Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/People who menstruate

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Gender neutrality in English. Creating a redirect, the content is available so the editors are free to merge whatever content they feel fit (not much content in the article). Tone 16:30, 25 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

People who menstruate

[Hide this box] New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NOTDIC as an article solely about the definition and use of what is essentially a noun, WP:NEO for being about a neologism rarely seen in reliable sources, and WP:GNG for lacking "significant coverage in reliable sources". Even the article's creator admits there isn't "much to expand this with".

Going over the sources in the current version:

1. Trivial definition from the open access megajournal PLOS One. Worth noting here that PubMed turns up 0 results for the phrase "people who menstruate", [1] 1,294 for "menstruating women", [2] and 14,663 for 'menstruation women' (no quotes). [3]
2. Trivial mention from Radical Teacher, a journal which according to Scopus received 0 citations from 2016-2019 and is ranked as the 1,214th journal out of 1,254 in the field of Education.
3. Trivial mention from an unpublished preprint.
4. Trivial definition and use from another open access megajournal.
5. Trivial definition material and claim from a journal so obscure it is not recognized by Scopus, Scimago, or Google Scholar Metrics.
6. Trivial defintion from a book on "critical menstruation studies"; as far as I can tell, this field has almost no existence outside of this book.

Regarding J. K. Rowling, no, this was only a small part of the controversy; see Politics of J. K. Rowling#Transgender people and sources therein. That is where material related to her belongs; it does not add to the case for this to be an article.

7. Blog post which adds nothing of substance. (and is also full of bizarre claims like "medical knowledge on biological sex is based on chattel slavery")
8. Passing mention in another obscure journal completely ignored by the indexing services mentioned above.
9. Trivial definitional and Rowling-related material from someone's dissertation.

What scraps have been pulled together from the far reaches of academia is not enough to support non-dictionary, non-redundant content on this phrase. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:58, 10 February 2021 (UTC) Added and renumbered because a source was added. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:58, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:58, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:58, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:58, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:58, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Gender neutrality in English. When I started working on this I thought there'd be more but it's hard to string more than a few sentences about it. The term is new and seemingly gaining some traction but it may be the case of WP:TOOSOON indeed. Do ping me if anyone can find more in-depth coverage. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:06, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think there's enough even for that. These are still not great sources. Even if we go by the only source that's somewhat reliable and about this phrase, I don't think a definition in a disclaimer from a PLOS One article is worth merging. And that destination article is about neutrality between men and women, as is the vast majority of the gender neutrality topic. This isn't worth cramming in there. Crossroads ^-talk- 07:22, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Crossroads, I think you dismiss the sources and extent of coverage too quickly. For example, the "book on "critical menstruation studies" you dismiss because of its title is nonetheless The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Menstruation Studies' published by Springer Nature. It's a very well known and reputable series and publisher. And said book mentions this term quite a few times. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:16, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    - Also the searches don't cover menstruator which picks up a fair bit. Johnbod (talk) 12:40, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
      - The vast majority of those Google results are unreliable sources, which goes to show how obscure this neologism is. As for this book, it hardly uses the term; I found only a handful of results, which is very low for a 1,000+ page book entirely about menstruation. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Gender neutrality in English, per Piotrus. "People who menstruate", "people who are pregnant", etc., are fairly recent terms, arising out of gender neutrality, and somewhat controversial, provoking strong reactions from some. Coverage will only increase and a standalone article may be merited at some point, but for now, certainly appropriate for coverage in Gender neutrality in English. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:36, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding the idea that coverage will increase, WP:CRYSTAL applies. It does indeed get strong negative reactions, so increase is by no means a given. On that note, per WP:NEO, Wikipedia is not to play a part in increasing the visibility of neologisms. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Gender neutrality in English, i.e. redirect this page to that one and move (probably in condensed form) any relevant, reliable-secondary-source-supported content from this entry to that one. The term seems to merit a mention in that article but not to be notable enough for a standalone article at this time. -sche (talk) 10:01, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Regarding the idea that this should be merged not into "Gender neutrality in English" but into ~"Gender neutrality in English, but trans", I haven't seen any persuasive evidence that replacing "women who menstruate" with "people who menstruate" is somehow a fundamentally different category of phenomenon to be handled in a totally different article than earlier replacements of "chairman" with "chair", nor (to look at some of the other terms suggested as candidates to be put in such a fork) that proposals like "fronthole" are somehow fundamentally different from earlier, non-trans-related, equally-uncommon feminist proposals like using "germinal" instead of "seminal" ("relating to semen") to mean "influential". ("Womxn", mentioned below, is exactly the same kind of thing as "womyn", and neither is gender-neutral.) -sche (talk) 20:06, 12 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Merge somewhere, but probably not Gender neutrality in English - somewhere more trans-related. Btw I have changed the blatently wrong initial definition, which contradicted all 3 refs given (from "do not" to "may not")! Actually there might be more to say on this term, which is a double-edged sword that can be used either to include or exclude, or I suppose both. Isn't there a trans project who can be pinged? Johnbod (talk) 12:11, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
- Johnbod, We have the sexuality and gender delsort, already included. I don't think there is anything more specific, but if someone would like to create an LGBT-specific one, it's a free wiki... usually :) _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:18, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, much of what is under the sexuality and gender delsort covers LGBT topics and that's how people use it. Crossroads ^-talk- 19:34, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - This should be merged into a relevant article. I don't think this is noteworthy enough to warrant an article. --CanadianToast (talk) 20:21, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify to something like Draft:Trans-inclusive language and write an omnibus article about proposed language reforms and their reception within and without the transgender community. (Just as person-first language and euphemisms like differently abled have been criticised by some of the people they were intended to benefit, so also terms like womxn and front hole have received mixed reactions from transgender people.) gnu 57 20:48, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into a trans-related article. This relatively recent trans-related gender identity terminology may be circulating within gender-speak influencer circles and Gen Y social media, but not in the general core Anglosphere and other English-speaking populations. Pyxis Solitary (yak). L not Q. 08:07, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:POVFORK, WP:NOT#ADVOACY, WP:NOTDICT. If there's a trans-related article at which this phrase can be mentioned, and it can be reliably sourced as being in common enough usage and with enough independent, reliable sourcing material about it to write not-just-dictionary-definition (i.e., actually encyclopedic) material about it, then fine, but that doesn't require a merge. There's nothing particularly special about the trivial amount of content presently in the page. If someone thinks otherwise, they can always WP:REFUND the page to their draftspace and merge from it, if/when there's a good merge target. I have no objection to draftifying, to serve as the first entry in a "Trans-inclusive language", or "Glossary of trans-related terms", or whatever it might be titled. But again, this is a trivial amount of content, and it need not be kept if there's not going to be a concerted effort to produce such an article. — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼 14:59, 17 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus seems to be to merge this somewhere trans-related, but I can't close this until somebody has an idea what the merge (or redirect) target could be.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:36, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge The phrase should not just be viewed through the narrow prism of recent controversy. We have substantial pages such as Culture and menstruation which provide a broader historical and cultural context and the reader might be looking for such. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:51, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SMCandlish, or as a second choice merge to some appropriate article, per other merge recommendations above. I don't have a specific target in mind yet. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:39, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Gender neutrality in English, per the other merge arguments above. I dispute that it belongs somewhere "more trans-related," as the definition of gender neutral language given in Gender neutrality in English is "language that minimizes assumptions about the social gender or biological sex of people referred to in speech or writing." That is exactly what the term "people who menstruate" does. Gender neutrality in English could do with some reorganization, perhaps adding a section like "Examples of gender neutral terms," but in any case the information in People who menstruate fits neatly into the scope of that article. Aerin17 (talk) 22:39, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Surely "people who menstruate" maximizes biological sex, while ignoring social gender entirely. That's rather the point of it, isn't it? Johnbod (talk) 23:08, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and the quote of the lead of that article shows why it cannot be the destination. Some matters are inherently sex-specific and this is one of them. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:05, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The quote says "social gender or biological sex." There's a distinction between gender and sex. The term "people who menstruate" is used to refer to people of all genders, just like the other terms in that article, even if it's specific to people who were assigned female at birth. Aerin17 (talk) 05:57, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to a trans-related place. The term "people who menstruate" is not mainstream enough for its own article. And if merged, it's better to be merged into a transgender related article than into Gender neutrality in English, because the usage of this term is virtually always directly or indirectly trans-related. 2A02:2F01:53FF:FFFF:0:0:6465:6975 (talk) 07:34, 21 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.