Talk:Menstruation/Archive 2

I am proposing to delete this part, which has already been deleted from menstrual cycle. It seems to be just primary sources and way too detailed for an overview article like this one. If someone thinks some of it should be salvaged please discuss: +++++++++++++++++ The menstrual cycle phase and ovarian hormones may contribute to increased empathy in women. The natural shift of hormone levels during the different phases of the menstrual cycle has been studied in conjunction with test scores. When completing empathy exercises, women in the follicular stage of their menstrual cycle performed better than women in their midluteal phase. A significant correlation between progesterone levels and the ability to accurately recognize emotion was found. Performances on emotion recognition tasks were better when women had lower progesterone levels. Women in the follicular stage showed higher emotion recognition accuracy than their midluteal phase counterparts. Women were found to react more to negative stimuli when in midluteal stage over the women in the follicular stage, perhaps indicating more reactivity to social stress during that menstrual cycle phase.^[1] Overall, it has been found that women in the follicular phase demonstrated better performance in tasks that contain empathetic traits.

Fear response in women during two different points in the menstrual cycle has been examined. When estrogen is highest in the preovulatory stage, women are significantly better at identifying expressions of fear than women who were menstruating, which is when estrogen levels are lowest. The women were not able to equally identify happy faces, demonstrating that the fear response was a more powerful response. To summarize, menstrual cycle phase and the estrogen levels correlates with women's fear processing.^{[non-primary source needed][undue weight? – discuss][2]} Examination of daily moods in women with measuring ovarian hormones may indicate a less powerful connection. In comparison to levels of stress or physical health, the ovarian hormones had less of an impact on overall mood.^[3] This indicates that while changes of ovarian hormones may influence mood, on a day-to-day level it does not influence mood more than other stressors do.^{[original research?]} ++++++++++++++

EMsmile (talk) 12:53, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

It's all more about the cycle anyway. LearnerB (talk) 17:48, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

@User:LearnerB Just pointing out that this text block in question came from menstrual cycle and that Graham had culled it from there saying that either it was not sourced properly or it belonged in the menstruation article or both. I then reviewed it and felt that it didn't belong in the menstruation article either as it's either too detailed, speculative, undue weight, poorly sourced. Remember that "menstruation" is also an overview article and not about content from primary sources (when it comes to medical things). At least that's how I understood it. EMsmile (talk) 12:41, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Same thing as for the info on mood changes. Too much detail and primary sources. Culled. Do you agree? Anything salvageable here? +++++++++

Women have been found to experience different eating habits at different stages of their menstrual cycle, with food intake being higher during the luteal phase than the follicular phase.^[1][2] Food intake increases by approximately 10% during the luteal phase compared to the follicular phase.^[2]

Various studies have shown that during the luteal phase woman consume more carbohydrates, proteins and fats and that 24-hour energy expenditure shows increases between 2.5–11.5%.^[3] The increasing intake during the luteal phase may be related to higher preferences for sweet and fatty foods, which occurs naturally and is enhanced during the luteal phases of the menstrual cycle.^[3] This is due to the higher metabolic demand during this phase.^[4] In particular, women tend to show a cravings for chocolate, with higher cravings during the luteal phase.^[3]

Women with premenstrual syndrome (PMS) report changes in appetite across the menstrual cycle more than non-sufferers of PMS, possibly due to their oversensitivity to changes in hormone levels.^[2] In women with PMS, food intake is higher in the luteal phase than follicular.^[5] The remaining symptoms of PMS, including mood changes and physical symptoms, also occur during the luteal phase. No difference for preference of food types has been found between PMS sufferers and non-sufferers.^[1]

The different levels of ovarian hormones at different stages of the cycle have been used to explain eating behavior changes. Progesterone has been shown to promote fat storage, causing a higher intake of fatty foods during the luteal phase when progesterone levels are higher.^[2] Additionally, with a high estrogen level dopamine is highly effective in converting to noradrenaline, a hormone which reduces appetite, therefore decreasing food intake.^[2] In humans, the level of these ovarian hormones during the menstrual cycle have been found to influence binge eating.^[6]

It is theorized that the use of birth control pills should affect eating behaviour as they minimise or remove the fluctuations in hormone levels.^[1] The neurotransmitter serotonin is also thought to play a role in food intake. Serotonin is responsible for inhibiting eating and controlling meal size,^[7] among other things, and is modulated in part by ovarian hormones.^[8]

A number of factors affect whether dieting will affect these menstrual processes: age, weight loss and the diet itself. First, younger women are likely to experience menstrual irregularities due to their diet. Second, menstrual abnormalities are more likely with more weight loss. For example, anovulatory cycles can occur as a result of adopting a restricted diet, as well as engaging in a high amount of exercise.^[2] Finally, the cycle is affected more by a vegetarian diet compared to a non-vegetarian diet.^[9] +++++++++++

EMsmile (talk) 13:00, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Again, more about the cycle. I can look at some sources to see what can be saved, though. LearnerB (talk) 17:50, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I have the same comment here as the one that I've just written in the section above on "Culled excessive detail on mood changes". But if you find something salvageable, good. EMsmile (talk) 12:42, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

If you're wondering why I have moved this block of text to here, please see discussion on the talk page of menstrual cycle: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Menstrual_cycle#Society_and_culture_content_%28and_other_content%29_moved This is work in progress. Please help to remove repetition now. I also propose to cull down the content under "ovulation oppression" as there are other sub-articles that we should refer to but not duplicate. Anyone with an interest in this topic, please help out. Please also take part in the discussion on the talk page of menstrual cycle. EMsmile (talk) 02:29, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I responded there but then someone told me I was on the wrong page, lol. Anyway... I reverted it because it was reverted there, so it didn't get lost in the edit war. Cheers! Mvolz (talk) 13:24, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, EMsmile. Will you consider Wikipedia:Content forking#Related articles. We can't get rid of all duplication. The page says sometimes we need to duplicate a lot. LearnerB (talk) 17:47, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi LearnerB, I think for many articles, like these two, we are better off not duplicating information unnecessarily. Duplication just creates extra work in the end because if you want to review and improve content in article A, you'd afterwards have to do the same work on article B (if they both contain the same or similar info). It's OK if one gives just the broad overview and then the other article goes into detail. I think that is useful. Another tool that people are using is the "excerpt" tool. But I know some people have argued against using that in featured articles. It says on that page "This template is used for reusing parts of pages in other pages. This practice has several advantages: Reduces maintenance by avoiding duplicate content that must be updated multiple times;

Improves content quality by encouraging editors to merge related content, rather than having multiple versions in various stages of development; Fosters collaboration by channeling contributors into one place, rather than working in parallel It also has several disadvantages: [etc.] ". So I am not saying we should use it here, just mentioning it as an alternative tool. EMsmile (talk) 12:47, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

I've just replaced the image of the lead because it was using a "hormonal-type" image which was also used in menstrual cycle which didn't help to show why this article is different and separate from menstrual cycle. I have now replaced it with one that I think represents better what this article is about. It's about the experiences that women have with menstruation. I came across an interesting photo in Wikimedia Commons which showed menstrual blood in a "nice" way, so I have included that but am interested to hear opinions of others regarding what is suitable here. It was taken from this interesting website: https://vulvani.com/en/vulvani-gallery-free-stock-photos-menstruation (under a compatible licence which is good). This comes back to the age old discussion: can we show real menstrual blood or does it have to be a blue liquid like in the ads... See also the Palgrave handbook's interesting picture on the cover and explanation in the foreword. ^[1] EMsmile (talk) 01:22, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

Just a reminder to future editors of this page: There is a Palgrave handbook from 2020 with a wealth of information which could be mined for content that ought to be included in this article, especially for the section "society and culture".^[1] It is already cited twice in the article but I think there is still much more in there. EMsmile (talk) 01:33, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

And because it is a million miles long, here is an example of how to cite one chapter from it:

• Gottlieb A (2020). "Chapter 14: Menstrual Taboos: Moving Beyond the Curse". In Bobel C, Winkler IG, Fahs B, Hasson KA, Kissling EA, Roberts T (eds.). The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Menstruation Studies. Palgrave Macmillan. doi:10.1007/978-981-15-0614-7_14. ISBN 978-981-15-0614-7. PMID 33347165. {{cite book}}: External link in |chapterurl= (help); Unknown parameter |chapterurl= ignored (|chapter-url= suggested) (help)

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:05, 1 March 2021 (UTC)

I noticed my edits were reverted as “not helpful.” Why is this? I specifically left certain gendered mentions alone and was only updating terms. I noticed the semi-protected flag on the page and made sure nothing could be construed as trolling or in bad faith. TheGhostHybrid (talk) 01:26, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi TheGhostHybrid, this is a recurrent discussion that has popped up regularly. It's about the discussion about male/female versus "people with vaginas" etc., see advice here on why we are not including it: Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals)/Archive 161#Gender-neutral language in human sex-specific articles Having said that, I think we should add a couple of sentences under a "terminology" section where we explain the term "menstruator". I had already suggested that last year, scroll up a little on the talk page and comment there. EMsmile (talk) 02:50, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Hi EMsmile, thank you very much for informing me! While I personally disagree with some of the reasoning behind the Opposes in that discussion, I can understand sticking to current terminology customs (even if change has to start somewhere, haha!). I have further thoughts which I will comment up above on your thread. ☺ TheGhostHybrid (talk) 03:31, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for filling that in EMSMile ... TGH, my computer is in repair so my iPad typing is a mess, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:38, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for noting that discussion. I'm also going to note that such terms have very little coverage in WP:RS, as was documented at this AfD. So, I don't see a need to mention it here per WP:DUE, as well as per the direction at WP:NEO about Wikipedia not aiding in the increase of a neologism. Crossroads ^-talk- 06:01, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

I've just re-arranged some paragraphs in the menstruation article that deal with poverty and access to menstrual products; I think the section should be trimmed and content moved to the sub-article on Menstrual hygiene management, in order to avoid dublication and too much detail in this overview article. It's good to raise awareness about those poverty issues but the details are better included in the sub-article. Happy to discuss before I make those changes. EMsmile (talk) 04:53, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree that menstrual hygiene management should be treated as a separate topic, and not covered in this page on menstruation. The wealth of information on how girls cope in various countries and in various economic situations deserves more in-depth discussion.PlanetCare (talk) 02:07, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I have done some of that trimming work now that we discussed. I have moved detailed content to the sub-article on Menstrual hygiene management but left overview statements that are introducing key terms and concepts. Looks better now? EMsmile (talk) 03:31, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I have changed the short description of the article, please see here. Do you agree? I tried to take away the focus from just medical aspects but also what it means for women. Happy to brainstorm to improve this further and get it right. It'll help us find consensus regarding what this article should be all about. EMsmile (talk) 12:27, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree with PedroLucasDBr’s removal of a very strange short description. . SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:30, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

@User:PedroLucasDBr: It might have been strange but I think it's better than it is now! It currently is "Regular discharge of blood and tissue through the vagina". My suggestion was "Regular discharge of blood and tissue through the vagina and what this means for women's lives". I wanted to point out that this article is not just about a biological phenomenon but everything around it as well: menstrual hygiene, side effects (cramps), what society and culture makes of it etc. Therefore, a short description of "Regular discharge of blood and tissue through the vagina" is in my opinion not good enough. Can we think of something better, more encompassing?? EMsmile (talk) 12:38, 28 February 2021 (UTC)

Can I please have more opinions here? I think the short description doesn't do the article justice now. EMsmile (talk) 11:47, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I don't think we're quite there yet. "Blood and tissue" might give that "odd" feeling, and I agree that the summary needs to be more inclusive of what's covered in the article. How about if we use the Headings to guide the summary. Something like: Characteristics, side effects, hygiene management and societal views of menstruation." I'm not sure we need to define menstruation in the summary--the first sentence of the article does that.PlanetCare (talk) 21:13, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

I have now changed it to: "Regular discharge of blood and tissue through the vagina, and the management and societal views of menstruation". How is that? EMsmile (talk) 04:03, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I would like to shorten this section: "Menstrual suppression with hormonal contraception" as there are bound to be good sub-articles but I am not yet sure what to cull and what to keep. Help! I am going to take a break now for a day or two, to let others review the work that I have done here today. EMsmile (talk) 13:17, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi, User:SandyGeorgia. I came across that source on the Internet. It can be supplemented with this review ("Monthly Periods--Are They Necessary?"). Or we can just use the review. Many women suppress their periods, more than ever these days, and this is something we should cover in the article. If we decide it's not to go in the management section, it can go in the society and culture section. The Guardian source can be especially used for that section. I've read WP:MEDRS (the page that keeps getting cited in the page history here and at the menstrual cycle page). So I know that the sourcing for society and culture sections typically doesn't need to be as inflexible. When talking about societal things, like a movement among women and why they are doing it, a source like that Guardian source should be fine for the society and culture section. The source, for instance, talks about feminists wanting women to embrace their periods. We can also address suppression from a purely medical standpoint in the management section (using a source like the review) and from a purely societal/cultural standpoint (using a source like The Guardian) in the society and culture section. LearnerB (talk) 20:28, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

There is a misunderstanding here ... whether a laysource can be used isn’t entirely about the section of the article, rather the specific content. Usually, Society and culture info is not biomedical, but that is not always the case. If content in Society and culture is not biomedical information, it doesn’t need MEDRS sourcing. But the particular statement I singled out *is* biomedical information, so the review you located should be used to cite it. Also, in general (whether MEDRS or not) we prefer scholarly sources to lay sources when they are available, and in this realm, we have an entire freely available book at PubMed in the Palgrave Handbook of Menstrual studies, so we should use it whenever we can. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:52, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I have moved a lot of this content to menstrual suppression now. I think it's a lot better and more concise now. EMsmile (talk) 04:05, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

There is so much cleanup needed here, starting a section.

Delayed menarche should be investigated if menarche begins before 9 years, if menarche has not begun by age 15, if there is no breast development by age 13, or if there is no period by 3 years after the onset of breast development.^[1]. Breaches WP:NOT and WP:MEDMOS, we don’t give advice, and didn’t belong in the section it was in, so moving here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:25, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

I think this has already been changed by now, right? EMsmile (talk) 04:07, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

• The article on menstruation probably now repeats too much information from "menstrual cycle" and this needs to be streamlined. Or, if we think the same content should be in both articles, then it really should be the same content and not contradict each other.
• Like some of the content about age of onset, duration, but also that controversial topic about "mood swings". At menstruation there is a whole section on "mood and behaviour"... I think we agreed somewhere earlier in the discussions that menstrual cycle should focus on the science and endocrinology, whereas "menstruation" should focus more on how women experiences this, how they manage their periods, what society has to say about all this, how it is for women in developing countries and so forth (and not rely only on medical publications but more grey literature and so forth).

I have worked on the section about moods now. See separate talk page section below. EMsmile (talk) 12:52, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

• My suggestion for a short description of that article was "Regular discharge of blood and tissue through the vagina and what this means for women's lives" but two editors rejected that without coming up with a better short description. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Menstruation#Changed_the_short_description. I think agreeing on the short description might help us agree on the scope of that article and set it apart from the "menstrual cycle" article. EMsmile (talk) 13:03, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

regarding the short description, I have made a separate comment about that further down below. EMsmile (talk) 04:05, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I don't understand the point of this really long reference. This one.^[1] I would be tempted to delete it and just find a better one. Thoughts? EMsmile (talk) 03:59, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

I've replaced this reference now with one copied from fertility. EMsmile (talk) 02:15, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

I know this is a repetitive discussion but do you think it would be worth mentioning the word "menstruator" once in this article? Just to mention that a person who menstruates can also be called a menstruator and this includes women, girls and transgender men. Perhaps if we mention it once it's helpful (but I am happy with generally speaking of women/girls, not "persons with a vagina" or alike. I am aware of that discussion..). I thought about it after I saw that someone changed the terminology again here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Menstrual_Hygiene_Day&type=revision&diff=961511825&oldid=959761363&diffmode=source EMsmile (talk) 02:30, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

Mentioning it seems reasonable to me, in society and culture. Maybe this book might be a good source: https://www.google.co.uk/books/edition/New_Blood/B1326g__TUECMvolz (talk) 13:01, 24 February 2021 (UTC)

I agree that mentioning it is the very least that should be done until scientific and common parlance catch up with the evolving language in this sphere. Plus, the definition would be incredibly helpful for cis folks in order to natively understand the difference between (for example) “female” and “woman,” where the former is a perfectly normal scientific term (eg: female anatomy) and the latter is a gender identifier. TheGhostHybrid (talk) 03:35, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

If you were to locate a MEDRS source for this, it would be more appropriate for a footnote rather than in text (depending on the strength of the source, though ...). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:29, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

@User:SandyGeorgia I checked the The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Menstruation Studies and the term "menstruator" appears in there a whopping 433 times! It counts as a MEDRS, right? So now we would just have to pick a relevant sentence. It really makes me wonder though - the term must be more wide-spread in use already than I thought, to be honest. See the reference: ^[1] EMsmile (talk) 13:02, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

Good enough source for me, but that thing is huge, so whatever you pick, please cite it to a page number, or page ranges, or a specific chapter, so people can find it. Maybe page 26 ? Probably still best introduced as a footnote, until/unless a broader body or sources also use that term. For example, I can only find two occurrences in PubMed: Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:27, 3 March 2021 (UTC)

@TheGhostHybrid would you like to propose a sentence or two, based on what the source (Palgrave Handook) tells us? But I wouldn't do it as a footnote. I think it fits better in a section on terminology. I am proposing to rename "etymology" to "terminology" and to move it inside of society and culture". I have also made a similar comment on the page of diarrhea here. I know etymology is not the same as terminology but still think it would work better for the readers.EMsmile (talk) 11:52, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

I finally got around to working on this. I think I found a better place in the Palgrave book that explains it all quite well (page 95). Reference used is this one.^[2]: 950 It also made me realise that it would be useful to explain early on who menstruates and who doesn't. So I have added that as well now. Happy to discuss further. Given that in the Palgrave handbook (which we have accepted as a reliable reference), the term "menstruator" appears 432 times, I think it is something that we need to mention. At this stage, I have even given it its own sub-heading under "Terminology", although it could be argued that the separate sub-heading is not needed. Does it draw too much attention to it, or is it useful to distinguish it from other aspects of terminology. EMsmile (talk) 02:52, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

While I have no objection (or any opinion, in fact) to the term "menstruator", the paragraph contained imprecise wording, which I had corrected, after consulting the cited references.

There is another edit that I would like to make, but it is an edit that might appear in the edit history as a subjective edit: the current text says A publication in 2020 **makes the case** for using the term "menstruator" ... stating that this term has been in use at least since 2010. This text is problematic in two ways:

Firstly, Rydström does not "make a case" for using the term. Rydström simply uses the term, throughout her article, without any indication that the term needs to have a case made for. The purpose of the section on page 950 is to introduce two terms that Rydström use in the rest of her article, namely "cis menstruator" and "trans menstruator", so while she is explaining/defending her use of the term "cis menstruator", she does (and does not try to) not "make a case" for the term "menstruator" itself. (I think the real reason why Rydström wants to use these terms is because they are shorter than the alternative, and she is about to mention these terms dozens of times. I have also seen other scientific articles about menstruation where the author uses "menstruator" instead of "menstruating woman" even if the article is about menstruating women, simply because it can reduce an article's physical length and readability tremendously if one uses a shorter term.)

Secondly, Rydström cites Bobel's book (New Blood), and Bobel's book is from 2010, but that is not the same as saying that Rydström is saying that that "this term has been in use at least since 2010". In fact, an Ngram search shows this term in this particular meaning (and this particular register) is decades older than "2010". So I think this paragraph can better be rewritten as:

People who menstruate are sometimes referred to as ‘menstruators’, particularly in scientific publications, although the term does not come without criticism.[26]:950 According to Klara Rydström, the term ‘menstruator’ is also used by activists to “express solidarity with women who do not menstruate, transgender men who do, and intersexual and genderqueer individuals”.[26]:950

Personally (but this is just my personal opinion and does not affect my suggestions above), I feel it is important that we do not create the impression that when scientists do use the term "menstruator", they use it specifically to educate their readers that not only women menstruate. When activists use the term, then that may be their intention, but the term itself is perfectly neutral in scientific contexts. -- leuce (talk) 08:05, 2 April 2021 (UTC)

Leuce thank you for these clarifications, that's really useful! I would say please go ahead and make those changes that you intend to make. There is just one comment from my side: you added "According to Klara Rydström" - could we use different wording as I don't think specifying her name is necessary. I feel that it's only worth mentioning the name if the person is notable. We could keep the quote but don't have to mention her name, as the name can be found in the reference, or? But if you feel strongly about keeping her name then I won't object further. EMsmile (talk) 03:51, 3 April 2021 (UTC)

Hi User:Crossroads regarding your objection to mentioning the term "menstruator" in the article, I want to point you to this discussion on the talk page (scroll up) where I gained consensus first before adding the text block. The source used is regarded as reliable. The term is already more common than you might think (e.g. Google search shows 55,000 results). To "tone it down" I have removed the section heading "menstruator". Happy to discuss further if you are still concerned about it. EMsmile (talk) 08:04, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

By the way, you (Crossroads) wrote here: "I found only a handful of results, which is very low for a 1,000+ page book entirely about menstruation". You seem to have used the search function wrongly. By using Ctrl+F on the pdf file I find the term menstruator 433 times. This is on average on every second page. I agree that a separate Wikipedia article for "people who menstruate" makes no sense. But including it once on the page of "menstruation" is entirely justified. Like you (probably), I disagree when people try to change the word "women" in this article to "menstruator" (has happened in the past - was reverted). By mentioning it in one central location once, we can reduce the likelihood that someone will insist in future that women or females has to be changed throughout the article (this has happened several times, see history page of the article). EMsmile (talk) 08:16, 14 May 2021 (UTC)

I guess the Google Books word count failed me. I'm glad we agree that the term doesn't deserve an article and that it should not replace 'woman'. Nonetheless, I've read the above, and your argument for inclusion is flawed. I don't see a strong consensus for inclusion. SandyGeorgia noted that it only has two mentions in all of PubMed and preferred a footnote. The Palgrave Handbook of Critical Menstruation Studies is not a WP:MEDRS, because it is not a biomedical book. "Critical Menstruation Studies" does not exist outside of that book, and anything with "Critical" in the name like that is part of critical theory, an approach within sociology that is explicitly activistic and ideological. See page 3 of the book, for example. The version you just brought back doesn't even cite the book now for some reason, and it one-sidedly gives the argument for the use of the term without ever saying why it's criticized. That would be an important addition to gender neutrality in English, at least. We need to take seriously what WP:NEO states: Articles on neologisms that have little or no usage in reliable sources are commonly deleted, as these articles are often created in an attempt to use Wikipedia to increase usage of the term. Of course, the same principle applies to highly WP:UNDUE material on neologisms in existing articles. There is no good reason at all to capitulate to activists on this and assist in the spread of this term, which NEO specifically warns against. They won't be satisfied with one semi-critical paragraph; they just need to be reverted and pointed to that Village Pump discussion. Lastly, the sentence you copied over regarding "people who menstruate" is cited to two minor asides in open access journals. This is not DUE either. These neologisms are dominating the Terminology section. Covering common slang - terms people actually use in day to day life - is more encyclopedic than that stuff. I appreciate your work on the article, but had to address this. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:14, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

This is the paragraph that you deleted (again) and for which I feel consensus had been reached before, and I would like to put it back in (whether it's a footnote or a reference I don't mind): "A publication in 2020 makes the case for using the term "menstruator" instead of "menstruating women", stating that this term has been in use at least since 2010.^[2]: 950 The term menstruator is used by activists in order to “express solidarity with women who do not menstruate, transgender men who do, and intersexual and genderqueer individuals”.^[2]: 950 However, referring to people who menstruate as "menstruators" has also been criticized, and this is related to a more general debate within feminism.^[2]: 950" I would like to hear from people who had written on the talk page about this in the past. The Wikipedia article on menstruation is focused more on society, culture and feelings, whereas the article on menstrual cycle is pure about the physiological aspects. For that reason, I think explaining who uses the term menstruator, and the criticism about it, is perfectly WP:DUE. It is not taking up a massive amount of space. If someone is searching for "menstruator", I don't think they primarily want to see information on gender neutrality in English but on menstruation - but it's fine if it's mentioned in both places. What exactly are you worried about? That because of our Wikipedia article the term "menstruator" will be used more in future? I think the opposite is the case, we are just reflecting changes that are taking place in terminology. Believe me, I have no stakes in this term and I am not an activist at all. I have simply observed in my work (where one topic is menstrual taboos), that the term "menstruator" is becoming more common. It also puzzled me at first. I think it (and the controversy around it!) is here to stay, whether we like it or not. See also further discussion here. By the way, happy Menstrual Hygiene Day on 28 May! - Let's hear from the others what they think and see if we can find a suitable compromise/solution that everyone can be happy with. EMsmile (talk) 03:56, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

And regarding this The version you just brought back doesn't even cite the book now for some reason - yes, sorry, my mistake. When I copied from the version before your edit, I used the wrong method of copying, which meant the references got lost. That's easy to fix by redoing the copy+paste. See quoted text block above.EMsmile (talk) 04:04, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with that forum or how it fits in the big picture of the topic as a whole. I think the arguments about its rarity in PubMed and that book being an outlier are strong regarding it being undue per published RS. But can we at least agree that if it comes back, we should say why it's been criticized, not just why people promote it, per NPOV? Crossroads ^-talk- 05:10, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

I am not sure what makes the Palgrave book an "outlier"? I thought it was an important source for a topic that gets very little coverage in books usually... Menstrual taboos and alike. Probably not many books exist on that at all. But yes, I completely agree with you that information about the criticism ought to be included. I thought it already was, namely this sentence: However, referring to people who menstruate as "menstruators" has also been criticized, and this is related to a more general debate within feminism.^[2]: 950". I am not sure how to expand on that, without giving too much space to the topic as a whole. I am all for keeping it brief. Basically just saying "some scholars prefer to use the term XX because XX. Others have criticised that because XX." Also, since the cultural aspects of menstruation are not medicine related, I think the argument about Pubmed is fairly weak. (PubMed is a free search engine accessing primarily the MEDLINE database of references and abstracts on life sciences and biomedical topics.) We are talking here about cultural sensitivities and evolving norms - not something really covered in PubMed, right?EMsmile (talk) 07:22, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

By the way, I have many times reverted other people's edits who replaced women, girls, females with "people with a uterus", "people with vaginas" and alike (you can see this in the article history). I am very much against that (for topics where biology is key). So I think we agree on that. But when the Palgrave book came out last year I felt that finally there was a suitable source to cite to explain why some people choose a different terminology and why others object to it. I feel that by explaining this briefly we would help our readers, and reduce confusion. EMsmile (talk) 07:20, 15 May 2021 (UTC)

So I would like to put that information back into the article because I think it does belong and is appropriately sourced (happy to make further textual improvements if anyone wants to suggest something?): "A publication in 2020 makes the case for using the term "menstruator" instead of "menstruating women", stating that this term has been in use at least since 2010.^[2]: 950 The term menstruator is used by activists in order to “express solidarity with women who do not menstruate, transgender men who do, and intersexual and genderqueer individuals”.^[2]: 950 However, referring to people who menstruate as "menstruators" has also been criticized, and this is related to a more general debate within feminism.^[2]: 950" EMsmile (talk) 05:12, 21 May 2021 (UTC)

Since there were no objections, I have put those sentences back into the article but I've looked for ways to make the wording more concise. Hope everyone can live with this now. EMsmile (talk) 12:15, 26 May 2021 (UTC)

Yeah regarding this. “Some organizations have begun to use the term "menstruator" instead of "menstruating women", a term that has been in use since at least 2010.[19]:950 The term menstruator is used by some activists and scholars in order to “express solidarity with women who do not menstruate, transgender men who do, and intersexual and genderqueer individuals”.[19]:950 However, referring to people who menstruate as "menstruators" has also been criticized by some feminists who consider sex differences important and the term woman to be necessary to resist patriarchy.[19]:950“

That paragraph only uses one source, like what organizations are using terms like menstrator? Are we referring to some indie leftist organization are we referring to the World Health Organization?CycoMa (talk) 03:23, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Having been involved in past debates about material on this, I can tell you that there are too many Wikipedians who want to include it to not mention it somewhere on Wikipedia. Parking it here is fine. I will say that this particular source is the best one I know of to cover it because it actually explains both sides of the debate on the term. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:35, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Crossroads Yeah but it does seems a little out of place in the terminology section.CycoMa (talk) 16:14, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

There we go it has its own section.CycoMa (talk) 16:23, 9 June 2021 (UTC)

Not good: Crossroads ^-talk- 03:22, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

thank you for reverting, Crossroads, I agree with your action. To CycoMa: There is no need to give the content of "menstruator" its own sub-heading. It actually used to have its own sub-heading (added by my) but I took it out later in order to reduce the importance that is given to that section. Yes, it uses currently only one source but it's a reliable source, containing chapters written by many authors, many of whom use the term "menstruator" these days. So if future sources come along we can add them but for now the Palgrave handbook is perfectly suitable. As an aside: when I first encountered the term "menstruator" I also thought it strange. Meanwhile, I have realised it is here to stay and that's just how it is. Some organisations will use it in their publications, others won't. It is not some "leftist" thing. Probably WHO will eventually use the term as well in its publications. If you want to learn a bit more about it do take a look at this discussion forum thread: https://forum.susana.org/24-menstrual-hygiene-management-mhm/24753-women-females-menstruators-when-to-use-which-term (and try to be open minded about changes in terminology). Reminds me a bit about the cis man thing - also unusual at first, then you get used to it. EMsmile (talk) 04:14, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Since no one at that forum thread mentioned the other side, I'll point out for the record that this document from the same organization mentioned "contexts where speaking about menstruation at all is still difficult" as well as saying "Is the term “menstruators” disempowering women? We could celebrate menstruation as a positive experience that females can rally around. By "denying" it to be a unique female experience it could serve to disrupt that joint feeling amongst women." Others would argue that as a group, it is women and girls who are affected by menstruation and social taboos and exclusion around menstruation; it isn't something that affects men and women equally, and men have often treated women negatively because of it (again, as a group). Others could also say that while it may signal inclusion of some additional individuals (although such people know their own biology anyway), for the much larger group of women, quite a few of them feel as though they are being erased and reduced to bodily functions. I typically see this sort of very negative response from most women when this sort of thing comes up on social media. Lastly, people generally do not rewrite their vocabulary around rare exceptions. That some people are amputees does not prevent us from speaking of people as having 10 fingers, 2 arms, etc. I appreciate that, as you stated in the above discussion, you uphold the consensus not to use these neologisms on Wikipedia (aside from the material about the term, of course). I agree with you that this term is likely to stay in a 'some will, some won't' situation, and that it will vary between organizations and contexts. Regarding being open minded about changes in terminology, advocates for a term need to keep in mind that all people to whom a term is being applied have the right to also not accept a term; advocates cannot dictate to people what terms to use for themselves even if those people are the majority. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:31, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

Very true. Thanks for digging up that document - I was actually involved in that discussion myself and I think I was the one who raised those points of the danger of disempowering women (during the chat of that webinar). I think I'll make the point in the forum thread again (unless you'd like to, in case you have an interest?). I think that particular document would not classify as a reliable source though, right? If it did, we could include it to explain the other side of the argument. - I came across this discussion also while working on unisex public toilet in the section on the "History of sex-separated toilets". We had a long discussion on the talk page as well. I'll ping Olliemae just in case she can contribute with other reliable sources to shine a brighter light on the two sides of the argument. EMsmile (talk) 05:41, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

By the way, with regards to "rare exceptions", I'd be curious to see any data on what percentage of trans men do menstruate. I've asked about it here on the talk page of trans men. EMsmile (talk) 05:47, 10 June 2021 (UTC)

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Bloody vagina. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 August 24#Bloody vagina until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. -- Tamzin^{[cetacean needed]} (she/they) 22:56, 24 August 2021 (UTC)

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,^[1] 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.^[2] There is an association of endometriosis for those who engage in sexual activities leading to orgasm during menstruation.^[3] 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)

The endo paper also isn't medrs. Mvolz (talk) 15:30, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

@EMsmile, the case-control study should not be included, because it is a primary source. It's not implausible (uterine contractions in the form of menstrual cramps are associated with endometriosis, so uterine contractions from any cause are likely also associated with endometriosis), but this research needs to be checked and validated by other researchers before a Wikipedia article treats it as "a thing", because the Replication crisis is real.

As far as the sentence about infection, I looked into it because I was curious about the effect size. This is the statistical quality that lets researchers say that we might be able to prevent one case of childhood leukemia if an additional four million babies were exclusively breastfed – interesting to know, but a one-in-four-million chance of a bad outcome probably isn't going to be the primary factor in anyone's decision. (Also, if you were interested preventing in the one-in-a-million chances of death, you would never let a baby ride in a car or play on a swingset, because those are far riskier choices.) In this case, the cited source (at least, the cited page) says nothing about the effect size, but it also doesn't support the claims as written. The source doesn't mention anything about the cervix or the bloodstream, and the sentence about "infection" is specific to HIV only rather than general risks, and it specifies that the source for this data is a single old primary source ("European Study Group on heterosexual transmission of HIV 1992").

I think that this article might benefit from a well-sourced statement about any risks, but I don't think this is the best we can do. WhatamIdoing (talk) 16:24, 26 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks Mvolz, WhatamIdoing and Graham Beards, your inputs have been really helpful! So glad we have WP:MEDRS as a guide so that we can remove content that is based on just one, potentially dodgy, or small study. I thought there was something "fishy" about those statements but wasn't sure; my suspicion became stronger when I saw that new addition by that user who had the religious statements on their profile page... Sadly, this misinformation has been in the menstruation article for a long time: I went back in the revision history as far as April 2013 and it was already there (similar content), see this version. Could we add a statement saying "There is no reliable scientific evidence that would advise against sexual intercourse during menstruation based on medical grounds." If so, is there a source we can quote? Often hard to find a source for something that does NOT exist but perhaps a meta review has been done about it? EMsmile (talk) 00:13, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

My guess is that we're more likely to find this type of basic background information in a book (a gynecology textbook would be appropriate) than in a review article, but I haven't looked for a source. (I expect the search results to be filled with self-help books and advice websites.)

It might also help to expand the religious theme to say that many traditional religious groups discourage having sex during menstruation. A source that tied the religious ideas directly to claims that it is unhealthy (much like some people have thought that eating milk and meat together is unhealthy, because it's not kosher) would be a good way to address this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:41, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Ah yes, regarding those religious aspects, there is an article on Culture and menstruation. I found quite a few sentences in there about sex during menstruation - allowed or not allowed - from a religious perspective (interesting how that aspect is "prescribed"/curtailed in the different religions...). So perhaps we could just have a sentence or link that refers people across to the other article. - I don't have access to a gyno textbook. If anyone has, can you please find a source that would underpin "There is no reliable scientific evidence that would advise against sexual intercourse during menstruation based on medical grounds."? EMsmile (talk) 04:14, 27 August 2021 (UTC)

Apologies- was unaware of the WP:MEDRS standards. Thanks to EMsmile and others, for the revisions. --Atyourpais (talk) 22:17, 28 August 2021 (UTC)

Thanks for the note, @Atyourpais. Wikipedia's a complicated place; I hope that you will keep editing anyway. You can ask for help at the Wikipedia:Teahouse if you have questions. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:40, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

I've added that sentence that I had proposed a month ago to the article now ("There is no reliable scientific evidence that would advise against sexual intercourse during menstruation based on medical grounds."). I guess we still need a reference. Putting the same sentence into Google led me to here but I don't think it can be counted as a reliable medical source: https://www.healthline.com/health/womens-health/sex-during-periods#side-effects EMsmile (talk) 13:02, 26 September 2021 (UTC)

OK, so I have just done some streamlining work to reduce repetition of content across different articles, mainly the articles about Premenstrual syndrome and Dysmenorrhea but also for menstrual cycle. I felt that the most efficient way in this case was to use the excerpt function. I feel that the bulk of the menstruation article should be about the healthy, normal aspects and all the social and cultural aspects. The "problem areas" with regards to health and well-being need to be mentioned so that people become aware of the terms used but not in great depth, as the sub-articles are there for that. I still struggle with the section on "cramps" (which I think should be about "normal, light cramps") as opposed to the section on Dysmenorrhea which is when it becomes more intense, and more like a condition or even disease. The scale from one to the other is fluid. So I think those two sections need further work and thought if the balance is not quite right yet. EMsmile (talk) 12:57, 5 May 2021 (UTC)

I noticed this when reading through. My suggestion is also to shift the focus away from very severe cramps to more normal cramps that are experienced during the period to prevent repetition between articles. WesPhil (talk) 22:26, 8 October 2021 (UTC)

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Akeehn.

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

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 July 2019 and 23 August 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Francesca.alcala.96, Mvirk422, Vivianle17.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 September 2019 and 10 December 2019. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Linus789.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 3 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Homedpo.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 00:53, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Menstruation (mammal) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 06:49, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Since not everyone who menstruate is a woman and not all women, even cis women, menstruate, it might be an idea to make the language more gender neutral to some degree. 27.33.10.202 (talk) 13:31, 10 February 2022 (UTC)

Almost all sources, though, speak of it as relating to girls and women, and thus, so do we. This is per WP:STICKTOSOURCE and WP:DUE. The consensus of the Wikipedia community is likewise to write about it as the sources do. The article already does cover this matter under Menstruation#Who menstruates and Menstruation#Terminology. Crossroads ^-talk- 04:29, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, well said, Crossroads. This question comes up time and time again; it's good to have your succinct answer for it. EMsmile (talk) 09:55, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

The article does not always use a source that uses gendered language, for example self evident claims are not sourced. WP:STICKTOSOURCE is not always relevant here. Also, gender-neutral language does not inherently convey a particular viewpoint, political agenda or ideal.

The Manual of Style section on gender-neutral language states, "Use gender-neutral language where this can be done with clarity and precision." Situations this does not apply to include:

• Direct quotations (e.g. "All men are created equal" should not be altered to "All people are created equal")
• The titles of works (e.g. A Man on the Moon should not be altered to A Human Being on the Moon)
• Proper names of things (e.g. Craftsmen Industries should not be altered to Artisan Industries)
• Cases where all referents are of one gender (e.g. when talking about an all-female school it is unnecessary to alter "If any student broke that rule, she was severely punished" to "Any student who broke the rule was severely punished")
• When the subject prefers a gendered term. This includes a woman preferring a masculine term, for example: "From 1998 to 2000, she [Esther Dyson] was the founding chairman [not chairwoman or chairperson] of ICANN, the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers."

Trans men get periods, it is more accurate to use gender neutral laguage in this context where possible to include this fact. DashDashUnderscore (talk) 09:29, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Well said. There is no reason not to use gender neutral language, except personal preference or bias. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:17, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Some trans men get periods, and that matter is already included in the article. The operative phrase is "with clarity and precision"; also relevant is the way the community has interpreted that overall guideline on this matter. Whether sex-related medical topics should never make reference to "women" is actually a highly socially contentious matter, and to do so would be to imitate a very small minority of sources in disregard of how sources usually talk about the topic. We also have the principle in MOS:CONSISTENT to consider; we wouldn't purge the term from a few sentences just because those are "self evident" and unsourced (and they probably should be sourced anyway). Crossroads ^-talk- 01:38, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

It's a good job, then, that nobody has actually proposed never making reference to "women", then. Just that gender-neutral language be used where appropriate. Yes, some trans men get periods; just as some cis women get periods. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:38, 7 April 2023 (UTC)

Using gendered language excludes other people who get periods, it obscures the facts and it is dishonest. Using gender neutral langauge is consistent with the section that mentions trans/intersex. It is not disputed that trans men get periods although it is easy to find a source for that if it being unsourced is a problem. DashDashUnderscore (talk) 07:22, 8 April 2023 (UTC)

See a recent discussion about the same topic on the talk page of menstrual cycle here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Menstrual_cycle#Gender-neutral_language . I think all the pros and cons of the different approaches have been well discussed there. EMsmile (talk) 09:08, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

The quality of the disscussion has been bad in the 2019 village pump disscussion and the menstrual disscussion (& here too!). To be clear, I am arguing that using female instead of woman is more accurate and clear, this fits in line with Wikipedia's polices, using 'people who menstrate' is too clunky, isn't clear and doesn't describe who menstrates.

Elsewhere in that menstrual cycle talk page brings up another point that saying woman excludes girls. I think there would likely be success in changing to gender neutral language if the discussion originated from including girls, since people wouldn't be so sensitive in thinking it is a political stunt. It seems like some people care more about specificaly excluding trans people than they care about presenting facts. There should not be much push back to specify sex in a human biology article, it is objectively more precise and truthful.

People from previous disscussions who support gender neutral langauge generally argue from a place of it being good to make people more comfortable, this is not what wikipedia is for.

People who claim to oppose don't seem to understand what gender neutral language is, some of my favourite oppose arguments being "Oppose - scientific text continues to use male and female when describing human sex-specific articles." and "Stand alone "women" is redundant as the article starts off by saying "the female reproductive system" - from someone who opposes gender neutral use. Using sex specific language is gender neutral and people who oppose appear to be ignorant of this fact.

wikipedia.org/wiki/Vasectomy reads fine when using gender nautral language of 'male'. DashDashUnderscore (talk) 17:51, 20 April 2023 (UTC)

only women can menstruate. This is what I learned in my 3rd grade biology class. 139.20.171.85 (talk) 13:56, 12 September 2023 (UTC)

"The average volume of menstrual fluid during a monthly menstrual period is 35 millilitres (2.4 US tbsp) with 10–80 millilitres (0.68–5.41 US tbsp) considered typical. Menstrual fluid is the correct name for the flow, although many people prefer to refer to it as menstrual blood. Menstrual fluid is reddish-brown, a slightly darker color than venous blood.[11]: 381 "

source: https://archive.org/details/newharvardguidet00carl

Carlson KJ, Eisenstat SA, Ziporyn TD (2004). The new Harvard guide to women's health. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press. ISBN 0-674-01343-3.

above is the current first paragraph under the heading 'bleeding.' it seems that this source might be the wrong one, since in the page referenced (p381) it says, "Most women lose only about 3 to 4 ounces or 4 to 6 tablespoonfuls of menstrual fluid... each month."

this is very different from the amount cited in the article, which is 2.4 tbsps.

Imogenheaps (talk) 09:33, 5 April 2022 (UTC)im

average fluid loss is about 85 ml or 5.7 tbsp (source:https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30712040/). i think the number in the article, 35 ml/2.4 tbsp, is the amount of actual blood, which makes up around half of menstrual fluid. Birderr (talk) 06:47, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi, User:Imogenheaps, I haven't yet been able to figure out which is right. I did check at the article menstrual cycle which is more closely watched by experts and which is a WP:FA article. There it says "The flow of blood continues for 2–6 days and around 30–60 milliliters of blood is lost,^[1]" It uses this reference:

• Prior JC (2020). "The menstrual cycle: its biology in the context of silent ovulatory disturbances". In Ussher JM, Chrisler JC, Perz J (eds.). Routledge International Handbook of Women's Sexual and Reproductive Health (1st ed.). Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. ISBN 978-1-138-49026-0. OCLC 1121130010..

Should we perhaps just use the same info here? And perhaps we just stick with one unit (millilitres) to keep it simple (although it's true that "tablespoons" is a more tangible unit for lay persons). EMsmile (talk) 14:45, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Depends entirely on the size of tablespoon you're used to (which is not a universally agreed size!). Use actual units, please. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 10:19, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 August 2022 and 11 January 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Martinscia (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Primacuhh46 (talk) 21:41, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

Is the exclusive use of the word "women" (and "girls") appropriate in this article? There are men, nonbinary people, and intersex people that experience menstruation due to having a uterus; using just "women" seems to me like it overly generalises the group of people that experience it and excludes trans people. (Usually I'd be bold and change it myself, but I'm on mobile and also don't have the energy for a big edit like that right now.) Suntooooth, it/he (talk/contribs) 20:26, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

This is mentioned briefly under Menstruation#Etymology and terminology, but Wikipedia has consistently rejected replacing the term wholesale. This has also been discussed in the archives, e.g. Talk:Menstruation/Archive 2#Reverted changes (gendered language). This is, after all, how sources on the topic generally write about it, so we are in good company in following that. Please also note the 3rd, 4th, and 6th bullet points here, especially this community consensus. Crossroads ^-talk- 18:17, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Please note that the 35-50 ml menstrual loss per cycle refers to BLOOD, not fluid. The amount of menstrual fluid, which includes mucus and endometrial tissue, is much more. Please refer to, e.g., https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3494145/, and for a simple language explanation, to: https://rubycup.com/blogs/articles/how-much-do-you-bleed-on-your-period, and the references cited there. Thank you. 85.148.227.44 (talk) 05:27, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

This is a citation for plasmin in the endometrium^[2]

I cannot add it because the page is locked. Madroach (talk) 15:16, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

@Madroach: I have fulfilled your edit request: Thank you for making this suggestion. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 15:20, 4 November 2024 (UTC)