I think you might have changed my mind about admitting FTM students to Bryn Mawr, though I have to think about it a little more. For one thing, if Bryn Mawr really wanted to respect the students' gender, as it should, I believe it would be both insulting and disingenuous for Bryn Mawr to continue claiming that it accepted only women as undergraduates. I believe in that case they should say, "we accept women, and transgendered men." I think they should already do this, since it appears they may already be accepting trans men as undergrad students. It even kind of rankles for there to be a qualifier for "men" but no qualifier for "women." In my heart I think it should be, "we accept women and men," but then I guess the real hard question is...at what point does it not make sense for you to accept (literally and figuratively) men as men, call them men as they are, and still call yourself a women's college? (God, the word "acceptance" is SO loaded with meaning in this context. It about jumps out of itself).
For instance: what about those people who would prefer not to define their gender at all? Or those who don't/can't/won't define themselves as either cis or trans (this is the gender boat I am slowly realizing that I have been sailing on for the last 15 years or so)?
Should those people be defined only on their genital status (which is bad enough) until they make some kind of binary gender decision? If so, how would this work in practice? For instance: Would this mean that trans men (FTM folks) could be accepted despite their genital status and male self-identification because they may have at one point been defined by others as women, even if they always defined themselves as men? And if that were the case, would genderqueer people with male genitalia, who refused to self-define as either part of the gender binary, be barred from applying due solely to their identical genital status because they may have at one point been defined by others as men, even if they had always refused to self-define only or entirely as a man?
...that doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
While I agree with your overall conclusion here: This includes both reparation of the cultural damage done to girls in our educational system, and setting students up to protect and promote themselves as women in their future careers. Both of those responsibilities are equal,
Two thoughts: - FTM students will likely not be promoting themselves as women in their future careers, even though they may promote women (literally and figuratively), as any man hopefully would, - FTM students may have been treated as girls in our educational system, but that does not mean they were or felt like girls or saw themselves as girls. That merely means they were treated by others (possibly incorrectly) as girls. You could argue that this is even more reason to look closely at the discouraging effects of gender bias in the classroom, which I think might be true, but at the same time, that focus on anti-female gender bias risks having others once again defining trans men as a kind of medium in which there is a fossil of gender ("men who were once women") rather than, "men, and let's give them the right to define themselves however they want to, even in terms of their understanding of their past."
Confusingly, I don't think those two problems are mutually exclusive, either--they could kind of work together, and reinforce each other, and I think in some ways that's even a positive that can help us shed light on the harm of gender stereotypes all round.
But it's a really tricky balance, and I usually fall really hard on the side that leaves the least likely opportunity for people to define other people's gender as having anything to do with their previous identification, set of hormones, or sexual organs.
Late. Tired of thinking and writing. Going to read.
no subject
For instance: what about those people who would prefer not to define their gender at all? Or those who don't/can't/won't define themselves as either cis or trans (this is the gender boat I am slowly realizing that I have been sailing on for the last 15 years or so)?
Should those people be defined only on their genital status (which is bad enough) until they make some kind of binary gender decision? If so, how would this work in practice?
For instance:
Would this mean that trans men (FTM folks) could be accepted despite their genital status and male self-identification because they may have at one point been defined by others as women, even if they always defined themselves as men? And if that were the case, would genderqueer people with male genitalia, who refused to self-define as either part of the gender binary, be barred from applying due solely to their identical genital status because they may have at one point been defined by others as men, even if they had always refused to self-define only or entirely as a man?
...that doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
While I agree with your overall conclusion here: This includes both reparation of the cultural damage done to girls in our educational system, and setting students up to protect and promote themselves as women in their future careers. Both of those responsibilities are equal,
Two thoughts:
- FTM students will likely not be promoting themselves as women in their future careers, even though they may promote women (literally and figuratively), as any man hopefully would,
- FTM students may have been treated as girls in our educational system, but that does not mean they were or felt like girls or saw themselves as girls. That merely means they were treated by others (possibly incorrectly) as girls. You could argue that this is even more reason to look closely at the discouraging effects of gender bias in the classroom, which I think might be true, but at the same time, that focus on anti-female gender bias risks having others once again defining trans men as a kind of medium in which there is a fossil of gender ("men who were once women") rather than, "men, and let's give them the right to define themselves however they want to, even in terms of their understanding of their past."
Confusingly, I don't think those two problems are mutually exclusive, either--they could kind of work together, and reinforce each other, and I think in some ways that's even a positive that can help us shed light on the harm of gender stereotypes all round.
But it's a really tricky balance, and I usually fall really hard on the side that leaves the least likely opportunity for people to define other people's gender as having anything to do with their previous identification, set of hormones, or sexual organs.
Late. Tired of thinking and writing. Going to read.