You could say, "well, these men identify as both women and men, and therefore they don't have the specific educational issues of people who have at some point at least been identified by others, if not also identified themselves as, only women. They may identify and be identified by others as both genders, but so long as they currently identify as men, the fact that they also currently identify as women also is irrelevant to us; they're not the people we're trying to serve as an institution." That reasoning might be valid institutionally, and even make a kind of sense, but wouldn't it apply even more to FTM trans students, who currently identify as men, and do not currently identify as women, and moreover possibly never did, but were forced into dealing with womens' educational issues by the identity that other people gave them as a woman (and possibly their own earlier identification as a woman)? I feel like you're saying "well, if you identify as a woman, you're in--unless you ever identified and/or were forcibly identified by others as a man, even if you currently identify and/or have always identified as a woman, in part or in whole. If you identify as a man, you're out--unless you ever identified and/or were identified by others as a woman, even if you currently identify and/or have always identified as a man, in part or in whole."
I feel as if we, as individuals or as institutions, are going to discuss what it means to be women and emphasize the variety, depth, and value of womens' experiences both inside and outside the classroom as contributing to a fuller idea of women and a fuller idea of humanity, we can't do that very well, or at all really, when we start off by discounting other womens' self-perception of their own femininity because those women also happen to perceive themselves as male too. I mean, are we seriously going to have the gall to stand up in front of a person who is both woman and man and discount the existence of their femininity because it is accompanied by masculinity? That seems both misogynistic and misandrist. If we want men, women, and people of all genders to believe in the value of women as individuals and as a whole, we all agree that we have to stop treating femininity as if it is not as valuable, desired, or indeed present as masculinity. We especially have to stop treating femininity as if it is not as valuable, desired, or indeed present as masculinity when that femininity is found in or with something and/or someone male. I mean, are we really gonna say, "we believe in the value of femininity and respecting women everywhere--but we don't believe in those values and won't respect you as a self-described woman, because you're also a self-described man?"
If we can respect and admit trans men to Bryn Mawr, accepting the fact of their male identity while acknowledging their unique individual understandings of having been individually or socially identified as female at some point in their lives in the past, how come we can't admit genderqueer inclusive men too, accepting the fact of their female identity and their male identity and acknowledging their unique individual understandings of having been individually or socially identified as both/either male and female at some point in their lives, in the past, current, and probable future? (I didn't bring up the case of admitting trans women, because honestly I think that it's a much more cut-and-dried case to be made for admitting someone who identifies as female to a women's college than for admitting anyone who identifies as both male and female to a women's college).
I admit that my original wording didn't do the concept that I was trying to get at (exclusive neither vs. inclusive neither genderqueer persons) justice, and in fact didn't actually bring it up at all, and was probably very misleading, in fact, pointing to the exclusive neither genderqueer male when I was trying to point to the inclusive neither genderqueer male; I shouldn't try to write out this kind of tricky gender philosophy so late at night.
no subject
That reasoning might be valid institutionally, and even make a kind of sense, but wouldn't it apply even more to FTM trans students, who currently identify as men, and do not currently identify as women, and moreover possibly never did, but were forced into dealing with womens' educational issues by the identity that other people gave them as a woman (and possibly their own earlier identification as a woman)?
I feel like you're saying "well, if you identify as a woman, you're in--unless you ever identified and/or were forcibly identified by others as a man, even if you currently identify and/or have always identified as a woman, in part or in whole. If you identify as a man, you're out--unless you ever identified and/or were identified by others as a woman, even if you currently identify and/or have always identified as a man, in part or in whole."
I feel as if we, as individuals or as institutions, are going to discuss what it means to be women and emphasize the variety, depth, and value of womens' experiences both inside and outside the classroom as contributing to a fuller idea of women and a fuller idea of humanity, we can't do that very well, or at all really, when we start off by discounting other womens' self-perception of their own femininity because those women also happen to perceive themselves as male too. I mean, are we seriously going to have the gall to stand up in front of a person who is both woman and man and discount the existence of their femininity because it is accompanied by masculinity? That seems both misogynistic and misandrist.
If we want men, women, and people of all genders to believe in the value of women as individuals and as a whole, we all agree that we have to stop treating femininity as if it is not as valuable, desired, or indeed present as masculinity. We especially have to stop treating femininity as if it is not as valuable, desired, or indeed present as masculinity when that femininity is found in or with something and/or someone male. I mean, are we really gonna say, "we believe in the value of femininity and respecting women everywhere--but we don't believe in those values and won't respect you as a self-described woman, because you're also a self-described man?"
If we can respect and admit trans men to Bryn Mawr, accepting the fact of their male identity while acknowledging their unique individual understandings of having been individually or socially identified as female at some point in their lives in the past, how come we can't admit genderqueer inclusive men too, accepting the fact of their female identity and their male identity and acknowledging their unique individual understandings of having been individually or socially identified as both/either male and female at some point in their lives, in the past, current, and probable future?
(I didn't bring up the case of admitting trans women, because honestly I think that it's a much more cut-and-dried case to be made for admitting someone who identifies as female to a women's college than for admitting anyone who identifies as both male and female to a women's college).
I admit that my original wording didn't do the concept that I was trying to get at (exclusive neither vs. inclusive neither genderqueer persons) justice, and in fact didn't actually bring it up at all, and was probably very misleading, in fact, pointing to the exclusive neither genderqueer male when I was trying to point to the inclusive neither genderqueer male; I shouldn't try to write out this kind of tricky gender philosophy so late at night.