Talk:Skene's gland/Archive 1

Archive 1

true?

Is it really true that there are two of them, and that their openings are next to the urethral opening? Google seems to think that there's only one, homologous to the prostate, emptying into the urethra. Makes more sense to me. AxelBoldt 03:02 Jan 11, 2003 (UTC)

more info needed

There needs to be info on the external openings and whatever connects the skene's glands and the external openings. see talk page for bartholin's glands. Gringo300 20:11, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

This entry needs to be re-examined

The discussion of female ejaculation is ridiculous. The article comes off as clearly biased against the possibility of it, even though it's completely off the wall to suggest that urine's composition could be different depending on what provokes its secretion. The writer's tone seems patronizing and condescending in general, and they in particular seems out to contradict the actual expert, the sex educator (who also happens to be a woman), with no real evidence or any sources cited. User:68.227.185.132 07:29, 22 March 2006

• Additionally slang words 'pussy', 'jiz' and others are used, this is hardly scholarly work or language. User:192.18.101.5 21:04, 14 September 2009

To the above editor: the discussion of the female ejaculate is not only NOT ridiculous, but can be educational to those who have experienced this phenomenon, as well as being an an aide for those wishing to experience this alone or with a partner. This article is meant to educate those who care to know more or understand better something that has been a mystery to people of both genders for ages and continues to elude many to this day.

The female ejaculate is a real thing, and CAN be experienced by any woman, physiologically. We all have the anatomy to ejaculate during coitus, foreplay, and masturbation. Certain hurdles prevent almost half of sexually active people from this occurrence, including (fear of) reaction (by one's own self or their partner); limitations in sexuality and the incapability to vocalize certain pleasurable areas; or the self-consciousness in that it may in fact be 'peeing', or an abnormality. This may be an accurate finding in certain, rare circumstances, but most of the time, anything 'squirting' from a woman during sexual activity is not urine, as it is nearly impossible for the bladder to release urine flow during sexual stimulation. Many readers at this point may find themselves doubting the above mentioned statement, so as a test, I suggest you attempt to stop stimulation before orgasm, and make the conscious effort to go urinate. Seriously, go seat yourself in the position that you would normally assume to urinate under non-sexual circumstances, and attempt to relive your bladder. You will find that IF you are able to, it will either require substantial effort and focus, or a brief time lapse to 'cool down' before your body will actually allow for the urine to flow.

In some circumstances, a woman may be mildly aroused, and find that urine will flow more easily. Under normal sexual pretenses, when those involved are indulging fully in this union, it will be near impossible to excrete urine, and any fluid expelled, though may be similar in color or odor to urine, is actually a similar fluid created within the body at a relative anatomical location to the bladder (though not within the kidneys), and expelled at an area just millimeters from the orifice to which urine passes. If you get an opportunity, and a willing assistant, take a look. This will require the manual opening of the labia, and possibly some scrutiny, but you will see that women have a mysterious hole located discretely within the vagina that is NOT for urinating, nor is it the actual entrance to the vagina itself or anus. This hole is roughly the size of the tip of a pencil, and can be found at the top of the vaginal opening when a woman is laying on her back. I do not recommend attempting to locate this feature while the woman is in another position, as natural folds in the skin will nearly always result in an unsuccessful result.

This can be a pleasurable experience in and of itself, as it allows the woman being explored to achieve a new level of comfort with her partner, in allowing to be explored to this intimate level, as well as is stimulating to the vagina while being surveyed for anatomical composition. It also allows the partner to get to know their lover, physically, in a manner that will ensure a more successful future of pleasurable foreplay and sexual encounter.

Even if you attempt to locate the anatomy mentioned in the article, and find yourself unsuccessful, do not get discouraged. Sex and sexual activity should always be a pleasurable experience for the parties involved, and should never be scrutinized for the sake of judgement, only education. However, because this can be a life changing finding for all involved, I STRONGLY encourage individuals (with the help of a strategically placed mirror) or partners together to go on this sexual exploration, and embrace the experience without mental or emotional reservation. If you limit yourself with doubt, or feelings of incompetence or self-consciousness, you are setting yourself up for failure altogether before you even begin. Be open in mind, and enjoy this new knowledge for what it is: a natural and normal existence. User:68.187.206.165 15:13, 19 September 2010

• This is not a 'myth', or 'act of indecency', but can be educational to those who have experienced this phenomenon, as well as being an an aide for those wishing to experience this alone or with a partner. This article is meant to educate those who care to know more or understand better something that has been a mystery to people of both genders for ages and continues to elude many to this day. User:68.187.206.165 15:17, 19 September 2010

The article needs referenced information. It's also an encyclopedi article about the gland, not a sexual guide. Your input would be welcome but has to cite credible sources and not be just your opinion on the matter. lastly, entries in the talk page should be signed. --MartinezMD (talk) 16:59, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Same?

Minor vestibular glands redirects to this page, but what I've seen on other sites seems to say that minor vestibular glands are something distinct from Skene's glands. I'm not an expert on this, but I think someone who IS needs to look into this. Gringo300 20:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Inconsistency

The image provided to illustrate the location of numerous parts of the female anatomy (Fem isa 2.gif) seems to contradict other related articles. For one, it points to a specific location and lables it the 'G-Spot' while other articles here on Wikipedia admit that the precise location of the 'G-Spot' is unknown and its existence and is questionable. The description also clearly admits that Skene's gland is not visible on the diagram, making its usefulness debatable in itself. 70.153.214.99 06:27, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Human protein 1?

Within the "prostate" section, there is mention of "Human Protein 1." What protein is this? I am assuming "Human Protein 1" is not a proper name outside the scope of the article that was clumsily paraphrased. 24.183.100.251 (talk) 04:03, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Photoshop

The image for this article is photoshopped... there is no proof that the skene's gland exists. Most doctors believe that women squirt from the urethra. User:130.49.11.145 02:00, 21 April 2008

Evidence? Mgoodyear (talk) 22:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Citations etc

There is too much overlap with the female ejaculation article (under reconstruction). I read the Janini article and cannot see any relevance to the text it is attached to. Mgoodyear (talk) 22:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

What the crap?? er ... piss???

Section: Female Ejaculation: "Recommended procedure is to use two fingers at first to cause it to fill up..."????? I'm sorry, this is not encyclopedic material. If someone wants to figure out how to stimulate a woman to get more fluid or the like, that should be referenced elsewhere. It is not encyclopedic, at least not under this entry. "How To Stimulate A Woman To Obtain More Fluid" should not be a part of the Skeen's gland article. I pray that someone with more Wikipedia presence than me remove these lines. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.117.18.157 (talk • contribs) 01:37, 2 December 2008

Good sighting, done. Next time feel free to remove the material yourself, no serious Wikipedian would object to removing something like this. On the other hand, you can't go wrong with bringing it up on the talk page (then you can remove it yourself later if no one objects). delldot ∇. 17:50, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Pluralization in title

The article text refers to "Skene's glands" but the title is "Skene's gland". Should the title be changed to be plural? Does anyone have a medical reference? -- Beland (talk) 17:45, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Isn't there one on each side? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.61.79 (talk) 02:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

• Should it be "gland" singular as the title is currently, or "glands" plural as in the bold introduction statement? I am unsure if collectively the cells are called a gland or if each cell is considered its own gland and this is a collective? DB (talk) 00:08, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

huh

Can't any bodily fluid be considered "filtered blood plasma"? What does blood have to do with anything? How can a gland suppress an event? Do you mean stimulation of the gland? (Which would contradict the next section) Existence of the glands? Size of the glands? User:71.167.61.79 02:29, 18 January 2010

Yes, of course you're right. Every secretion is contains water derived from blood (saliva, sweat, milk, sperm), although typically the secretion directly derives from gland cells (or even consists of fragments of gland cells) which ultimately obtain the fluid from blood. Urine literally is filtered blood.

Sexual Response

The section is unreferenced. I'll support any valid information but we need to have sources, otherwise it should not be in the article. --MartinezMD (talk) 02:01, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Birdish sexual context

"This has resulted in the Skene's gland being referred to as the pigeon-spot in a birdish sexual context.[citation needed]" I think it is pretty safe to delete this as (hilarious) vandalism. Memextropy (talk) 23:24, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

Agreed and removed.--MartinezMD (talk) 00:27, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Female lubrication

Female lubrication comes from the Bartholine glands located on the labia minora not form the Skene's gland. The skene's gland or periurthreal sponge surrounds the urethra and empties its fluid through small ducts or opens in the urethral tube. It has three presentations meatus or a forward position just behind the clitoris, Posterior in women that ejaculate each time they orgasm closer to the bladder or equaline where the sponge is spread out along the entire urethra. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.160.5.119 (talk) 18:40, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

I see nothing in the entry about the physiological function of the Skene's gland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:CF99:2080:B8BC:2B9B:CF6E:B56A (talk) 14:19, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Considering what's currently in the section, I'm not sure what you mean. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 14:39, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

Diagram

Am I actually supposed to believe that this picture is real? It looks so fake, the vaginal entrance has square edges and the fingers look computer generated.

It will look like that when the skin is pulled from the side, changing the shape.--MartinezMD (talk) 02:46, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

I Suggest Removing Irrelevant Anecdote

"Sexual response

Some women have reported that oral stimulation in the area around the urethra, particularly the Skene's gland, results in a pleasurable sensation and even orgasm."

I suggest the preceding should be removed. Reason: This is not encyclopedic for medical education. Any such discussion is best suited to sexual methods and techniques manuals. It also appears to be an anecdote (no citation), but even if there were published and reviewed studies of personal preferences or pleasures derived from sexual techniques, that discussion belongs in a different category and is not encyclopedic.

Agreed and removed. (I also removed the header in your quote to prevent confusion) MartinezMD (talk) 20:55, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Recent evidence of female ejaculate

It has recently been observed in MRI studies that, in fact, women do ejaculate.

It is seen that in women able to ejaculate that there is present a retro-bulbus vesicle that accumulates and ejects the ejaculate.

The source of the genito-seronous fluid is by way of the superior sub-pudendal transplex of arteries that form a direct pathway to the peri-prostractic gland. Upon attainment of the point of inevitabilty during climax, and the extension of the paroxismal ductus into the urethra, a large amount of non-urine ejaculate flows out under pressure repeatedly until conclusion of the climax.

The sub-pudendal transplex attaches to the main cerebral pelvis pathway via the primary supraspinal formation. The ultimate source of the fluid is the drainage of semi-gelatinous fluid derived from the constant apoptosis of glialsenaptic constructs.

This therefore proves that the significant and constant reduction of primary cerebral and cortical cells located in the corpus callosum reduces your intellegence to the level that you believe that female ejaculation exists.
_{Autoandragogist (talk)}

have a reference on this? MartinezMD (talk) 18:57, 28 December 2012 (UTC)

He is trolling...the last part suggests that you lose brain cells if you think female ejaculations exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.96.122.115 (talk) 00:55, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Why...

...does lesser vestibular gland redirect here? Skene's glands and lesser vestibular glands are not the same thing, as far as I'm aware! - TALL^eN ^talk 19:34, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Why is Wikipedia calling this the "Skene's gland" when the proper name is "female prostate"

Has no-one bothered to change it since it was officially named in 2002 or something?

Not calling it the correct name continues to enable the myth that women don't have prostates. If only I could have a cent for every time someone interjects "but women dont have prostates!" every time I discuss anatomy.

I'll go ahead and replace the terminology sometime when I have time, unless someone has a valid objection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.107.151.120 (talk) 15:58, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Please find us a reliable medical source that says it's name is officially changed before you do. The structure may be homologous, but it has over 100 years with that name. It would be helpful for the history section too. Thanks MartinezMD (talk) 16:13, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:20, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

Well, actually, we already cover the "female prostate" terminology aspect in the "Structure and function" section. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 06:23, 14 May 2016 (UTC)

This is also problematic as history of gynecology is associated to a number of male surgeons who are honored is that way for the "discovery" of female body. Dr Skene was also a sculptor and a work of his is a bust of J._Marion_Sims https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Marion_Sims who repeatedly practiced operations on live slave women without anesthesia in order to "research" women's health. I think it is important that my body parts are not named by the name of those men and this article should be renamed. I mentioned an artistic performance that addressed this topic http://anarchagland.hotglue.me/?anarcha_lucy_betsey, but it was immediately reverted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Netachepas (talk • contribs)

Why would it bother you when people say that women don't have prostates? Does it also bother you when people say that women don't have a glans? That's homologous to the clitoris, after all. It's also irrelevant whether the person for whom the structure is named was ethical. What is important in a Wikipedia article is to identify things by proper name, whilst also noting any alternative names, and providing citations to support them. They aren't a place to push your personal preference or agenda.Jcvamp (talk) 09:19, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I would agree with the other users indicating that it should be updated to "female prostate" as opposed to "Skene's glands". This is not to say that Skene's glands is an incorrect way of referring to the female prostate in the same way that referring to the organ as the paraurethral glands and ducts is not incorrect; these are all appropriate ways in which to refer to the organ (whether in common parlance, a medical setting with one's primary care physician, or in current scientific literature), and the naming controversy is therefore more about what term shall serve as the "umbrella", in a sense, that encompasses all the aforementioned terms. It is true that the term Skene's gland is used as the umbrella term by some, but it is also true that female prostate is also used as the umbrella term. I shall provide some of the sources that I have studied on the subject as evidence for why I believe that the literature points towards female prostate being a more sufficient umbrella term, however, if the information that others might also share provides an amply supported alternative ruling on the subject, perhaps the article could reflect that impasse. With that said, I will provide some of that which I have read that would suggest an update could be beneficial to this particular article.

First, the homology that others have discussed is particularly important. Investigation into the exocrine function and the diseases of the glands (Zaviacic et al. 1984, 1985a; Zaviacic 1987b; Zaviacic and Whipple, 1993 and references therein) point towards it likely being composed of prostatic tissue — and this similarity in composition (i.e. the glands in males and females being composed of prostatic tissue) would thus make using the term female prostate as the umbrella term appropriate, an analysis which is supported by both arguments published in scientific reviews (such as Biancardi et al. 2017) and in its casual usage in currently published journal articles (Thum et al. 2017) (Sanches et al. 2019) (Wimpissinger et al. 2007) (Gomes et al. 2019) (Longo 1982) (and many more! In the interest of space, I shall not bombard the section with more, but I am always happy to share further writing on the subject should anyone be curious about what else is written on the subject).

Keep in mind that homologous ≠ identical in every regard (as there are definite macroscopic differences between the glands in males and females, as well as unknown potential functions of the glands in females). However, using "male prostate" and "female prostate" helps underpin that these organs are made of the same tissue, excrete prostate-specific antigen (PSA) and prostate acid phosphatase (PSAP) in humans (Tepper et al. 1984; Zaviačič 1993, 1999) and rodents (Santos et al., 2006)(Custódio et al., 2004), exhibit similar immunopermissiveness (Ablin and Gonder, 1985) and can develop similar diseases (Ablin, 1991)(Thum et al. 2017)(Biancardi et al. 2017), even if female prostate lesion cases are rare.

Again, this is not to say to use the term Skene's gland is incorrect — said terminology is, as aforementioned, in use in various valid sources and settings. However, to argue that because it *is* commonly used needn't imply it *ought* be the most commonly used umbrella term (such would be a logical fallacy and not a strong position of argumentation); as developed in the information previously cited, the increased usage of female prostate helps to communicate homology between it and the male prostate.

The debate on which term should be the dominant one is one also occurring off of Wikipedia — I know of professors who prefer to utilize Skene's glands as the dominant term and professors who prefer to use the term female prostate, and the reasons for one position or the other can be highly varied and nuanced. If the evidence provided contrary to that contained in the argument I have outlined brings the discussion to a point where neither position(s) can be considered more valid than the other, then I would (as previously stated) suggest that this ongoing debate on naming perhaps find a way to be featured in the article itself such that readers may further understand the evolving research on the subject.

Best, Womeninscience20 (talk) 23:20, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

On further investigation, I have also found the following article entitled "The Female Prostate: The Newly Recognized Organ of the Female Genitourinary System" (Rubio-Casillas and Rodríguez-Quintero 2009) that appears to be both open access and provide a nice overview of some of the information I shared in an earlier comment. If anyone has trouble viewing this article, please let me know, and I shall attach specific quotes! I hope everyone is well --Womeninscience20 (talk) 01:56, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for your great post, Womeninscience20, that is really informative. I think you have convinced me that the article should probably be called Female prostate. I think it's also consistent with our guidelines:

• WP:COMMONNAME: an article title is a natural-language word or expression that indicates the subject of the article ('prostate' is certainly more natural language than 'Skene')
• WP:COMMONNAME: In determining which of several alternative names is most frequently used, it is useful to observe the usage of major international organizations
• WP:NAMECHANGES: Sometimes the subject of an article will undergo a change of name. When this occurs, we give extra weight to reliable sources written after the name change - this is the current FICAT name

Cheers I do however think that 'prostate' should be the title of the article about the male prostate, as I feel that is what most readers will be looking for an article at that title. --Tom (LT) (talk) 02:23, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:COMMONNAME, I can't agree. As for "major international organizations" (in this case, the Federative International Committee on Anatomical Terminology), they can use whatever terminology they want to. But even in the academic literature, this part of the female anatomy is primarily known as the Skene's gland. And not just in old sources. It's not outdated terminology.

I agree with this revert by Jcvamp. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 02:59, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, the argument for the name change is mostly original research. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:12, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

And I'm not for going by primary sources or novel research on matters such as these. I'm usually not. See WP:PRIMARY, WP:SCHOLARSHIP and WP:MEDRS. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 03:12, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

I will briefly respond to the comment on primary sources and novel research, as my first comment is quite lengthy. In regards to the point of view of it being a recent language shift — I would by no means contest that 40 years of usage within the literature is not a terribly great deal of time in the context of the sciences, however, the usage of the term "female prostate" instead of "Skene's glands" is still not *exactly* what we would deem novel in usage. Further, I will clarify some of my sources cited if you were unable to access some: they are a mix of primary and secondary sources. In terms of secondary sources, I would point towards the open source article I linked, the Biancardi et al. 2017 review, and the Zaviačič 1999 review. The primary literature I cited mainly is research underlining various elements of homology. In response to the argument that Skene's glands is not outdated terminology as it is still in use to this day, I would ask for a review or source detailing why one would perhaps prefer to use Skene's glands instead of female prostate, similar to the reviews I have provided above that take the opposing stance — as I stated, its frequency need not necessitate its *continued* frequency, if its usage is not the most logical term based on our evolving understanding. After all, the ethos that usage in a scientific article or textbook provides should not be used in place of a strong argument for or against the usage of either Skene's glands *or* female prostate. As some of the sources I linked indicate, there remains an ongoing discussion on which term is better suited for the organ — I do think there is an argument to be made that Skene's glands is an appropriate title, however, I would urge the inclusion of either a review that supports this position or an alternative, reputable source so that we as an editing community can better evaluate the positions on the subject. If it seems as though Skene's gland should still remain the article's title, then I would suggest that the structure/function section be edited to include more information (such as that regarding its homology to the prostate in males), and that the history section include a tad bit more information on study of the organ. Thank you all for the responses, and I look forward to continuing the discussion! Best, --Womeninscience20 (talk) 03:47, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

By "novel research", I was speaking strictly of novel research, not of the name "female prostate." As for "a mix of primary and secondary sources", it's best to stick to the secondary sources. This also means replacing primary sources with secondary sources when possible. And as for expanding the "Structure and function" section, I don't mind that as long as the material is sticking to secondary sources and is not so much focused on new research that still needs further investigation. We should also keep WP:MEDDATE in mind. Just like very new sources are a concern, so are significantly older sources. The Zaviačič source is from 1999. We should check what was stated in the 1999 source against what is stated today, to see if anything stated in the Zaviačič source is outdated. The section should stick to what is known about humans (not other mammals). With an edit like this, you added material on non-human animals. But given that significantly less research on this topic has been done on other animals, and the fact that there are still aspects about the topic that are not clear with regard to human females, I think it's best to have an "Other animals" section to cover non-human material. At our medical and anatomy articles, we opt to have an "Other animals" section anyway to cover other animals instead of mixing that content in with the content about humans. It also lets readers know all of what they are reading about before the "Other animals" section is solely about humans. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles#Anatomy.

With regard to what is the common name, "female prostate" is showing itself to be ahead on Google Trends. See here. And that includes from 2004 to present. I tried the different spelling variations for "Skene's gland", and "female prostate" is still ahead. I wonder what Google Trends is counting. I state this because I find it odd that "female prostate" is ahead. And the reason I find it odd is because when I look at anatomy books (relatively recent ones included), "Skene's gland" is the term used. I do feel attached to "Skene's gland" because it's the term I grew up with and repeatedly saw in the literature as I studied it and aged, but this shouldn't be about me. Still, given the debate about the terminology, it might be safer to stick with the long-term terminology. MartinezMD, any thoughts on this? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:04, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I also have the familiarity because of my age, but that's not always a good reason to hold on to an old name. I really don't like the term female prostate because it's more cumbersome and I don't like naming things male or female, but my preference has to give way to official consensus. In my lifetime we used to call trisomy 21 Down Syndrome, and before that Mongoloidism (see Down_syndrome#Name). So convention changes with time and Skene's time may be ending. WP requires us to follow reliable sources, so we need to defer to that. I don't know who makes names "official" in the medical world, but that would be where we need to look. Is it some anatomical society? Is it the WHO? Are authoritative organizations in agreement? etc. MartinezMD (talk) 00:58, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for the response, Flyer22 Frozen! I appreciate what you brought up regarding having a separate section for discussing research on the gland in humans as opposed to other mammals, and I will keep that format in mind with other wiki pages that fall under the category of medicine-related and/or anatomy content. I will make sure to compile a separate set of notes to add to the human-only section (the main body of the article), as opposed to a tentative "other animals" section that this article could potentially have in the future. Mea culpa on misinterpreting to what novel referred, also.

In response to secondary sources being ideal for citations, I will check my computer's files to see if there are some more review papers that we can use for this page's references. Further, I shall see if there are any discrepancies between Zaviačič's review in 1999 and the Biancardi et al. 2017 review (perhaps there might be a review article that falls somewhere between these dates, too, that could be helpful for comparison as well). The Google Trends results that you found intrigue me, so thank you for sharing — when looking for usage trends, I mainly used trends that were on Web of Science, PubMed, and similar journal article aggregate websites. I will ask around to see if anyone I know has any recent textbooks from which he or she either learns and/or teaches, as seeing trends on which terminology is preferred in predominantly print-only sources could be illuminating.

Also, hello, MartinezMD —— in response to who makes naming conventions "official", I would wager that finding a singular ruling would be difficult. However, it is likely that individual societies and organizations have made rulings, rulings of which we can use as references in this article. FICAT's ruling on the subject is certainly in favor of female prostate being the proper terminology (as another user pointed out in an earlier comment in this thread), and I will also reach out to a member of the American Society of Mammalogists to look for a potential style guide on the subject which we could add to this wiki's references. The Society for Integrative and Comparative Biology might also have a ruling on the subject, but I will have to confirm that before saying so definitively. If any other societies/committees whose rulings we would be able to access come to mind, I will be sure to add what I can find.

Best, --Womeninscience20 (talk) 02:14, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and leave a note at WP:Anatomy and WP:Med about weighing in on this. Tom, one of our WP:Anatomy editors, has already given his opinion above. Also pinging SandyGeorgia in case she can help in any way on this. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:51, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Sorry ... this female knows all about the male prostate (unfortunately), but this one is Greek to me. Never heard of it (which makes me QUITE suspicious of the term "female prostate", since it seems one would have come across it some time or another). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:59, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

I just wanted to note that regardless of whether the article is changed to favour 'female prostate' or remains 'Skene's gland', it would probably be a good idea to add a section discussing terminology. Whether there's controversy over certain terms or there's been a shift in one direction, that can be discussed if there are sources to support it. For any drastic change in article, there should be sufficient sources to justify them.

I think Womeninscience20's changes did add some useful information, which can be added to the article either way as long as it's well-sourced, and I appreciate that they have opted to discuss the matter rather than getting into an edit war.Jcvamp (talk) 12:23, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

From a brief survey of sources (and I'll point out I have absolutely zero medical/physiological background, for what it's worth), Skene's gland seems more prevalent in academic/research circles, with "female prostate" seeming more prevalent in laysources and popular press with a general "Did you know that females have prostates too?" and somewhat sensationalist vibe to it. Academic articles talking about the female prostate seems to mostly be drawing attention to it being analogous to the male prostate for morphological/anatomical purposes.

I'll note that FICAT didn't seem to rename anything per se, but simply accepted female prostate as an alternate name for paraurethral glands, and recognized Zaviacic & Albin (2000) as a good source for why female prostate was an acceptable term. I don't see them saying it is the only acceptable term, or the 'official' term for it.

Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 00:12, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Late edit conflict, as I'd typed up something, left it there for a bit without posting, then added more to it after seeing that Headbomb had commented and after reading Headbomb's statement: In addition to what you stated, Jcvamp, I see that with this edit, Headbomb changed the text about the Federative International Committee on Anatomical Terminology to state that they officially accepted the term female prostate, rather than renamed the Skene's gland to "female prostate." "Accepted" is wording also used in the G-spot article for this matter. I appreciate Headbomb looking into this particular wording aspect and tweaking it.

Headbomb, regarding your analysis, so maybe that is what Google Trends is counting? That stated, I also noticed that there are more results for "female prostate" compared to Skene's gland on PubMed. Either way, yes, like I stated, when I look at anatomy and biology books (including relatively recent ones), it's "Skene's gland" that is used...not "female prostate." Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:28, 31 March 2020 (UTC) Updated post. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 00:42, 31 March 2020 (UTC)

agree w/ Flyer22 statement--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:14, 1 April 2020 (UTC)

I think that wording better reflects the situation and is substantiated by the cited source. Thanks, Headbomb.Jcvamp (talk) 12:16, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

References

Function?

Despite the subtitle, and despite what has been written above, the "structure and function" sections says absolutely nothing about the gland's function. It states that it might be related to female ejaculation, and that the fluids it secretes are similar in composition to that the male prostrate secretes. Nothing else. --188.102.73.115 (talk) 22:35, 7 May 2017 (UTC)

This and this offer straightforward explanations. I revised the section and hopefully added some clarity to potential functions. If not, please state what's needed here. Thanks. --Zefr (talk) 00:03, 8 May 2017 (UTC)

IP, that is because not much is known about its function. Zefr's revamping of the section is fine. Flyer22 Reborn (talk) 05:42, 9 May 2017 (UTC)

Federative International Committee on Anatomical Terminology

Saidmann, regarding this? Are you aware that, per WP:MEDDATE, history sections are not subject to a strict application of WP:MEDRS? Also keep the "Other sources" section of WP:MEDRS in mind when editing medical and anatomy topics.

As seen here here and here, Headbomb sourced the Federative International Committee on Anatomical Terminology material months ago. Did you look for sources for it? Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 01:23, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

You seem to refer to "History sections often cite older work" in WP:MEDDATE. This hint means that here older sec sources may be valid. The source that I deleted, however, is no secondary source. It is not even a peer-reviewed source. --Saidmann (talk) 16:27, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Saidmann, nowhere does WP:MEDDATE state or imply that history sections must include secondary sources or at least a peer-reviewed source. I've edited many medial and anatomy articles, and we include primary sources in many of them history sections. Sometimes media sources will be in them, just like they are often in our "Society and culture" sections (which also often are not subject to a strict application of WP:MEDRS). It is not like a secondary source or a peer-reviewed source is needed to relay the Federative International Committee on Anatomical Terminology matter. Furthermore, WP:MEDRS does not ban use of primary sources. We are cautioned to use them sparingly, under certain circumstances. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 16:51, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

The section you quoted definitely refers to reviews and nothing else. --Saidmann (talk) 17:27, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

The source that Headbomb quoted is a dead link. Yes, I looked for sources, but in vain. --Saidmann (talk) 17:34, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

That a source is dead is no reason to remove it, or what is supported by it. Further, This book still exists, and still is ISBN 9781285401027, and the link still works. Likewise this website still works, even if it's flash-based. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:41, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

That issue is now done. Well, it is our job find sources, not the readers' job. I will continue to delete stuff that I fail to make transparent. --Saidmann (talk) 17:56, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

"I will continue to delete stuff that I fail to make transparent." The repeated removal of reliably-sourced content against consensus is usally grounds for a block, so I would advise you against doing that. In the meantime, I have reverted to a prior version. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 18:24, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Saidmann, regarding what Headbomb stated, see WP:Dead link. And as for deleting stuff, do read our WP:Preserve policy; you should take that policy seriously. It is not a guideline. It is a policy.

As for the section I quoted? It has often been misunderstood by editors who are not as experienced editing medical and anatomy articles as WP:Med editors are, which is why it has been revised more than once. One way it was revised was by taking out its previous emphasis on "two or three years." Even with the "five or so years" piece that is there now, it doesn't mean that sources we use must be within five years. WP:MEDDATE is about whether the material is up-to-date. If, with regard to anatomy or another medical topic, something that was true years ago is still true today, the source reporting on that does not need to be removed simply because the source is old. If the source can be updated, then, yeah, it's best to do that for the sake of appearance...so that readers know that the material is up-to-date. But WP:MEDDATE is about whether the material is out of date; we look at newer sources to assess if the material is out of date. In any case, the claim that WP:MEDDATE refers to reviews and nothing else is incorrect. It quite clearly states that its guidance is "appropriate for actively researched areas with many primary sources and several reviews and may need to be relaxed in areas where little progress is being made or where few reviews are published." In other words, there are some topics, like this one, that have few reviews and may therefore need to rely on primary sources or include more primary sources more than a well-studied area. It tells us to "Prefer recent reviews to older primary sources on the same topic." Not to exclude primary sources. It tells us that "If recent reviews do not mention an older primary source, the older source is dubious. Conversely, an older primary source that is seminal, replicated, and often-cited may be mentioned in the main text in a context established by reviews." So no ban on primary sources. And, again, nowhere does WP:MEDDATE state or imply that history sections must include secondary sources or at least a peer-reviewed source. History sections are given as an exception to strict application. I don't see why you would think that the "History sections often cite older work" aspect means "no primary sources." We use Gray's Anatomy, a primary source, in some of our anatomy articles.

Anyway, as you know, I added this 2008 "Terminologia Histologica: International Terms for Human Cytology and Histology" source, from Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, page 65, for the material in question. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 18:06, 27 September 2020 (UTC)