i dislike the term "womyn" a lot. the thing is; i like the actual etymology of "woman" & think that if you want to make a fair go of it, make the smart play: go to the roots. i know, sometimes arguments of this nature miss the point, but if you hear me out, i'll explain why i think this one, rather than missing the point, gets to a better point entirely. once upon a time, "man" meant what current users say "human" for. gender determinations were added on to man, givining you "were man" & "wife man" (wer & wyf, whatever). over time, "wyfman" became "woman" & "werman" was just dropped to "man." now, i at least conceptually agree with the notion of sexism in this linguistic drift, & let us bear in mind that i'm just sort of discussing, at this point, not really advocating any particular position. it does seem to me, however, that mangling "woman" to "womyn" isn't egalitarian so much as it is, well, silly. the problem isn't with "woman", the problem is that "man" still equals "human", that it has contingent upon it gender assumptions. "womyn" doesn't do anything about that issue, & while i get that what you call yourself is a lot easier to change than what you call other people, & that one is more invasive to other people's lives, so what? i mean, okay, yes, you can be like "this is my space, i am in control of my space," but i think linguistic infection? is an appropriate weapon in the feminist arsenal. & yeah, this does reinforce gender as a binary, which is a whole 'nother can of worms. oh, & i should mention: i can use "were" & "wife" in my dnd game, which really is a nice venue for trial runs. so i guess what i mean to say is that my dnd game is a feminist paradise?