What I am trying to get at is the idea that if we as individuals, institutions, and general humanity are going to value, instead of discount, femininity, we need to start by respecting the perspective of persons with a female gender identity. That respect starts by accepting the idea that female gender identity exists; that respect grows when persons with a female gender identity are allowed to accept that identity should they wish; that respect blossoms when the experiences of persons with a female gender identity are valued, honored, cherished, shared, learned from, and understood.
I feel as if BMC, in refusing to admit trans women and genderqueer-inclusive men, is denying both types of people respect for their female gender identities at very fundamental levels of mere acceptance: I feel they are denying that their female gender identities exist and/or influence their lives as women. I feel they are denying that those two groups of people (at least) even have real lives as women and real and experiences as women, because those experiences of being women are somehow currently lessened by their association with their identification as men, whether that identification is current or was in the past, and whether that identification was their own, or was someone else's mistake.
I think that's a shame.
And I think it's totally dishonourable to claim that your highest institutional value is valuing the identities, experiences and intellects of all women, while at the same time denying other womens' claims to the most basic female experience and intellectual conclusion of all: the acceptance of the idea that these women experience themselves as women; that their female gender identity exists. It's like the college doesn't mind if the individuals accept that identity for themselves and respect themselves as women, so long as the institution won't be asked to begin accepting the validity of their claims to their female identity. In an institution that claims dedication to valuing all female identities, experiences, and intellects--for the ultimate goal of respect of women to the betterment of the entire planet and each individual--it's really hypocritical to say you value and respect all women, except these women over here, whose very gender identity as women is simply the first thing about these women that an institution dedicated to the betterment of women and acknowledgement of their contributions has deliberately chosen to discount or ignore.
(If you too can play mad libs with my last paragraph to make it talk about marriage legalization or gendered bathroom issues in Maine instead, welcome to institutionalized American gender politics in 2011 Bingo! I found I could be much clearer about why I felt BMC was being hypocritical around this issue when I realized I could play mad libs with that last paragraph. For those of you playing at home, you may put a marker on the free space, "Because God Says So." The prize this week, and every week, is the creeping realization of deja vu, a copy of Eve Kofosky-Sedgewick's "Epistemology of the Closet," and a sense of renewed hope that maybe your efforts can leave you and the world in better shape than either of you were when you first got here.)
Re: Quick clarification
I feel as if BMC, in refusing to admit trans women and genderqueer-inclusive men, is denying both types of people respect for their female gender identities at very fundamental levels of mere acceptance: I feel they are denying that their female gender identities exist and/or influence their lives as women. I feel they are denying that those two groups of people (at least) even have real lives as women and real and experiences as women, because those experiences of being women are somehow currently lessened by their association with their identification as men, whether that identification is current or was in the past, and whether that identification was their own, or was someone else's mistake.
I think that's a shame.
And I think it's totally dishonourable to claim that your highest institutional value is valuing the identities, experiences and intellects of all women, while at the same time denying other womens' claims to the most basic female experience and intellectual conclusion of all: the acceptance of the idea that these women experience themselves as women; that their female gender identity exists.
It's like the college doesn't mind if the individuals accept that identity for themselves and respect themselves as women, so long as the institution won't be asked to begin accepting the validity of their claims to their female identity. In an institution that claims dedication to valuing all female identities, experiences, and intellects--for the ultimate goal of respect of women to the betterment of the entire planet and each individual--it's really hypocritical to say you value and respect all women, except these women over here, whose very gender identity as women is simply the first thing about these women that an institution dedicated to the betterment of women and acknowledgement of their contributions has deliberately chosen to discount or ignore.
(If you too can play mad libs with my last paragraph to make it talk about marriage legalization or gendered bathroom issues in Maine instead, welcome to institutionalized American gender politics in 2011 Bingo! I found I could be much clearer about why I felt BMC was being hypocritical around this issue when I realized I could play mad libs with that last paragraph. For those of you playing at home, you may put a marker on the free space, "Because God Says So." The prize this week, and every week, is the creeping realization of deja vu, a copy of Eve Kofosky-Sedgewick's "Epistemology of the Closet," and a sense of renewed hope that maybe your efforts can leave you and the world in better shape than either of you were when you first got here.)