Deletion of People who menstruate

Comment: per , #ADVOACY, DICT.  If there's a trans-related article at which this phrase can be mentioned, and it can be reliably sourced as being in common enough usage and with enough independent, reliable sourcing material about it to write not-just-dictionary-definition (i.e., actually encyclopedic) material about it, then fine, but that doesn't require a merge.  There's nothing particularly special about the trivial amount of content presently in the page.  If someone thinks otherwise, they can always  the page to their draftspace and merge from it, if/when there's a good merge target.  I have no objection to draftifying, to serve as the first entry in a "Trans-inclusive language", or "Glossary of trans-related terms", or whatever it might be titled. But again, this is a trivial amount of content, and it need not be kept if there's not going to be a concerted effort to produce such an article
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Content forking (WP:POVFORK||WP:NOT||WP:NOTDICT||WP:REFUND)

Comment: to Gender neutrality in English. When I started working on this I thought there'd be more but it's hard to string more than a few sentences about it. The term is new and seemingly gaining some traction but it may be the case of  indeed. Do ping me if anyone can find more in-depth coverage
Stance: merge
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Too soon (WP:TOOSOON)