opinion: we don't often hear about voices from the Global South on this topic. From my own (limited) work with sanitation issues in the Global South I can tell you that many people from those parts of the world look at these whole transgender wording debates with some surprise/curiosity/disdain ("luxury problems?"). Anyway, this is not the right place to discuss this further; there should be a central place in Wikipedia somewhere, not on the talk page of menstrual cycle... EMsmile (talk) 11:12, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I think that's a matter for WAID. I really don't think it is reasonable to expect anyone to read that entire discussion, though it might have been better to archive it to another page than to delete the material. I think the hope was the discussion would produce some recommendations. It isn't continuing with the same vigour as it once did, mostly because we've all made the points we're going to make and are repeating ourselves without coming any closer. Perhaps we should try to summarise, but I don't think it would be a consensus summary, more of a "This is what Colin ended up thinking", and so on.

I think WAID was pretty damning about that Frontiers article too. I can think of a response to your Global South comment but it doesn't belong here. You can certainly join WAIDs page and your personal experience is valuable. -- Colin°^Talk 11:26, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes but how about my suggestion to link to that discussion from the main page of WikiProject Medicine? I do think it's important that new users can actually find it on their own accord. One of the places they make look for guidance is at WikiProject Medicine. I am not saying we have a guidance document ready yet (or we ever will in the near future) but we can at least point people to the main page(s) where past discussions took place. E.g. before yesterday I wasn't even aware of that long discussion and used to point people to this discussion only: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_161#Gender-neutral_language_in_human_sex-specific_articles (again a location where nobody can find it again unless they know it existed at Village pump proposals...) EMsmile (talk) 11:41, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

EMSmile, although I was aware of WAID's sandbox, I haven't joined because I find those discussions too polarizing for the reasons Colin mentions. So I could be completely wrong (take this with the grain of salt) but I believe that it is in Sandbox because of WAID's extensive experience with how to conduct an RFC. On more followed pages, it's near impossible to just have a discussion, as people start !voting (oppose or support), and discussions become polarized. It can be more effective to have a real discussion elsewhere before attempting an RFC. But you could join in there to inquire. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:13, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

The Village Pump discussion had a much wider set of people responding, was in a more centralized place, and had a proper closure. It's much more authoritative than a sandbox discussion, which despite its length was basically the same handful of people. So I would oppose anything that implied some sort of equal weight between the two. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:38, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank you everyone for your replies & discussion!

I have learned a few things today. Fireant314 (talk) 15:23, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Sandbox proposal

I'm glad Colin joined us in this discussion. I didn't invite him because I saw he was busy elsewhere - thanks for finding the time. In case I have given the impression that I am stuck in the Dark Ages, let me say from the outset that I fully support trans inclusivity and indeed, I have been an active supporter of LGBT rights since 1971! The issue I have, as an educator and Consultant Microbiologist, is maintaining accuracy while accommodating radical changes in how we view sex and gender, which are no longer the same. I have made changes to a copy of the article in my sandbox here User:Graham Beards/Sandbox. I would be very grateful for any comments, and edits. It would be good for the article, our readers and the whole project if we can get our act together on this. Graham Beards (talk) 13:02, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Graham, does this diff represent the suggested changes? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:15, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Oops, I see it doesn't and we have to read through all ? Would you mind popping in the original so that a diff of changes can be produced ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:20, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

There you go Graham Beards (talk) 13:27, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. IPad editing ... temporary list below I will come back and fill in ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:35, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to revert these changes once and suggest that a request for comment be started. People actually do read Wikipedia for information even though it is unreliable. "Those who have..." Who are "those"? Can you get or lose menstrual cycles if you gender identity changes? Imagine if scientific research used this language to describe participants in a study: the participants consisted of equal numbers those who have menstrual cycles and those who do not? Those who do not could be male but they also could be female. I realize the everyone here has the best of intentions, but introducing ambiguity is going in the wrong direction. --I am One of Many (talk) 14:13, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I have already reverted the changes. We needed a diff for discussion purposes. When I suggested Graham pop them in, I was referring to in his sandbox, but I wasn't clear. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:35, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I am One of Many. I want to be sure that everyone understands that we had a miscommunication here (likely because of my iPad-editing brevity). When I said "Would you mind popping in the original so that a diff of changes can be produced", I meant: copy the original article to sandbox, so that a diff of the changes could be produced because I didn't want to read the entire sandbox to see what changes were proposed. Instead, Graham put the sandbox into the original. Same effect: we just needed a diff for discussion, and the temporary change is reverted. I don't believe there was ever any intent to move forward on these changes without discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:01, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I am One of Many as Sandy says, the changes were for demonstration purposes and reverted. Please can you not start an RFC. I don't know why everyone thinks an RFC is the first step in discussing any issue. Let's be clear, an RFC is often no better than a poll, and that should be the very last step when proposing any change, when you are pretty confident you have a solid proposal that you think will be carried. I think people below are examining the issues and seeing for themselves how well it works or otherwise. It is a wiki, so we are allowed to experiment. I think an RFC on this topic would be disruptive at the current time. -- Colin°^Talk 14:40, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with User:I am One of Many and think that a WP:RfC would be good. I also think that something needs to be placed on the WikiProject Medicine main page to explain to people that discussions about this are ongoing and then point them to where the discussion location is. Let's bring this out into the open. EMsmile (talk) 14:42, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

(Edit conflict) I don't think an RFC is going to help at all. There are no changes to revert. [2]. This is a work in progress where we are trying to find solutions, in the spirit of collaborative writing, to issues that have been raised. I would be more than happy to consider any suggestions you have. I have no axe to grind: I was a happy with the article the way I wrote it. Others are not it seems and so we should find a work around. Graham Beards (talk) 14:40, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

EMSmile, an RFC could be effective if we actually had a proposal. At this point, we are still discussing a sandbox proposal. If we were to first develop some consensus amongst ourselves, and carefully craft an RFC, then we might get an outcome better than a bitter debate with no consensus. Meanwhile, no changes are in the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:48, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, see also my post above at 13:13, 17 January 2023 ... An RFC launched too early can cause more problems than it solves. The diff was for discussion purposes, so let's discuss. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:44, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

There doesn't have to be an RFC, but I think that it would be helpful to have more perspectives and consider the downsides of such changes. I am One of Many (talk) 14:44, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

That is exactly what we are doing. Graham Beards (talk) 14:48, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Maybe I misunderstood but from what I am seeing in the suggestions section below, you are trying to replace every time the word woman or girl appears in the menstrual cycle article with something like "some", "people", "those" etc. That is the proposal on the table, isn't it? I would be against replacing woman or girl every time in this type of medical/biological article. EMsmile (talk) 14:51, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

My suggestion is that often re-casting the sentence will work better than simple substitution. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:02, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Agreed 100% EMsmile. While it is true that natural styles of writing vary as to exactly how many sentences use words like "woman", deliberately going through and removing all mentions is quite different and is not in accord with how the vast majority of sources write about this topic. And contrary to what has been claimed, how sources write is relevant to how we write, with MOS:CAPS as just one example. We would never allow people to go through an article and replace "woman" with "womxn", even though a few people write that way. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:43, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Here's what would happen if you do an RFC or even advertise for "more perspectives", or may yet happen this afternoon. Every single conservative activist will descend on the article with some variant on the same well worn arguments about women being erased and "bodies with vaginas" and "menstruators" (despite nobody here using proposing such phrases). Someone will no doubt complain that it is a man who is erasing women from a women's article (ignoring the fact Graham wrote much of it). You'll be told in no uncertain terms that you must WP:STICKTOSOURCES for word choices, even though the existing article text didn't. Meanwhile most trans editors will ignore it, because there are more important battles and because they know already how it will end.

We debated this for over a year at WAID's sandbox and not a single person changed their mind. Experiment and explore for sure, but please I don't think Wikipedia is ready for this change just now, and an RFC would be horrible. -- Colin°^Talk 14:56, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

(edit confict) Perhaps I should have left this in my sandbox. I was just exploring ideas and sharing them. Graham Beards (talk) 15:00, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

My point is one of clarity. Suppose Female reproductive system was rewritten: "The reproductive system in some is made up of the internal and external sex organs that function in the reproduction of new offspring. In humans, the reproductive system of some is immature at birth and develops to maturity at puberty to be able to produce gametes, and to carry a fetus to full term. The internal sex organs are the vagina, uterus, fallopian tubes, and ovaries. The reproductive tract of some includes the vagina, uterus, and fallopian tubes and is prone to infections." Clarity would be lost.--I am One of Many (talk) 15:04, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, it's an issue we are well aware of. Graham Beards (talk) 15:08, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes we can't just automatically replace "women" with "people" or "some" or "individuals". It does have to be considered whether meaning is still retained and sometimes reading and examining individual sentences is too "out of context" and it is better to look at a whole paragraph (for which a sandbox would be better). For example this paper says "Penile cancer is relatively rare globally with an annual incidence of less than 1 case per 100,000 person-years (pyr) in Western countries". I'm pretty sure that 100,000 is only counting the "person"s who have a penis. -- Colin°^Talk 15:13, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, User:Crossroads, I think you made some very good points with your three talk page interventions above (they are scattered in 3 different spots above, which I overlooked at first). Especially this statement of yours resonates with me Why are people proceeding as though expunging "women" from a women's health topic is acceptable? Or even desirable? It seems to be that one person invoked "gender neutral" and it's just being assumed that that would be an improvement.. EMsmile (talk) 12:05, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

Suggestions

From this diff, I am concerned that at times we may have compromised accuracy, or introduced weaker prose (for example, overuse of "those" or confusion about the subject) ... explanations follow ... I expect these can all be easily addressed ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:07, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

1. More severe symptoms that affect daily living are classed as premenstrual dysphoric disorder, and are experienced by a few ( 3–8%).

   The "few" is left vague: this is a case where the word individuals might be used. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:07, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

   Yes.Graham Beards (talk) 14:22, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

2. Cycles in which ovulation does not occur (anovulation) are common in girls who have just begun menstruating and in women around menopause. --> Cycles in which ovulation does not occur (anovulation) are common in those who have just begun menstruating and those around menopause.

   At this point, I feel like those is becoming overused, and I feel we've lost an important age-based distinction. I am pretty sure you or Colin can fix this one by completely re-casting the sentence along the lines of ... When menstruation begins, and again around the time of menopause, cycles in which ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:07, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

3. Chronic anovulation occurs in 6–15% of women during their reproductive years. --> Chronic anovulation occurs in 6–15% of individuals during their reproductive years.

   Not sure we should switch to individuals here ... have we lost accuracy ? A percentage of individuals would include all men wouldn't it ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:07, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

   I thought "reproductive years" resolved this. Graham Beards (talk) 14:16, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

4. Anovulatory cycles or short luteal phases are normal when women are under stress or athletes increasing the intensity of training. --> Anovulatory cycles or short luteal phases are normal when under stress or athletes increasing the intensity of training.

   Grammatical ?? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:07, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

   It should be "or in athletes" Graham Beards (talk) 14:16, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

5. Although a normal and natural process, some women experience premenstrual syndrome with symptoms that may include. --> Although a normal and natural process, some experience premenstrual syndrome with symptoms that may include

   Grammatical? Vague ? Again, this seems a case where a missing individual or person might be needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:07, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

   I'm not sure. "Some" is often used to mean "people" as in "Some might say... " Graham Beards (talk) 14:22, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

6. More severe symptoms that affect daily living are classed as premenstrual dysphoric disorder and are experienced by 3 to 8% of women. --> More severe symptoms that affect daily living are classed as premenstrual dysphoric disorder and are experienced by 3 to 8% of some.

   Same: of some is overly vague. I think this one can be fixed by re-casting the sentence, something like ... Premenstrual dysphoric disorder, experienced by 3 to 8% of those menstruating, causes more severe symptoms ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:07, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

7. These issues can significantly affect a woman's health and quality of life and timely interventions can improve the lives of these women. --> These issues can significantly affect health and quality of life and timely interventions can improve the lives.

   Left hanging ... and timely interventions can (be effective ??). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:07, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

   Should be just "lives" without the article. Graham Beards (talk) 14:16, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

8. In some women, ovulation features a characteristic pain --> In some, ovulation features a characteristic pain

   This is a case where individuals might be used ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:07, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

9. Around 40% of women with epilepsy. --> Around 40% of those with epilepsy

   Compromised accuracy ? 40% of those includes all men ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:07, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

   Yes but I think the meaning is clear. Graham Beards (talk) 14:18, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Sandy, are working from the right version? I have already changed these, I think :-) Graham Beards (talk) 13:47, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Yes, I'm listing the changes that need discussion ... sorry, iPad editing ... I will come back and enter my concerns on these ... Give me 10 or 15 more minutes ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:49, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

No rush Graham Beards (talk) 13:51, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

OK, done now, the rest looks fine, sure you and Colin can easily address these, as both of you have better prose than I do. I reverted so that you can reinstate the whole thing once we are all agreed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:07, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't agree; read my comment above. I am One of Many (talk) 14:23, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Same. I don't see why things were proceeding as though expunging "women" from a women's health topic is acceptable. Or even desirable. It seems to be that one person invoked "gender neutral" and it was simply assumed that that would therefore be an improvement. This is a sex-related topic, and writing without any reference to sex - even to the extent of removing "female" from "reproductive system" - is stilted and inaccurate.

The vast majority of sources do not write like this, and contrary to what some claim, that is relevant. I pointed to MOS:CAPS above as an example, but in any case, I see no way it could be WP:DUE for sources to talk about a topic as relevant to women while Wikipedia goes off on its path away from the experts and desexes it.

If any editors want to introduce this writing style to Wikipedia - of e.g. deliberately avoiding words used freely in our sources, or to overturn the existing consensus that 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 - then the burden is on them to draft some new guidance for MOS towards an RFC for it. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:54, 19 January 2023 (UTC)

Crossroads, nobody ever said our sources are irrelevant. It really doesn't help discussions when you say things about what other people have claimed that are very obviously false. Our sources can guide us, but the "STICKTOSOURCES" claim you keep making is also very obviously false (see WP:OUROWNWORDS) and you need to try harder than citing one very minor aspect of letter style (caps). There are in fact countless ways in which Wikipedia either has a house style (punctuation around quotes) or explicitly no style (English language variants, citation style). And so many ways our writing and choice of words are required by policy to deviate from our sources (neutrality, opinions, guidance, second or third person, etc).

Furthermore Crossroads, the so-called "existing consensus" you keep citing does not mandate what you keep claiming it does. It asked an extreme question and got a no. That's all you can say, and the tiny number of participants included only one health/medicine writer. The words you quote are the words of one person who happened to close it, not a consensus of Wikipedia. And they were wrong. I don't need an RFC to know they are wrong, because literally nobody on Wikipedia sticks to the words/terminology of our sources. It doesn't happen. If you ever suggested that such a statement was universally true, it would be snowball closed. Crossroads, some of the people on this page have actually written articles, rather than just argue about them, and we know it isn't true, because we carefully consider the words we write and they are not the words in our sources.

By all means argue that you think we need to keep mentioning the word "women" in sex related articles. That's an opinion. But your rationales for this, Crossroads, are not helpful. -- Colin°^Talk 15:52, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

I think an issue is whether or not we can just use "some" meaning "some women/individuals|people|persons". It sounds fine to my ear but I'm a Brummie. Graham Beards (talk) 14:25, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

For me it's OK to remove some mentions of women/female/girls but is the plan now to remove it every single time? Is that really needed? I doubt it, based on the discussions that took place in the past. I would say at least there has not yet been a consensus reached that would stipulate this. Will the same happen at every single Wikipedia article that deals with female anatomy topics? EMsmile (talk) 14:36, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Some of the suggested prose came across to me as artificial and stilted ... could be a AmEng v BrEng thing? Looking forward to hearing from Colin ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:39, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

Close this discussion

There is no consensus to alter content in this article, and discussion is now veering into meta-issues that are better dealt with elsewhere. We came, we discussed, we did not change the article, let's move on. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:59, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

References to women omitting girls

Women are constantly referred to in this and related articles; menstruation typically starts in early teenage years in girls. ? Iztwoz (talk) 11:57, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't think this is an issue of concern. The article clearly says, "the first period (called menarche) occurs at around 12 years of age and continues for about 30–45 years." Graham Beards (talk) 12:06, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

In the first paragraph is "These cycles are concurrent and coordinated, normally last between 21 and 35 days in adult women" why leave out a large proportion of menstruating females?--Iztwoz (talk) 19:16, 30 September 2022 (UTC) Why 'adult' and why not just females?--Iztwoz (talk) 19:18, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

And are post-menopausal women not adults?--Iztwoz (talk) 19:20, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't think this is an issue. The term "women" is used 33 times and 13 of these are in the citations. When the term is used in the body of the article, often the age range is given. If you have a source for the differences of the cycles in girls, we could include these. It would insult our readers to say "in adult women who are still menstruating" when the meaning of post-menopausal is so obvious. I would be interested to see if any editors think "girls" is an issue. Graham Beards (talk) 21:41, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't understand why the term "adult women" is used twice in the article - why not just "women"? I would have thought cycle length is on average the same, no matter if it's a menstruating teenager or an "adult woman" (perhaps different again during peri-menopause?). From a society point of view (or call it history), girls where officially women once they started menopause... Nowadays we don't think of them that way: we have girls pre menarche, then girls post menarche and then adult women. But biologically, the menstrual cycle is the same for a post menarche girl as for a woman, isn't it? In summary, I don't think we need to mention girls separate but I would prefer "women" instead of "adult women" here. - I've also seen the term "females" in publications to include women and girls in the one term. EMsmile (talk) 22:00, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for you valued comments. I have deleted the one occurrence of "adult women" and the one occurrence "adult woman". Stand alone "women" is redundant as the article starts off by saying "the female reproductive system". Graham Beards (talk) 09:46, 1 October 2022 (UTC)

Basically, yes, the menstrual cycle is the same. It can be a bit more irregular for younger girls, especially those in their first year, but women is probably a better term. 172.4.66.98 (talk) 14:53, 20 May 2023 (UTC)

Menstrual health

In the menstrual health section, it is written:

"There are common culturally communicated misbeliefs that the menstrual cycle affects women's moods, causes depression or irritability, or that menstruation is a painful, shameful or unclean experience. Often a woman's normal mood variation is falsely attributed to the menstrual cycle. Much of the research is weak, but there appears to be a very small increase in mood fluctuations during the luteal and menstrual phases, and a corresponding decrease during the rest of the cycle.[74]"

This paragraph is scientifically incorrect. Read this review articles PMID 35267252, this and this. This issue was raised during FAC in Persian Wikipedia. Pereoptic ^Talk✉️   15:40, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

No. Those studies were on women with pre-existing psychiatric diagnoses. The cited study by Else-Quest N, Hyde JS (2021) is correct in this regard. Also I can't see the discussion you refer to here [3] Graham Beards (talk) 17:31, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

@Graham Beards: You can read the conversations here and after here.

In part of this article it is written:

"This cyclic experience may influence women’s mental health through a variety of mechanisms. For example, many women experience physical discomfort (e.g., dysmenorrhea, breast tenderness, joint pain5) around menstruation. This physical discomfort can be associated with increases in psychological distress and irritability, and decreased self-esteem.6 Many women additionally report increased interpersonal conflicts and reduced social engagement premenstrually and during menstruation7,8—which may contribute to depression and isolation.8 Negative affect is linked with increased impulsivity,9 substance use,10 and nonsuicidal self-injury.11 As such, it is unsurprising that systematic and meta-analytic reviews find exacerbations of psychiatric symptoms across the menstrual cycle (e.g., Carroll et al.12)."

Another articles also mentions mood swings [1] [2]. However, I'm not sure if it refers to normal women or those with underlying mental illnesses. Pereoptic ^Talk✉️   06:18, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for this. Firstly you must stick to acceptable sources which none of these are with the possible exception of Handy et al. I think the issue you have had is essentially over mood swings. This is covered in our article where is says "there appears to be a very small increase in mood fluctuations during the luteal and menstrual phases, and a corresponding decrease during the rest of the cycle." Handy et al say only 5% of women are affected but even then they also admit to a sampling bias and add the caveat "Given the failure to include this information and the general lack of representation of racial and ethnic minority groups, the generalizability of these findings is an open question". So I can not accept your argument that what I have written is "scientifically incorrect". Graham Beards (talk) 06:54, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

@Graham Beards: Of course, English is not my first language and I may use some words incorrectly. I didn't mean this paragraph to be "scientifically incorrect", I meant that article by Handy et al was stated as straight fact. We have not covered the controversies surrounding this scientific issue in the text of the article As you said yourself, Handy admits that: "the generalizability of these findings is an open question" Pereoptic ^Talk✉️   07:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

-This position is not a "cultural misconception" in any way, but it is a completely scientific matter about which there is debate and controversy. By the way, the number of researches that show the connection between the two is increasing. The mentioned sentence should be rewritten as follows: "There is a difference of opinion regarding the relationship between menstruation and mood changes" or "In recent years, the relationship between menstruation and mood changes has been discussed." Tisfoon.

Pereoptic ^Talk✉️   07:29, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I disagree. That's not an improvement. We don't base our articles on opinions, we use reliable sources and the second suggestion says nothing really. Graham Beards (talk) 07:54, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

@Graham Beards: difference of opinion base our articles, not just opinion. I don't know why you are reading my speech word for word. By disagreement, I mean the difference between scientific articles. Find out the meaning of my words, not sentence by sentence and word by word. When a review article admits that there are problems with my review, you should not write the research results in the text of the article without mentioning these problems. For example, it is better to write: "But still more research is needed in this field." Pereoptic ^Talk✉️   08:23, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I think you should read the past discussion on this here Talk:Menstrual cycle/Archive 4, where the wording was debated and agreed. Graham Beards (talk) 08:26, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

An examination of the studies that were included of women with pre-existing psychiatric diagnoses lends to a lack of confidence in the strength of the findings, which reinforces concern about the issues mentioned in the Limitations section and reiterated in the Conclusions and future directions section (limited data, varied definitions and assessment of menstrual cycle phases, lack of standardized assessment of symptoms, sampling biases, and "retrospective and self-reported assessments of the menstrual cycle are less accurate, which may obfuscate potential findings"). "Self-report" occurs 158 times (some duplicates) in the Table of 178 accepted studies, which makes me wonder if Graham might comment on the selection criteria, and whether this review should be used at all.

Should there be consensus to use the review, would something like this work? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:42, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Current

Idea

There are common culturally communicated misbeliefs that the menstrual cycle affects women's moods, causes depression or irritability, or that menstruation is a painful, shameful or unclean experience. Often a woman's normal mood variation is falsely attributed to the menstrual cycle. Much of the research is weak, but there appears to be a very small increase in mood fluctuations during the luteal and menstrual phases, and a corresponding decrease during the rest of the cycle.

There are common culturally communicated misbeliefs that the menstrual cycle affects women's moods, causes depression or irritability, or that menstruation is a painful, shameful or unclean experience. Often a woman's normal mood variation is falsely attributed to the menstrual cycle. Much of the research is weak, but there appears to be a very small increase in mood fluctuations during the luteal and menstrual phases, and a corresponding decrease during the rest of the cycle. Limited data indicate that the role of hormones in psychiatric symptom exacerbations in those women with pre-existing psychiatric diagnoses warrants further research to develop standardized assessment measures.

Hi Sandy, I don't think we should use the study. This diagram [4] shows how the authors only focussed on women with pre-existing psychiatric conditions. There are numerous conditions that are aggravated by hormonal changes but only a tiny percent of women experience this. I think we are in danger of creeping towards medicalizing a healthy physiological function, which, as you know, was a big, big problem in earlier versions. Graham Beards (talk) 14:13, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

"only focussed on women" Which Only? I agree with Sandy Georgia, do menstrual cycles only happen to normal women? When talking about menstrual health, part of it includes women who have underlying mental illnesses, and it is good that these issues are also covered in the article. In addition to the issues I mentioned, the topic of underlying diseases has a very wide coverage in mental health articles. [5][6][7][8] Pereoptic ^Talk✉️   16:25, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I don't know what you mean by "Which Only". Graham Beards (talk) 16:49, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I think this is my grammar problem. :) Suppose I didn't write that sentence at all Pereoptic ^Talk✉️   16:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

This is from he Lead:

The menstrual cycle can cause some women to experience premenstrual syndrome with symptoms that may include tender breasts, and tiredness. More severe symptoms that affect daily living are classed as premenstrual dysphoric disorder, and are experienced by 3–8% of women. During the first few days of menstruation some women experience period pain that can spread from the abdomen to the back and upper thighs. The menstrual cycle can be modified by hormonal birth control.

I think it's sufficient. Graham Beards (talk) 16:57, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

But the text does not clearly mention mental health Pereoptic ^Talk✉️   17:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

OK. Let me summarise what I think the issues are:

• You translated this article into Farsi. (And where is the acknowledgment ?)
• You nominated it for FA in the Persian Wikipedia.
• One (just one) reviewer, Tisfoon, said there wasn't enough on mood swings.
• So you added this to the Persian version: "There is a difference of opinion about the basic and long-term effect of the menstrual cycle on mood and its relationship with mental disorders and its continuity and occurrence in each cycle. However, mood swings during the cycle (especially in the luteal phase and menstruation) are accepted among experts and may be accompanied by fluctuations.
• This was sourced to an article on suicides. (Jang D, Elfenbein HA (2019). "Menstrual Cycle Effects on Mental Health Outcomes: A Meta-Analysis". Archives of Suicide Research : Official Journal of the International Academy for Suicide Research. 23 (2): 312–332. doi:10.1080/13811118.2018.1430638. PMID 29461935.)
• Then you started the discussion here requesting a similar addition.
• I disagreed saying the existing coverage was adequate.
• You replied by saying "But the text does not clearly mention mental health ".

This is not needed in my view. And furthermore, I find it misogynistic when a normal, healthy physiological function in women is held to blame for mental diseases. Unless you can quote an WP:MEDRS source to support your claim that the menstrual cycle causes mental disease in otherwise healthy women, I think we should let the matter rest. Graham Beards (talk) 17:38, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

These ambiguities were raised in GA, but since these are still not resolved for me, I have raised these issues here. I did not come here to suggest that we add this text to the English article, I raised this issue to seek the scholarly opinions of English Wikipedia users about it. But I came across this sentence: "And besides, I find it misogynistic to blame a normal, healthy physiological function in women for mental illness." This sentence really surprised me.

Pereoptic ^Talk✉️   20:35, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

In that case, please see WP:NOTAFORUM: "...article talk pages exist solely to discuss how to improve articles; they are not for general discussion about the subject of the article." Graham Beards (talk) 05:56, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

It's very, very clear that when I say "ambiguities," I mean the validity of the text in the menstrual health section. But unfortunately, you are dragging the discussion to the sidelines, first you describe the summary of my participation and goals, then you raise your personal beliefs and finally you sweep question under the carpet, I think it is better to wait for the third opinion. Pereoptic ^Talk✉️   06:18, 14 April 2024 (UTC)

Sources
References Else-Quest N, Hyde JS (2021). "Psychology, gender, and health: psychological aspects of the menstrual cycle". The Psychology of Women and Gender: Half the Human Experience + (10th ed.). Los Angeles: SAGE Publishing. ISBN 978-1-544-39360-5.