Talk:Womyn-born womyn

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.

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.NickGorton 20:45, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

This article really needs someone to judge it for NPOV. Some of the adjectives/phrasing, etc. are a tiny bit loaded.24.10.102.46 20:11, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

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)

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:

• "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. ;)

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?

Hbackman 22:51, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

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. -- Tall Girl 20:44, 13 June 2006 (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!

KenKills 18:36, 24 March 2006 (UK)

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 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. Jokestress 23:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)