Talk:Female condom

First use historically

I note the infobox states its first use was in the 1980s. This is vague and may be questionable as the wiki article on its Danish inventor Lasse Hessel states it was launched in Europe in 1990, so implicitly any use before then would be experimental by volunteers but it would not surely be legally available for public consumption. I have added the information about Hessel's invention into the summary paragraph which is cited.Cloptonson (talk) 06:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Change page title to "Internal condom"?

As the article opens with "internal condom" while "female condom" is mentioned between parentheses under "also", as well as that both the article and official sources mention that the condom is safe for both vaginal and anal sex, the title of this page should not be "Female condom" but "Internal condom". 31.20.106.40 (talk) 16:55, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

For consistency and equality I would suggest that the penis condom should be called external condom? Or alternatively three pages in the future.. penis condom, vaginal condom, anal condom. 31.20.106.40 (talk) 16:59, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

I would absolutely agree and support changing the default terminology in this article, and the title, to internal condom, and make the corresponding pages on the male condom page (to external). Internal and external are simply more scientifically accurate terms, since internal condoms can and are used by receptive partners regardless of gender, sexual identity, or types of genitals involved. I don't believe that there are any condoms specialized for internal use in the anus, so a third article doesn't seem necessary to me. All this said, I have never changed the title of an article before, so I don't know how significant the impacts are on existing links, etc. Willmskinner (talk) 20:20, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

Requested move 31 March 2024

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. Consensus to move; editors in support are more numerous and present evidence in support of a policy, while editors in opposition only reference the manual of style. (closed by non-admin page mover) BilledMammal (talk) 02:47, 7 April 2024 (UTC)

---

Internal condom → Female condom – Female condom is the WP:COMMONNAME per Google Ngrams and as seen in the article's #References (including ones addressing anal sex). This would revert a move from yesterday that was based on the comments of two editors above in #Change page title to "Internal condom"? Opening a full discussion per this contested technical request by voorts. SilverLocust 💬 01:21, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Pinging @Voorts, EggRoll97, and Willmskinner from the contested technical request and the section above. SilverLocust 💬 01:24, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

• Oppose I will repeat my reason for opposition being MOS:GNL. It is far more gender-neutral to refer to it as an "internal" condom, giving reference to use by males and maintaining neutrality. Using "female" condom doesn't achieve that same neutrality. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 01:37, 31 March 2024 (UTC)
• Oppose Forgive me, all, if I didn't use the proper process for requesting and vetting a page move. I am a relatively new Wikipedian and I'm still figuring out how best to do non-intro level activities here. Obviously, I agree with @EggRoll97, since I was the person who performed the rename. I support it both because of Gender-neutral language and because the term feels more scientifically accurate to the devices' uses. Not sure if that is supported by a particular policy, and I'm not sure to handle it when policies like GNL and COMMONNAME are in opposition with each other. For what it is worth, I'm sure that Female condom is still more commonly used in broader speech, but that google ngram does limit its data to 2019, and in the years shown, female has been declining steadily while internal has been gaining. Anecdotally, in the sex education and reproductive biology professional communities in which I operate, 'internal' has gradually overtaken 'female' over the last decade... I am of course happy to accept whatever consensus emerges here. Willmskinner (talk) 01:50, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Oh, and I tried to comment on the technical request, but seem to be unable to do that. The discussion has moved here, and I don't need to reply there as well? Willmskinner (talk) 01:50, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Correct. SilverLocust 💬 01:53, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Note that WP:COMMONNAME is a policy and MOS:GNL is a guideline. I would invite any evidence of more recent usage or more scholarly usage like this Google Scholar search in the past year or this JSTOR search since 2020. But "female condom" still appears to be considerably more common in those. SilverLocust 💬 02:35, 31 March 2024 (UTC)

Support per nom Pdubs.94 (talk) 05:58, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

Support per nom, WP:COMMONNAME applies, MOS:GNL is merely a guideline and not specifically for article titles, and per WP:NPOVTITLE, a common name overrides the argument for a neutral title. Per Ngrams by nom, and on Google Scholar there are 2,240 results for Female condom since 2020 and 130 results for Internal condom since 2020. DankJae 18:21, 3 April 2024 (UTC)

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.