Talk:Self-induced abortion

VfD

Resolved: Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Self-induced abortion

Redirect

I'm creating a redirect from "coat hanger abortion", because that's a very notable term, I've heard it discussed at length and Google hits confirm it, so anyone who comes searching for "coat hanger abortion" would greatly benefit from this redirect. My only regret about this article was that I didn't get an opportunity to vote Keep on it. CanadianCaesar 2 July 2005 22:08 (UTC)

• Thanks - good redirect! -- BD2412 ^talk July 2, 2005 23:30 (UTC)

Gender inclusive language for self-managed abortion care

@Avatar317 I appreciate your effort to keep language representative of the citations. To that end, I have added additional resources to include more research related to self-managed abortion to include transgender and gender nonbinary people assigned female at birth who also self-manage abortion. For that reason, the most accurate and appropriate language to use to represent the expansive genders that experience self-managed abortion is "people who can get pregnant" as is include cisgender women, transgender and gender nonbinary people assigned female at birth.

It's also worth pointing out that research inclusive of transgender and gender nonbinary people assigned female at birth is grossly understudied and therefore underrepresented in the way we talk about reproductive healthcare broadly, and there is growing consensus in the scientific community that research needs to be more inclusive.

Lastly, I think it is worth pointing out that "woman" is a term used to describe gender and not sex. Being assigned the female sex at birth reflects the reproductive organs that a person has. So while it your reasoning about why language in this article must say "women" because you state "for someone to get pregnant, they must be a biological woman", this is actually demonstrating your confusion between gender and sex. For a person to get pregnant, they must biologically be assigned female at birth, and their gender identity of being a woman or transgender or gender nonbinary has nothing to do with the matter. Oatmealcookies2024 (talk) 23:00, 25 June 2025 (UTC)

Clearly this is a controversial topic, and one for which we should arrive at a consensus before making changes to the longstanding and historically unobjected wording of the article. BD2412 T 02:08, 26 June 2025 (UTC)

The current state of having the long (honestly, unnecessary) explanation at the start and then not following it during the article is honestly the worst way to do it. If the goal is to avoid offense, that isn't an effective way. I don't think people need an explanation on why "pregnant people" is used, because it makes complete sense already. All pregnant women are pregnant people. It's also off topic for the article. I think "pregnant people" is preferable to "pregnant women," but having an explanation for why "pregnant women" is inaccurate and then using the term throughout the article is honestly kind of annoying and screams performative, as a trans man. That's not to insult you, but I think the current state of the article is unfavorable. 172.58.242.248 (talk) 01:06, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

It is WP:UNDUE. Something like 99.4% of the population of people physically able to become pregnant at all are people who identify as women. Even on a 1-1 comparison, a person who is physically able to become pregnant and who identifies as a woman is about five times as likely to actually become pregnant than a a person who is physically able to become pregnant and who identifies as a man, so about 99.875% of circumstances where abortion is a possibility at all (much less self-induced abortion) would occur with respect to people who identify as women. BD2412 T 02:41, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

I don't think WP:UNDUE necessarily applies here, since that refers to viewpoints, and we're discussing people.

The article on sex:

" Most mammalian species have the XY sex-determination system, where the male usually carries an X and a Y chromosome (XY), and the female usually carries two X chromosomes (XX)."

The article specifies "most." As far as I'm aware, only very few rodent lineages deviate from this. With over 6500 mammal species, and less than 10 species that deviate from this, about 99.85% of mammalian species would follow the XY sex determination system. It isn't considered undue weight to avoid saying absolutely "all mammals use the XY sex determination system."

I think an extensive discussion of the topic is off-topic for the article, as abortion methods are the same either way. However, saying it only applies to women because 99.85% of the people it applies to are women is incorrect. I don't think it's that big of a deal, since trans men reading this will still know it applies to them, but we should try to be as accurate as possible within reason. Changing "pregnant women" to "pregnant people" is reasonable, I think.

Another reason I don't think it's undue: trans men are less likely to get pregnant, but I'd bet money they're also more likely to want an abortion if they unintentionally get pregnant, and be willing to resort to dangerous methods when safe methods are unavailable to them. 172.58.242.194 (talk) 22:53, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

Some Christians keep kosher, but no mention of Christianity is to be found in the lede of Kashrut. I think a paragraph noting the nuance of abortions by people identifying as other-than-female could go at the end of the article. I see no reason to change anything else. BD2412 T 23:39, 30 June 2025 (UTC)

@Oatmealcookies2024: Please see the discussion here. I had seen this before but it took me a while to re-find it. WP:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_161#Gender-neutral_language_in_human_sex-specific_articles ---Avatar317^(talk) 22:16, 2 July 2025 (UTC)