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.
This is really solid reasoning and thinking; you've convinced me. And I'm pretty sure that I think that if trans men themselves want to come to Bryn Mawr and are comfortable themselves being defined as "trans men who at one point were on the receiving end of some of these same issues, wrongly or rightly," then they should definitely be welcomed (as, obviously, should MTF students be).
However, I don't know what to think about this issue:
As long as a person doesn'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.
Well, I guess it's good that I managed to define my gender solidly as "cis woman" for at least 3 out of the four years I was at BMC!
I can understand your assertion that they haven't been defined as women, either by themselves or by anyone else, permanently, but the idea that "refusing to self-define as either part of the gender binary" always means that that status means "neither permanently" rather than "both, permanently in flux," is I think what I was trying to get at. Now, there may be some people who identify as "neither" because they identify as "neither," but there may be some who identify as "neither" because they may identify as "both," but may explicitly and incorrectly therefore be identified as men by institutions (such as BMC admissions) due to the state of their genitals, and possibly also their refusal to identify only as a woman and not also as man.
I feel as if your goal is to deal, as a college and as an institution and as individuals, with the specific educational issues faced by people who identify as women and/or who have been identified as women, should we be excluding people who may identify and are identified specifically as women because they also identify and are identified as men? Especially given that it is probable that BMC may admit FTM persons as students on the basis of undertstanding that while those students identify and are currently identified as men, they previously identified and/or were identified as women?
no subject
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.
This is really solid reasoning and thinking; you've convinced me. And I'm pretty sure that I think that if trans men themselves want to come to Bryn Mawr and are comfortable themselves being defined as "trans men who at one point were on the receiving end of some of these same issues, wrongly or rightly," then they should definitely be welcomed (as, obviously, should MTF students be).
However, I don't know what to think about this issue:
As long as a person doesn'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.
Well, I guess it's good that I managed to define my gender solidly as "cis woman" for at least 3 out of the four years I was at BMC!
I can understand your assertion that they haven't been defined as women, either by themselves or by anyone else, permanently, but the idea that "refusing to self-define as either part of the gender binary" always means that that status means "neither permanently" rather than "both, permanently in flux," is I think what I was trying to get at. Now, there may be some people who identify as "neither" because they identify as "neither," but there may be some who identify as "neither" because they may identify as "both," but may explicitly and incorrectly therefore be identified as men by institutions (such as BMC admissions) due to the state of their genitals, and possibly also their refusal to identify only as a woman and not also as man.
I feel as if your goal is to deal, as a college and as an institution and as individuals, with the specific educational issues faced by people who identify as women and/or who have been identified as women, should we be excluding people who may identify and are identified specifically as women because they also identify and are identified as men? Especially given that it is probable that BMC may admit FTM persons as students on the basis of undertstanding that while those students identify and are currently identified as men, they previously identified and/or were identified as women?