Perhaps Bryn Mawr should accept "those who have been or will be societally categorized as women"? That covers their responsibility as a college. This is a tough position for women's colleges; they have to navigate this without discriminating, while at the same time maintaining (correctly, I believe) that the existence of women's educational institutions is necessary, and maintaining itself as a women's college.
As long as a person does't define their gender, for whatever reason, I'm not sure a college whose primary goal is to advance the role of women is not really the right place for them.
This is why I think "those who are considered women, and/or have been considered women, and/or consider themselves women" is a reasonable set of standards for a women's college. Those who don't consider themselves women, but have been damaged by our society's treatment of women because society labeled them (correctly or incorrectly) as women, still fall under Bryn Mawr's purview. It's not that Bryn Mawr should say, "these people were once women," but rather, that Bryn Mawr should recognize, "these are people whom society has treated as women, and therefore furnished with the same disadvantages and handicaps that women have historically been presented."
Therefore, I believe trans men can be accepted because they have been identified (correctly or incorrectly) by others as women, and therefore have been on the receiving end of many of those same societal issues.
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.
It's not that they've been identified as men, but rather that they've never been identified, by themselves or by others, as women. Those people haven't and never will have the specific educational issues of those who identify, or have identified, or have been identified by others, as women. So they have never been disadvantaged by the specific social issues Bryn Mawr seeks to rectify (not that those issues aren't every bit as valid, but Bryn Mawr's mission is not to solve every educational issue on the planet - fortunately, because no one institution would be particularly effective at doing that).
On the other hand, FTM students have at some point been presented with the earlier disadvantages, and are therefore equally part of Bryn Mawr's responsibility.
I don't believe we should act as though FTM persons in general are "men who were once women," though there may be individual FTM persons for whom this is true. At the same time, if they have been identified by others as girls during a time when they had little self-determination due to th systems they inhabited at the time (school, family, any other social group, what have you), they have been furnished with the same educational problems all identifed-as-girls students have had, precisely because they were identified (incorrectly, in these cases) as girls. Therefore, they are part of Bryn Mawr's responsibility.
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.
I tend to fall the same way, but I'm not sure it's the responsibility of Bryn Mawr to fall in that direction. I think Bryn Mawr's responsibility is to attempt as best it can to address problems that exist, regardless of the correctness or incorrectness of the reasons for those problems (e.g., trans men being societally identified as female at some point in their lives). Like any institution, Bryn Mawr cannot address all educational problems that exist, and it was founded to address a very specific set: namely, those that affect women and those identified by others (however correctly or incorrectly) as women.
That said, a college based with the mission of ending the gender binary in our society would be totally awesome and should exist.
no subject
As long as a person does't define their gender, for whatever reason, I'm not sure a college whose primary goal is to advance the role of women is not really the right place for them.
This is why I think "those who are considered women, and/or have been considered women, and/or consider themselves women" is a reasonable set of standards for a women's college. Those who don't consider themselves women, but have been damaged by our society's treatment of women because society labeled them (correctly or incorrectly) as women, still fall under Bryn Mawr's purview. It's not that Bryn Mawr should say, "these people were once women," but rather, that Bryn Mawr should recognize, "these are people whom society has treated as women, and therefore furnished with the same disadvantages and handicaps that women have historically been presented."
Therefore, I believe trans men can be accepted because they have been identified (correctly or incorrectly) by others as women, and therefore have been on the receiving end of many of those same societal issues.
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.
It's not that they've been identified as men, but rather that they've never been identified, by themselves or by others, as women. Those people haven't and never will have the specific educational issues of those who identify, or have identified, or have been identified by others, as women. So they have never been disadvantaged by the specific social issues Bryn Mawr seeks to rectify (not that those issues aren't every bit as valid, but Bryn Mawr's mission is not to solve every educational issue on the planet - fortunately, because no one institution would be particularly effective at doing that).
On the other hand, FTM students have at some point been presented with the earlier disadvantages, and are therefore equally part of Bryn Mawr's responsibility.
I don't believe we should act as though FTM persons in general are "men who were once women," though there may be individual FTM persons for whom this is true. At the same time, if they have been identified by others as girls during a time when they had little self-determination due to th systems they inhabited at the time (school, family, any other social group, what have you), they have been furnished with the same educational problems all identifed-as-girls students have had, precisely because they were identified (incorrectly, in these cases) as girls. Therefore, they are part of Bryn Mawr's responsibility.
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.
I tend to fall the same way, but I'm not sure it's the responsibility of Bryn Mawr to fall in that direction. I think Bryn Mawr's responsibility is to attempt as best it can to address problems that exist, regardless of the correctness or incorrectness of the reasons for those problems (e.g., trans men being societally identified as female at some point in their lives). Like any institution, Bryn Mawr cannot address all educational problems that exist, and it was founded to address a very specific set: namely, those that affect women and those identified by others (however correctly or incorrectly) as women.
That said, a college based with the mission of ending the gender binary in our society would be totally awesome and should exist.