Talk:Women-only space

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lo lee37.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 05:02, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Removed

The early years of the 21st century have seen an increase in the number of women-only societies, restaurants and networking clubs.

The cite is about a few "professional" clubs, bars and restaurants in London, New York and LA. As such it is far too narrow to support the claim. For example it does not consider "young wives" clubs which were popular in the UK, at least, in the mid-twentieth century.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 18:10, 17 April 2016 (UTC).

Suggestions

This article should format the "Examples of women-only space" in paragraph form. It should talk about some of the "instances" in the paragraph. As well as add more examples of instances in the link section titled at the bottom. The article should include "Womyn" and "Womyn-bornwomyn" references in the this section as well, not just a link in the "See also" section. It would also benefit the article to give example links at the bottom with specific rooms and businesses that are women-only spaces. The article would be more factual if it cited sources with negative and positive outcomes financially and population of women in women-only spaces. The article would also be more visual with a graph showing the number of women-only spaces in certain countries. The article would all around be more informative with more sources and references to links in the body paragraph. Lo lee37 (talk) 03:10, 12 October 2016 (UTC) laulee

"Acquired" gender?

Under Purpose and background, this sentence is used: "The access of trans women, with or without legal recognition of their acquired gender, is also sometimes contentious, both from an ethical and from a legal perspective." "Acquired gender" seems to be asserting that a trans person started off as one gender and took on a second or different gender, which is, as I understand it, not accurate to the current assertions of the trans community (which is that a trans person is and has always been their actual gender, regardless of what doctors thought when they were born or how the surface appearance of their physical body might suggest otherwise). Therefore I suggest rephrasing it, though I'm not sure of the current terminology and haven't the time to research it right now.

Also, it feels like this section should be expanded a little, in an unbiased manner (another matter for which I haven't the time). Chiefly, while reading it, I was thinking of the Michigan Womyn's Music Festival -- a women-only space that was completely shut down due to the controversy over trans exclusion. It's linked with little comment later on the page, but I think some details could be mentioned in the section here discussing why women-only spaces are controversial in the first place; it gives concrete details to another otherwise nebulous debate.

The article I read ages ago that explained the controversy (just tried to find it but couldn't) described it as an event where women could get away from the male-centric society and spend a weekend not thinking about men at all, a goal that seems fundamentally incompatible with a policy of open doors to all trans women regardless of other considerations. Whether it's reasonable to design an event with exactly zero penises in the area, well, that's precisely the contention at play. Kilyle (talk) 22:07, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

I adjusted the phrase to "legal gender". Crossroads ^-talk- 00:07, 27 November 2022 (UTC)