Jump to content

Talk:Womyn-born womyn: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
 
(106 intermediate revisions by 54 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Talk header}}
{{LGBTProject | class=Start}}
{{controversial}}
==Outright Bias==
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|
I know it's the first sentence on the page, but can something be done about the phrase "Womyn-born womyn (an alternative spelling of women-born women) is a term that describes women, '''''as opposed to transgendered freaks'''''."?
{{WikiProject Feminism|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject Women's History|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject LGBT studies}}
}}
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=pa}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
| algo = old(365d)
| archive = Talk:Womyn-born womyn/Archive %(counter)d
| counter = 1
| maxarchivesize = 150K
| archiveheader = {{Automatic archive navigator}}
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
| minthreadsleft = 3
}}


==First paragraph==
I sincerely doubt that displays an NPOV perspective.


I changed it from this:
==Help==
I have tried to present the pro arguments for WBW spaces as I have heard them argued by proWBW individuals. However, I would greatly appreciate someone who is actually in favor of this policy to review them, change as necessary, or add to them arguments I have not developed.


{{quote|Womyn-born womyn (WBW) is a term developed during second-wave feminism to designate spaces for, by, and about women who were identified as female at birth, were raised as girls, and identify as women (or womyn).
I know the best rhetorical technique is to argue one's opponents view as strongly as possible, but I'm not fool enough to believe that I've adequately presented it as well as my own. So I would appreciate feedback on the pro-side.[[User:NickGorton|NickGorton]] 20:45, 21 July 2005 (UTC)


Events and organizations that have womyn-born womyn-only policies bar access to any persons who were assigned male at birth, including trans women and the young children of attendees. This policy has raised a number of concerns because no logical distinction can be found between forbidding people from inclusion who, decades ago, were born with the wrong chromosomal arrangement and forbidding people from inclusion based on race. Today, an event restricted to white people born white would, rightfully so, be seen as racist. According to Michigan Womyn's Music Festival co-founder Lisa Vogel during a Bitch magazine roundup, "What womyn-born womyn means to us is women who were born as women, who have lived their entire experience as women, and who identify as women."/>}}
This article really needs someone to judge it for NPOV. Some of the adjectives/phrasing, etc. are a tiny bit loaded.[[User:24.10.102.46|24.10.102.46]] 20:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


To this:
There are some things here about WBW spaces that include post-operative transwomen. I know there are spaces which exclude pre-operative individuals, but allow post op--ie define gender by genitals. I know of trans-exclusive (ie, wbw) spaces in which transwomen enter in secret such as the hundreds of transwomen at MWMF, but they are doing so against the policy. But I've never heard of any self defined WBW space that includes post-operative people by policy. Can someone think of any? (kathygnome)


{{quote|Womyn-born womyn (WBW) is a term developed during second-wave feminism to designate spaces for, by, and about women who were identified as female at birth, were raised as girls, and identify as women (or womyn).
==NPOV==
I added the NPOV tag because I felt that the anon edits to the "History" and "Scope" sections, while adding another viewpoint that could be valuable, were phrased in ways that are somewhat POV. Examples:


Events and organizations that have womyn-born-womyn-only policies bar access to anyone was assigned male at birth, including trans women and the young children of attendees, a position which has raised a number of concerns from transgender groups.
*"the exclusionary and oppressive repercussions of misogyny" -- very strong wording, clearly from a feminist viewpoint
*"Some have argued that the term was created solely in response to the increasing visibility of transgender women" -- I've heard, and I am willing to believe, that what "some have argued" is the major impetus behind the development of this term. However, I do not know enough to actually judge.
*"a unforgettable means of unlearning internalized misogyny completely unrelated to and independent of transculture and politics" -- I think that this one is pretty obvious. ;)


Lisa Vogel, co-founder of Michigan Womyn's Music Festival, stated during a Bitch magazine roundup, that:
I don't have a good enough knowledge of this to edit down the POV in a way other than reverting the anon additions. Someone else want to take a crack at it?


"What womyn-born womyn means to us is women who were born as women, who have lived their entire experience as women, and who identify as women.
[[User:Hbackman|Hbackman]] 22:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
/>}}


Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a bulletin board.
:There's nothing wrong with expressing a feminist POV if the subject is a feminist subject. What I see in this article is a lot of back and forth -- "this is what it is" in one sentence followed by "other people think this is what it is". I think some of the NPOV / POV issues might be cleared up by allowing a POV to be presented throughout an entire paragraph (or more), and then presenting the other POVes. -- [[User:Jfhaugh|Tall Girl]] 20:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)


== More sources needed for The RadFem Collective ==
*I read the article today and think the past POV issues may well have been resolved now. There was no obvious POV as far as I could tell. [[User:MrsPlum|MrsPlum]] 10:13, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


Granted, they exist as an example. However, there's only one source and the article itself (and even the source, from what I skimmed) doesn't really establish much in the way of how important that particular organization was/is. While it is common enough knowledge that such a mindset isn't or at least wasn't uncommon in "mainstream" radfem groups, the article as written currently gives the appearance of giving undue weight to the point of view of a non-notable organization. [[Special:Contributions/2803:4600:1116:12E7:64F0:D322:9A39:20|2803:4600:1116:12E7:64F0:D322:9A39:20]] ([[User talk:2803:4600:1116:12E7:64F0:D322:9A39:20|talk]]) 09:40, 11 February 2023 (UTC)
==Draft Edit, Please Check==
Hiya. I've attempted what I hope is a reasonable edit of this section. I've endeavoured to tweak the sections most directly either saying that Feminism is explicitly correct or that Womyn-born-Womyn is correct. Im a total amateur, however, so please double check me!


== Author pronouns ==
[[User:KenKills|KenKills]] 18:36, 24 March 2006 (UK)


I'm Nadia Khayrallah, an author cited in this article (reference 6). I now use they/them pronouns and would like that corrected in the text. [https://www.nadiakhayrallah.com/about] [[User:Nlk12345|Nlk12345]] ([[User talk:Nlk12345|talk]]) 23:11, 21 May 2023 (UTC)
Overall, I think this looks pretty good. In the argument section, I've removed the two pro arguments at the end, since the earlier statements already make the claim that a late transitioning transgender woman did not grow up as a woman and that she has had the outward advantages of growing up with a male gender.


:Thanks for letting us know! I've updated the pronouns in the article. [[User:SreySros|<span style="color:#2B6EC4">Sr</span><span style="color:#EA3699">ey</span> <span style="color:#EA3699">Sr</span><span style="color:#2B6EC4">os</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:SreySros|talk]]</sup> 02:54, 22 May 2023 (UTC)
Otherwise, I think we're good on the NPOV. With MrsPlum's concurrence, I'm removing the tag. - [[User:KellyLogan|KellyLogan]] 16:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

== Attribution needed throughout ==

I did some revising to reflect that this term affects not only [[transwomen]], but [[transmen]] as well. I also started a reference section. The "Arguments" section in particular needs to be sourced to stay within policy of [[WP:NOR|no original research]]. I believe the article could say the same things in about half the words. This is a bit verbose as it stands. [[User:Jokestress|Jokestress]] 23:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

== Women vs. Womyn ==

The majority of events with a women born women policy do not use the alternative spelling, MWMF being a notable exception. As such, the article should use the standard spelling primarily. [[User:Neitherday|Neitherday]] 22:08, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

== huh? ==

just from the first sentence, there is no question that this is not neutral POV; is this deliberately uninformative or what? wbw is a pretty basic and understandable concept, any politicized 'spin' in either direction is not really needed right from the first sentence of the article, it's wikipedia. [[User:206.248.168.241|206.248.168.241]] 21:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I have nominated it for deletion. I don't think the subject is noteworthy enough to merit its own article and feel that it should be integrated into the "womyn" article. The article also doesn't conform to Neutral POV, and contains words such as "we" to describe subjects of the article. This isn't a soapbox; this is Wikipedia. [[User:Graymornings|Graymornings]] 21:13, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

:Just to clarify: This article was POV tagged once before, but the article was improved and the issue was resolved - see [[Talk:Womyn-born-womyn#NPOV|above]]. The current tag dates from March 2007. I must remind the two editors above that we should distinguish between _describing_ existing points of view within a subject and the article _itself_ being POV. This article is an example of the former. Quoting from Wikipedia's[[WP:NPOV#The_neutral_point_of_view|NPOV policy]]: "Debates within topics are described, represented and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular.". This article adheres to this policy. The article describes at least two opposing viewponts on Womyn-born-womyn: one insisting on unambiguous separatism as a prerequisite for women's advancement, and one arguing that this concept is ultimately futile. Both sides are adequately represented. As the article does not violate NPOV policy there is no need for the tag, so I'm removing it. If anyone believes that there are actually POV issues, please specify those problems here. By the way, POV problems is not sufficient reason to delete an article. The article should be improved instead. [[User:Alfons Åberg|Alfons Åberg]] 08:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

== Section to be reconsidered ==

On August 2nd, 2007, user:24.86.112.71 added the following section. It was the second paragraph of the "Scope" section. It appears to have generated some concerns about POV issues and non-wiki-standard wording etc. I'm moving it from the article to the talk page for discussion. Here we go:

"However, this denies the existence of females socialized as boys either due to the Gender Experimenting Culture of the 1970s, David Raimer, "As Nature Made Him," the most famous but not the only one by any means. Yes, females socialized as male or at least as "boys," during that period exist too. There are also many females socialized male as a deliberate form of Abuse. Both groups of female, many times, grow up to be feminine and yet face many of the same complaints Transwomen face: we are too aggressive, too opinionated, to active, too loud, in other words, regardless of how feminine we look, we think and act too much "like a man," and thus, many times, face exclusion and ostracization from girl groups in childhood and lesbian or womyns communities in adulthood. There has been no study, feminist or otherwise on us, but we exist and we'd have no problem getting into Michigan. There are more of us out there then people thing, born female, born feminine socialized male or masculine in childhood. Thus, until we are studied and acknowledged as existing and until Butch females (females born masculine regardless of orientation and considered "normal," in homosexual society as are feminine born males, ie: "Homonormative Gender") are acknowledged as existing and studied the arguement is based, once again on assumptions of a standard form of socialization for every female that simply doesn't exist. Even girls raised on farms don't receive the socialization that feminists refer to as standard for "girls."" [[User:Alfons Åberg|Alfons Åberg]] 06:11, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

== trans and cis??? ==

WTF is the deal with the last section using the word 'ciswomen' to describe genetic women? just cos cis is the oposite of trans doesn't mean it makes sense in this context, the word ciswomen is totally ridiculous, this isn't chemisty youknow. It's totally unused, it's not a real word or even a widly acepted one, and it makes no sense.
: Hi, please remember to sign your comments. Thank you. [[User:Alfons Åberg|Alfons Åberg]] 05:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
: "Ciswomen" is both precedented and sensible (see, for example, the Julia Serano book cited in this article). "Genetic" women is not exactly the same idea, because a small percentage of ciswomen do not actually have exactly two X chromosomes. [[User:Seb144|Seb144]] ([[User talk:Seb144|talk]]) 09:17, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

== Lead paragraph and referencing throughout. ==

I couldn't find a reference calling ''womyn-born-womyn'' a "political term", so I removed that claim. The next part is also confusing: ''... used by some feminists to establish themselves as feminist, woman-identified women and is an extension of the concept of womyn''. I don't think using this term ''establishes'' anyone as anything; I think ''identify'' is a better word. What is a feminist, woman-identified women? Also our article on [[womyn]] doesn't call it a concept, but a word. I'll try to make changes addressing these issues.

Referencing throughout the article is very poor. I'll try to add references for statements where I can, and make requests for them inline where I can't. [[User_talk:Sanchom|Sancho]] 16:46, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

== What is this article about? ==

Is this article about the term "womyn-born womyn" or is it about transgender exlusionism? We need to decide. [[User_talk:Sanchom|Sancho]] 17:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

:I don't believe it's possible to seperate the issues - "womyn-born womyn" is basically little more than a justification for running a trans-exclusionist policy [[User:Zoeoconnell|Zoe O'Connell <span style="color:red">⚢⚧</span>]] ([[User talk:Zoeoconnell|talk]]) 22:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)
::Then the article is about trans gender exclusionism, with the term womyn-born womyn being simply one of the associated terms. What do people think about a page move to rename the article? [[User_talk:Sanchom|Sancho]] 20:23, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
:::That works for me, although I don't think any other editors are active here so I don't know how much response you'll get...[[User:Zoeoconnell|<span style="color:red">~</span>Zoe O'Connell<span style="color:red">~</span>]] ([[User talk:Zoeoconnell|talk]]) 01:44, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 18:23, 8 March 2024

First paragraph

[edit]

I changed it from this:

Womyn-born womyn (WBW) is a term developed during second-wave feminism to designate spaces for, by, and about women who were identified as female at birth, were raised as girls, and identify as women (or womyn). Events and organizations that have womyn-born womyn-only policies bar access to any persons who were assigned male at birth, including trans women and the young children of attendees. This policy has raised a number of concerns because no logical distinction can be found between forbidding people from inclusion who, decades ago, were born with the wrong chromosomal arrangement and forbidding people from inclusion based on race. Today, an event restricted to white people born white would, rightfully so, be seen as racist. According to Michigan Womyn's Music Festival co-founder Lisa Vogel during a Bitch magazine roundup, "What womyn-born womyn means to us is women who were born as women, who have lived their entire experience as women, and who identify as women."/>

To this:

Womyn-born womyn (WBW) is a term developed during second-wave feminism to designate spaces for, by, and about women who were identified as female at birth, were raised as girls, and identify as women (or womyn).

Events and organizations that have womyn-born-womyn-only policies bar access to anyone was assigned male at birth, including trans women and the young children of attendees, a position which has raised a number of concerns from transgender groups.

Lisa Vogel, co-founder of Michigan Womyn's Music Festival, stated during a Bitch magazine roundup, that:

"What womyn-born womyn means to us is women who were born as women, who have lived their entire experience as women, and who identify as women.

/>

Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a bulletin board.

More sources needed for The RadFem Collective

[edit]

Granted, they exist as an example. However, there's only one source and the article itself (and even the source, from what I skimmed) doesn't really establish much in the way of how important that particular organization was/is. While it is common enough knowledge that such a mindset isn't or at least wasn't uncommon in "mainstream" radfem groups, the article as written currently gives the appearance of giving undue weight to the point of view of a non-notable organization. 2803:4600:1116:12E7:64F0:D322:9A39:20 (talk) 09:40, 11 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Author pronouns

[edit]

I'm Nadia Khayrallah, an author cited in this article (reference 6). I now use they/them pronouns and would like that corrected in the text. [1] Nlk12345 (talk) 23:11, 21 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting us know! I've updated the pronouns in the article. Srey Srostalk 02:54, 22 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Womyn-born_womyn&oldid=1212602925"