Talk:Pregnancy

"Pregnancy is the time during which one or more offspring gestates inside a woman's uterus."

this contradicts the article part, that the time from fertilization and the travel of the zygote in the fallopian tube are also part of a pregnancy., since the offspirng is not in the uterus at this time

"The first trimester includes conception, which is when the sperm fertilizes the egg. The fertilized egg then travels down the fallopian tube and attaches to the inside of the uterus, "

Not sure which part should be change, but it should be consitent. 80.135.113.82 (talk) 14:03, 27 September 2025 (UTC)

See Beginning of pregnancy controversy for the answers to your question. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:58, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

The world's already forgetting about trans people as it is.

Also, we should avoid using "she" as the default pronoun for a pregnant person. Hist4ian (talk) 06:42, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Please review the past discussions on the matter. This has been fully litigated. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 06:46, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

There isn't any guideline or policy to support this radical change. This would need a consensus in a larger forum such as WP:Village pump. Graham Beards (talk) 06:46, 30 September 2025 (UTC)

Maybe we need a {{FAQ}} at the top of the page?

@Hist4ian, I wonder if you have any insight into why we have a steady stream of new-ish editors trying to erase cisgendered women from most major articles related to the Female reproductive system, but nobody ever tries to remove cisgendered men from Prostate cancer. We don't even get the additive approach suggested by many modern medical organizations (e.g., "pregnant women and other pregnant people"); it's almost always a desire to remove any mention of cisgender women. I know you're not an expert in this area, but would you feel comfortable hazarding any guesses about what might be going on? WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:39, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Agree with this. When the scientific community gives in to political correctness we have truly reached the end of the line. 93.146.171.12 (talk) 12:38, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

Why are you so interested in continuing the erasing of non-women who are able to get pregnant? using the lack of non-men prostate having people being mentioned on the prostate cancer Wikipedia page no less.

Why not support both the inclusion of non-women who can get pregnant, and non-men who can get prostate cancer on their respected Wikipedia pages?

Cis women are people too. No? HatchlingOfHatchling (talk) 09:04, 30 November 2025 (UTC)

The "additive" approach doesn't erase anyone: "pregnant women and other pregnant people".

To write only "pregnant people" is to deny that there's anything socially gendered about the experience of pregnancy – to imply that social womanhood has nothing to do with it, and that only biological femaleness matters – and to erase that socially gendered experience. A brief glance at articles such as Pregnancy discrimination (or a chat with a pregnant non-binary friend about the horror that is shopping for maternity clothing) should convince any reasonable person that pregnancy is partly a gendered experience instead of purely a biological one. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:09, 1 December 2025 (UTC)

Biological men can’t be pregnant, even if they undergo transgender surgery and change their gender identity to be a transgender woman, they still can’t be pregnant, as the XY chromosome prevents them from that. You can change your gender identity, genitalia, and facial features, but you can never change your chromosomes. This is a woke suggestion, thank God even English Wikipedia isn’t that woke. Crna Lista (talk) 14:38, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

See also Uterus transplantation. We will probably see a live birth to a trans woman within the next few years. (Also, biological sex in all sexually reproducing species, including but not limited to humans, is defined by gametes, not by chromosomes.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:00, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

It is relevant to many transgender men and non-binary people (or anyone with an adequately functional female reproductive system). I was somewhat surprised to see this article using such absolute gendered terms, as I would expect a more matter-of-fact approach, rather than having a brief mention of people other than cis women be tacked on after plenty of apparent implications that pregnancy is solely a cis women's matter. It does seem that this is a rather charged topic, however, and I don't feel particularly confident in attempting to rally for some sort of change. An Absence of Fish (talk) 20:44, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

Highly recommend reading (in depth) the archives. This has been litigated numerous times in the past, at great length. A consensus exists. The article is matter-of-fact. cheers. anastrophe, an editor he is. 21:19, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

I wonder if people have different ideas of what "a matter-of-fact approach" is. Reducing humans down to their body parts can be described as "a matter-of-fact approach". WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:53, 28 February 2026 (UTC)

I would not mind removing the notion of prostate cancer as an exclusively "men's" issue either. I may press this with the Village Pump soon. Hist4ian (talk) 21:29, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

This has already been discussed dozens of times. Not going to happen. Zenomonoz (talk) 21:55, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) § Edit the article on pregnancy to make it clear not everyone capable of pregnancy identifies as a girl, woman or mother.). A proposal includes adding a footnote to the first mention of "women"/"woman". Some1 (talk) 14:35, 4 October 2025 (UTC)

Reading prompted me to realize that this article doesn't really mention sex at all. There's a section about sexual activity during pregnancy, but not any information about how penile-vaginal sex is how people get pregnant, with the exception of people using assistive technology to do so. This is not something we can automatically assume our readers to always know. I've heard horror stories of girls not knowing what a period is before they get it, thinking that sleeping next to someone/sitting on a toilet/oral sex can get them pregnant, etc. Not sure it's nessecary to go into detail about all those misconceptions or if there's even adequate sourcing to do so, but the mechanics of how pregnancy usually happens really should be mentioned somewhere. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 01:59, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

This is quite a funny oversight, thanks for pointing this out! i’ll do some searching to find a source. IntentionallyDense ^(Contribs) 07:05, 5 October 2025 (UTC)

I have this vague recollection that this might have been intentional. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:09, 6 October 2025 (UTC)

Why? Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 07:03, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

I don't remember. You might be able to find something in the talk page archives. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:30, 7 October 2025 (UTC)

In order not to be "offensive" and "exclusionary" towards those who got pregnant through immaculate conception, I guess 93.146.171.12 (talk) 12:40, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

I think it's more likely that it was a "think of the children" reading this kind of thing, but Wikipedia is WP:NOTCENSORED. Also, keeping knowledge from children tends to be a bad idea anyways, as I mentioned above with some girls being scared that being next to someone could make them pregnant. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 13:19, 12 October 2025 (UTC)

The pic at the beginning of the article is the result of an aggressive a "think of the children" campaign by a number of editors when it was proposed some years ago to show a naked, pregnant lady. Wikipedia IS censored! HiLo48 (talk) 07:01, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

I remember that it was disappointing to you to lose that RFC, but the naked woman is still in the article, in a section where the visible appearance is actually relevant, so this isn't really a case of censorship. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:20, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

So you would be happy with the naked woman being put back in the lead? Or must we still think of the children? HiLo48 (talk) 22:48, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

I'm happy that the RFC came to a consensus. I'm satisfied that the consensus reached was to follow the lead of other encyclopedias and similar reference works, and thereby to follow the foundation:Resolution:Controversial content about the principle of least astonishment. Namely, because no ordinary encyclopedias or other reference works begin an article about pregnancy with a photo of a naked woman, the average (i.e., non-naturist) adult reader would be surprised to find a photo of a naked woman at the top of a Wikipedia article about pregnancy. We say that The average reader should not be shocked, surprised, or confused by what they read, and the consensus of that RFC aligns with that principle. WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:09, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

This content gap is now fixed. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 05:27, 29 January 2026 (UTC)

The goal of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Vital Signs 2026 campaign is to bring all 101 top-importance articles—including this one—up to at least B-class quality. Many of these articles are widely read but overdue for review, so even small improvements can have a big impact.

If you watch or edit this article, your help would be very welcome. You can:

1. Add yourself as a participant
2. Note the state of the article in the Progress table (is the current class still correct?)
3. Update the article based on recent clinical guidelines and review papers
4. Help address gaps, improve clarity for a broad audience, or improve image selection

To reach B class, articles should have: suitable referencing, reasonable coverage, a clear structure, good prose, helpful illustrations, and be understandable to a broad audience. Contributions of any size are appreciated. Femke (talk) 16:00, 20 December 2025 (UTC)

@GreenMeansGo: I'm not too picky about the phrasing here, but I think the intention in the original wording is because some symptoms are more likely to be noticed by the pregnant woman, like breast tenderness and nausea. Others might notice if you're hurling all over the place but will not be able to feel quickening. That said, medical articles generally are fairly generic and third-person about such things. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 02:50, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

It does seem almost apocryphal to have a situation of symptomatic identification that might be done by someone else... grandma making some sly remark about "glowing" at the family get together. But also, considering the large number of people who don't have access to tests, the operative thing seemed to be whether it's a test or a symptom. GMG^talk 03:00, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

The traditional distinction is between Signs and symptoms. Namely, symptoms are self-reported, and signs are observable by others. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:54, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Move the section before the disambiguation links to the references. ~2026-86938-5 (talk) 02:57, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

Fixed. Masterhatch (talk) 03:18, 9 February 2026 (UTC)