I wanted to reply to several messages, but I decided that it would be best
just to say something without a whole lot of quotation. I've read here that
men are more likely to have bad ideas about bringing women into Wikipedia.
Like "We want to increase female participation! Join now!", I heard from Amy
Roth, undermines the cause and is a little to in-your-face (at least that's
what I got out of it). That's a completely okay opinion. But isn't that a
bad reason to fork into two lists, one for men and one for women and
transgenders? That is counter-productive. Then we'd have a whole lot of "We
want to increase female participation! Join now!", and no women to say
anything to it. And then men would go out saying that thinking that they're
helping when really they're repelling could-be editors. I, for example,
being a male editor, took the "We want to increase female participation!
Join now!" approach a few times. Now I know not to do that. Besides, we need
more people for more ideas. Women, if you really think that men don't get
it, be LOUD! Some men might never know the right way unless they are told
otherwise. I can assume that no man will be trolling and be taken aback by a
good-willed suggestion from a woman and say "Why do I have to listen to you,
stupid woman?" If that does happen, that will be a whole different problem.
As for men continuing to dominate the conversation (also from Amy Roth),
that might just have to be the way the cookie crumbles. It is to be expected
after Gendergap was mentioned several weeks in a row a few weeks ago on the
Wikipedia Signpost to an 87% non-female Wikipedia. That's how I found out