Talk:Use of assisted reproductive technology by LGBT people

LGBTQ+ Production of Family was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 30 December 2023 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Use of assisted reproductive technology by LGBT people. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

On 4 February 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved from LGBT reproduction to Use of assistive reproductive technology by LGBT people. The result of the discussion was moved.

LGBTQ+ studies

This article is of interest to WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies, which tries to ensure comprehensive and factual coverage of all LGBTQ-related issues on Wikipedia. For more information, or to get involved, please visit the project page or contribute to the discussion.LGBTQ+ studiesWikipedia:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesTemplate:WikiProject LGBTQ+ studiesLGBTQ+ studies articles

Medicine: Reproductive Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Reproductive medicine task force (assessed as Low-importance).

Parenting (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Parenting, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.ParentingWikipedia:WikiProject ParentingTemplate:WikiProject ParentingParenting articles

Family and relationships (defunct)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Family and relationships, a project which is currently considered to be defunct.Family and relationshipsWikipedia:WikiProject Family and relationshipsTemplate:WikiProject Family and relationshipsFamily and relationships articles

Trans women and milk

Latest comment: 10 months ago11 comments3 people in discussion

Can we add something about trans women breastfeeding? MaitreyaVaruna (talk) 17:33, 17 March 2022 (UTC)Reply

Regarding this which you added (partly copied from another article), you need to clean up that section so that it adheres to WP:MEDRS. In fact, some other parts of this article have the same issue with sourcing, but this one especially. News reports, pop-sci magazines, and the like are not MEDRS. Rather, we need things like review articles in scientific medical journals (it's all explained in more detail at the MEDRS link above). Crossroads ^-talk- 04:41, 1 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Would sentences such as A trans woman breastfeeding was first documented in 2018,^[1] and surrogate mothers sometimes provide breastmilk for the first month or so to provide colostrum to the infant^[2]^[3] be ones that lack the requirement for Wikipedia:MEDRS MaitreyaVaruna (talk) 15:40, 1 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

None of those three are MEDRS. Can you confirm that you have read the MEDRS page? It's well worth it. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

The guardian article links directly to an actual journal source. It is also an open science article. If you want to include the claim you have your citation right there as long as you read the source and check that it supports the claim you are making. Antisymmetricnoise (talk) 16:44, 28 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I know none of those are MEDRS, my question is whether mentions of events like

A trans woman breastfeeding was first documented in 2018^[4]
The man who had the first pig heart transplant died in 2022^[5]

Are exempted from this criteria as they are historical rather than medical claims. MaitreyaVaruna (talk) 02:22, 3 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

They seem to fit

They are purple and triangular, packaged one to a box,^{[citation needed]} as no-one ever manages to swallow a second one.^{[medical citation needed]} to me

MaitreyaVaruna (talk) 04:44, 3 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

The second one is historical, but the first seems to be medical. The implicit claim is that the breastfeeding was medically successful, which is medical. An equivalent claim would be "some trans women can breastfeed" (under circumstances which would need to be elaborated) which more clearly is a medical claim. Crossroads ^-talk- 05:17, 4 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Would phrasing it as "the first documented instance of a trans woman attempting to breastfeed" work instead? MaitreyaVaruna (talk) 15:37, 4 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

This would be permissible per MEDRS, at least. Also, please see what it says at WP:CUSTOMSIG/P: "A customised signature should make it easy to identify your username." Your username is quite different from your new signature. If you want a username change, you can find out how at WP:NAMECHANGE. Crossroads ^-talk- 01:42, 5 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

Thank you, and sorry about that. I am in the process of attempting to get that username MaitreyaVaruna (talk) 03:47, 5 April 2022 (UTC)Reply

References

^ Frizzl, Nell (February 14, 2018). "Transgender woman able to breastfeed in first documented case, The Guardian". theguardian.com.
^ "The Protocols for Inducing Lactation and Maximizing Milk Production: The Accelerated Protocol . Canadian Breastfeeding Foundation . Fondation canadienne de l'allaitement". www.canadianbreastfeedingfoundation.org. Retrieved 2022-04-01.
^ Jefford, Sarah (2019-05-26). "Milk and Feeding a Surrogacy Baby". Sarah Jefford. Retrieved 2022-04-01.
^ "Transgender woman able to breastfeed in first documented case". the Guardian. 2018-02-14. Retrieved 2022-04-03.
^ Rabin, Roni Caryn (2022-03-09). "Patient in Groundbreaking Heart Transplant Dies". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 2022-04-03.

"LGBTQ+ Production of Family" listed at Redirects for discussion

Latest comment: 11 months ago1 comment1 person in discussion

The redirect LGBTQ+ Production of Family has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 8 § LGBTQ+ Production of Family until a consensus is reached. Fram (talk) 14:00, 8 December 2023 (UTC)Reply

Omegaverse?

Latest comment: 10 months ago6 comments4 people in discussion

I don't feel this section is relevant to the article. Thoughts on moving/removing? Sock-the-guy (talk) 21:16, 2 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Although the updated version is much better than the previous, I still think this section could do with more work. For example, movies, episodes of TV shows, or literature where non-speculative lgbt reproduction is featured? I can't think of any off the top of my head, but some surface level research should be able to find a few examples. - TransButterflyQueen Ɛï3 18:09, 30 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I do think it is relevant that a topic has been covered in fiction to the extent that there is a subgenre that addresses it. I also think it's important that this is given due weight. The current section is overly detailed and contains jargon.

I would propose changing this:

In the Omegaverse themes of LGBT reproduction are common.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4] Alpha females are able to impregnate both males and females,^[1] and Omega males are able to be impregnated by both males and females.^[2]^[3]^[4]

Between Alphas and Betas, only females can carry on a pregnancy, but male Omegas are often envisaged as being able to become pregnant via an uterus connected to the rectum,^[2]^[3]^[4] and Alphas can impregnate regardless of their main gender.^[1] To make penetration and impregnation easier, male Omegas often have self-lubricating anuses.^[5]

to this:

In the Omegaverse subgenre of speculative erotic fiction, themes of LGBT reproduction are common.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4] Some female characters can impregnate both males and females,^[1] and some male characters can become pregnant.^[2]^[3]^[4]

Note: I have not reviewed any of the sources for their reliability or validity in backing the claims. There are probably more academic sources that could be found.

There are still potential WP:DUE issues with having an entire separate section for this one bit, but I'm not sure where else this could go.

Another alternative may be adding to "See also" something like Omegaverse – subgenre of erotic fiction that contains themes of LGBT reproduction

References

^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e Sung M (26 April 2021). "What The Hell Is The Omegaverse, And Why Is It All Over TikTok?". Mashable India. Retrieved 5 April 2022.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e Shrayber M (18 June 2014). "'Knotting' Is the Weird Fanfic Sex Trend That Cannot Be Unseen". Jezebel. Retrieved 25 May 2020.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e "男も妊娠する世界...BLの人気設定「オメガバース」ってご存知ですか" (in Japanese). 10 July 2018. Retrieved 5 April 2022.
^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e "2ページ目：BLにおける「オメガバースの事情」【アニメイト編集部BL塾・応用編】 | アニメイトタイムズ". Animate Times (in Japanese). Retrieved 7 April 2022.
^ Fazekas A (2020). "Alpha/Beta/Omega: Racialized Narratives and Fandom's Investment in Whiteness". In Pande R (ed.). Fandom, Now in Color: A Collection of Voices. University of Iowa Press. p. 98. ISBN 9781609387297 – via Project MUSE.

Wracking ^talk! 21:43, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I like the edited option you have. If I found a couple more examples of queer parenting in popular culture and added them to the section as well it wouldn't stand out too much. Does that seem like an appropriate solution? Sock-the-guy (talk) 21:49, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Yes, I think so—but other examples should be related to LGBT reproduction in some way. Examples related just to parenting (i.e. adoption, parental transition after child is born) would better fit at LGBT parenting. Wracking ^talk! 22:04, 3 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

I also think this feels very out of place, I am in favour of removal as it stands. As far as I see it this article covers a broad range of somewhat technical elements of queerness and biology, it's not a single topic article that can easily accommodate a "In popular culture." segment, there is a this isn't so much a notability issue as a complex inclusion issue. The issue here isn't that the Omegaverse isn't notable on it's own, nor that the use of LGBT reproduction themes in that work aren't notable. The problem is that the segment isn't justified in the article with a single example. Honestly I'm also of split mind as to whether or not adding more examples would even help. While an obvious improvement of the segment, improving a segment that should not be in the article isn't a great idea. This segment might belong in a a different article with a scope more amenable to popular culture analysis. Antisymmetricnoise (talk) 16:48, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply

Requested move 4 February 2024

Latest comment: 9 months ago7 comments6 people in discussion

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. (closed by non-admin page mover) — DaxServer (t · m · e · c) 10:32, 11 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

LGBT reproduction → Use of assistive reproductive technology by LGBT people – "LGBT reproduction" doesn't seem to be a commonly-used term for this practice. Not sure if my suggestion is the best either, but it seems more descriptive at least. GnocchiFan (talk) 10:30, 4 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I agree it should be moved. The title currently uses "LGBT" as a singular noun which isn't typical. Even just "Pregnancy and reproduction of LGBT people" would be better in my opinion. Sock-the-guy (talk) 16:50, 5 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

I also agree it should be moved. As far as what to call the page instead, specifying the use of assistive reproductive technology is the most accurate, but I think "Pregnancy and reproduction of LGBT people" is more digestible and straightforward. Or maybe "for" instead of "of"? It's hard to word it without it sounding like you're reproducing LGBT people, but it's also just a title so it doesn't have to have all the details. One other idea for a slightly more succinct title could be "Assistive reproductive technology and LGBT people." AnnelidKing (talk) 20:04, 6 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

The only sticking point there is there are multiple mentions in the article about pregnancy entirely without assistive reproductive technology. I'm still learning wiki-protocol so this is more of a curiosity thing than me trying to be argumentative, but would that cause an issue with the title? Sock-the-guy (talk) 17:10, 9 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Support - Per nom. What an odd name for the article originally. Garnet Moss (talk) 23:57, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

Support though the title is a bit long. I don't mind "Assistive reproductive technology and LGBT people", but would oppose "Pregnancy and reproduction of LGBT people". Some1 (talk) 23:58, 8 February 2024 (UTC)Reply

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