The great twentieth-century American poet Elizabeth Bishop refused to be included in anthologies of women’s poetry, insisting that she was a poet plain and simple, rather than a “woman poet.” She wrote that “art is art and to separate writings, paintings, musical compositions, etc. into two sexes is to emphasize values that are not art.”Nonetheless:
As an American writer of the early twenty-first century, I agree with her wholeheartedly. An artist’s work is in no way limited or defined by her gender. To allot space, then—such as this fiction section of Guernica—to women writers specifically is, surely, to limit and define them—us!—by an irrelevant fact of birth.
[W]hen given the chance to gather a selection of writers for the magazine, I didn’t hesitate: I knew at once that I wanted to showcase the work of women writers. Not because they’re women, but because they are writers whose work thrills and surprises me. And because, simply on account of their gender, they are too often overlooked by the silly popularity contests that are juries and boards and lists.I'm annoyed by this kind of non-statement that wants to have it both ways. She wants to go on record as thinking that women-only prizes and lists and sections in bookstores and journals are ways of ghettoizing women writers as "women writers" and not just writers, and this segregation is detrimental and limiting and in its own way sexist. But at the same time she wants to celebrate women for their wonderful writing, which is often unfairly neglected, and so she's carved out this space specifically for ("younger") women writers. She agrees with Bishop "wholeheartedly" and yet her actions directly contradict Bishop's statement.
So is the section she edited limited and defined by gender or not? Are the writers she chose just "writers, plain and simple," or are they women writers?
It isn't balanced so much as confused. Pick a side, propose a third option or don't invoke the argument at all.